AND ISLE OF WIGHT
Home | All about HIOW | Members and Staff | Meetings | Key documents | Links | Election Results and Political Control | Representations and Responses | Officer Networks | Other Useful Information
Housing Green Paper
Association's response to the Housing Green Paper
agreed at Hampshire and Isle of Wight Local Authorities (HIOWLA) meeting
on 26 March 2004 that the Hampshire Strategic Housing Officers group
respond, on areas of common interest, to the Housing Green Paper issued by the
South East Regional Housing Board. There will be other separate response from
individual local authorities and other groups to the Green Paper.
However, the areas of common interest to Hampshire Authorities related to
the following topics:
· funding and affordability
· housing supply
authorities should be given more flexibility in terms of meeting the demands for
key worker housing locally. The
Government definition is too restrictive and does not take account of local
retention and recruitment problems that impact of key service provision, for
example this could include transportation and care services.
are some concerns about the level of demand for key worker housing since this
has not been researched or measured regionally or locally.
35% of RHB funding was allocated to key workers in 2004-2006 and the
general consensus is that future funding levels for key workers should not
exceed this level. Indeed the level
of funding for key workers should be re-appraised until the need has been
identified and justified through robust evidence.
It is also necessary to research the effectiveness/success of the current
programme in terms of take up amongst key worker of the different options
available to them (shared ownership/key worker living/ intermediate rent)
Some of the housing allocated for key workers on PPG3 sites may not be
popular due to its location and the prescriptiveness of the Government’s
definition and these properties could be left vacant.
If that is the case then there needs to be an exit strategy to make sure
the units remain as affordable housing without compromising Section 106
is also required in terms of the decision to provide more funding for key
workers and low cost home ownership schemes
and less funding for affordable homes for rent which traditionally have
been allocated to other client groups such as homeless households.
affordable housing element negotiated on larger development sites through PPG3
should not focus solely on key workers. If
key worker housing is provided on PPG3 sites for low cost home ownership then it
should require very little, if any subsidy.
Subsidy is required on PPG3 sites for home for rent and it is important
that a continued supply of rented homes is available if local authorities are to
continue to meet their targets of nil homeless families in bed and
affordable housing on PPG3 sites were aimed solely at key workers it would not
provide the mixed and balanced communities the Government seeks and a
range of tenures and choice should be offered to those in housing need.
should not be targeted solely at the growth areas. It should focus on other major development areas within the
region. In particular within
Hampshire there are major developments in Andover, Basingstoke, Aldershot and
west of Waterlooville which will produce a significant number of new homes.
Market towns can also make a contribution in providing sustainable
housing and meeting housing needs. Funding
needs to be allocated to meet a range of housing needs across the region not
targeted solely at areas where there will be major development.
of baseline funding to all local authorities (as a replacement for LASHG) would
be supported. LASHG gave local
authorities the discretion and flexibility to respond quickly to fund schemes
that met local housing needs.
should evaluate the value for money of a scheme on the basis of the whole life
cost rather than the initial subsidy required. Some schemes may be more expensive in terms of grant but may
be more environmentally friendly and have lower running costs for residents.
Rural housing and brownfield sites are likely to be more expensive and
difficult to develop when compared with Greenfield sites (because of
size, economies of scale or contamination) but they still make a valuable
contribution to the long term sustainability of a community and the overall
supply of housing within the region.
of housing is required to meet a variety of different housing needs.
This appears to be an issue in that bids for supported housing schemes
are not being made due to concerns about attracting revenue support via
cost of housing provision within the proposed National Parks in new Forest and
the South Downs is likely to be higher due to design standards and restricted
land supply and this will need to be recognized by funding levels.
The same applies to the additional costs of developing urban brownfield
sites where dealing with possible contamination of applying higher design
standards will impact on the funding levels required.
Government needs to fund infrastructure to support development.
Not just in growth areas but other areas where there are pressure points
and where major development is proposed. In
particular South Hampshire Light Rapid Transport.
implications of Hampshire’s two designated National Parks (South Downs and New
Forest) needs to be taken into account in terms of local authorities ability to
continue to supply housing of all tenures.
Policies within the Parks could have a major impact on the demand and
supply of housing both within the Parks and the areas surrounding the Parks.
role of English Partnerships may help facilitate bringing forward larger sites.
In particular English Partnerships has recently purchased several
Department of Health sites in Hampshire and it is hoped that this will ensure
early delivery of these sites for housing (where it has been determined these
sites are suitable for housing). The RHB in conjunction with English
Partnerships may have a role to play in securing the release of land from other
“public” ownerships such as the MoD. In
particular there needs to be a recognition that best consideration for site
disposal does not necessarily mean the highest price for the land but also looks
at wider community benefits.
the growth areas will undoubtedly help with the delivery in terms of meeting
housing targets, growth should be targeted at meeting housing needs across the
region not growth for growth’s
could have a role in terms of working with developers and local authorities to
ensure that sites come forward for development and in addition those with
planning permission are delivered quickly.
In addition if there is a lack of funding for affordable housing on
larger sites then this could also slow up the development process.
hope that you find these comments helpful.
Vice-Chairman of HIOW
Last update: 04/08/2008