London Greens support the Focus E15 Mothers campaign for social housing

 

The London Green Party is backing the Focus E15 Mothers group, and calls on Newham Council to:

1. Immediately stop persecuting the squatters, and to enable them to live in the empty homes on short-life contracts for the time being, working with them to access funds to bring the empty homes into use.

2. Work with the residents group 'Carpenters Against Regeneration Plans' and Focus E15 Mothers to develop a plan for the comprehensive refurbishment of the estate, providing them with secure and affordable social housing. This can be financed by the addition of new housing for private sale on existing buildings and under-used land.

3. Follow Hackney Council in refusing to attend the MIPIM UK property fair being held in London in October, and overhaul its housing strategy which has been so beneficial to rich investors and land owners, and which has delivered too few social rented homes for people like the Focus E15 Mothers group.

Tom Chance from the Green Party said:

Like so many in the past year, we've been inspired by these women and applaud their direct action. Instead of smearing and persecuting them, Newham councillors should be celebrating and supporting their constituents.

Councils like Newham cannot continue to demolish social housing and replacing it with expensive homes for the benefit of rich investors and big developers. Local residents need more than the crumbs they get from this rich man's feast.

Focus E15 Mothers on Facebook

Wembley French School fuelling house price inflation?

Work underway to convert Brent Town Hall into a school

The Guardian recently reported that percentage house price increases in Brent were the highest in London, fed by the gentrification of some areas in the south of the borough.  LINK

The lack of affordable housing in new developments such as Willesden Green Library, Bridge Park and Moberly Sports Centre is a real issue. Brent Council have agreed that developers are excused the usual 50% affordable (although there is a debate about what exactly is an affordable rent) allocation in exchange for the 'free' building of community amenities such as cultural centres and sports centres. We need the amenities but we also need housing.

Now it appears that the Wembley French School is contributing to rising house prices in some areas of the borough. Parents of pupils due to attend the private fee paying school have been reported looking for properties in Queens Park, Kensal Rise and Dollis Hill.  One estate agent serving those wards told me that the would be purchasers 'have plenty of money'.  Agents in Wembley Park, close to the actual school, told me that they have not discerned any interest from French purchasers in the local area.

The proposed private sector landlord licensing scheme (to be discussed at the April 21st Executive) may have the unintended consequence of reducing the amount of private rental as the Council acts against over-crowding and illegal conversions in the sector. Again we need to act against exploitative landlords and poor quality housing but also need to be providing alternative accommodation for those likely to be hit.

Against the background of the Panorama programme and the forced movement of families out of the borough into accommodation in Birmingham, Milton Kenyes and Luton it does seem that major demographic changes are in process.

Greens put the heat on energy companies and the three main parties

The Green Party today accused the Coalition and Labour of “political point-scoring” in the energy bill debate, arguing that meaningful measures to address the problems of cold homes, fuel poverty, and soaring bills are being sidelined.

In a new briefing paper outlining its vision for a low-carbon, affordable energy future, the party calls for a major nationwide programme to make all homes energy efficient.   If funded through ‘recycled’ carbon taxes this could bring an estimated nine out of ten homes out of fuel poverty, quadruple carbon savings, and create up to 200,000 jobs across the UK.   

It also argues for a transformation of the energy market to allow community energy firms priority access to the Grid, and for greater financial support for renewable energy companies.

The paper criticises the Coalition’s changes to the Energy Company Obligation, arguing that “watering down efficiency commitments at precisely the time they are most needed

In a section on Labour’s policy, the Green Party says it welcomes the relief that a short term price freeze would bring, but questions why Labour is not pushing for greater local ownership and democratic control over our energy infrastructure.  

Caroline Lucas, the Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion, said:

It’s a scandal that the big energy companies are making large profits whilst many people are struggling with high bills and cold homes.  Sadly, by focussing on headline grabbing schemes, both main parties are sidelining  meaningful solutions to the energy bill crisis.

The failure of both main parties to seriously get behind serious energy efficiency measures is a key reason that energy bills remain high.   

We need a nationwide programme to make all homes super-energy efficient – with full insulation, modern boilers, and renewable energy sources.  By funding this through carbon tax revenues, the Government could bring nine out of ten homes out of fuel poverty, and create hundreds of thousands of jobs.

View the briefing paper HERE

Attempt to clear up confusion on council rent increases not entirely successful

Pete Firmin

Speaking to Brent Executive last night, Pete Firmin, secretary of Brent TUC, a South Kilburn resident and Labour Party member, lambasted the Council's stance on council rent increases.  He said that the annual above inflation increases, which in his case would mean an increase of 40% over 5 years, should be unacceptable to a Labour Council.

The plans were included in the Housing Strategy officers' report which Firmin described as impenetrable. Several people had tried to make sense of it, including Brent Central potential Labour candidate Kingsley Abrams, and had been unable to say with absolute certainty what was proposed. His local Kilburn councillors had said they knew nothing about it and when he asked Cllr Margaret McLennan and Cllr Michael Pavey, both members of the Executive what it meant, they confirmed rent rises over five years to 80% of market rents.

He said that the Council would be adding to the financial problems of people already hit by benefit cuts, council tax benefit changes and higher food and energy prices. He asked why tenants were being forced to fund new build through the rent increases and contrasted that with the freezing of the Council Tax.

Firmin said that this was not something the Council had to do and he circulated information from Islington Council  on its approach.

Muhammed Butt defended the Council's approach saying that new housing was imperative. Cllr  Margaret McLennan, lead member for housing, said that the policy referred to social rent and not market rents (a search of the report reveals that the only mention of social rent is one about the possible national fixing of these).  She said that the Council had not yet decided on their definition of an affordable social rent.  She said that that the planned new build was good news ands that the plans had receved a high level of endorsement.The priority was to house people on the waiting list.

Andy Donald, head of Regeneration and Major Project, said the new build would go straight to an 'affordable' rent of between 60% and 80% of market rent. This was the government's definition and the Council would have to charge that to use a government grant. If new build was at an 'affordable rent' it would help fund the refurbishment of existing stock. The actual rent rises would be fixed in February 2013 and would be roughly 4% higher in 2014-15.

Cllr Pavey waded in to say that Pete Firmin should have discussed this earlier, the Islington document was interesting but why hadn't Pete circulated it beforehand (and anyway they had more land available than Brent) and then ended with what is fast becoming his mantra: this is not perfect but the best we can do in difficult times.

Many of us left not entirely clear on what was proposed and I suspect that was also true of the Executive members who voted to approve the strategy.

Confusion over Council's policy on rent rises

I live on a Brent Housing Partnership estate which has a mixture of flats, maisonettes, terraced houses and town houses. These are occupied by a mixture of 'right to buy' freehold owners (or purchasers from an original right to buy owner), leaseholders, BHP tenants, private tenants and probably some sub-lets.

Two bedroomed flats and houses are privately let for between £800 and £1,200 a month, social housing tenants pay much less.

Some of the privately owned homes have been fitted with double glazing while the BHP properties have not. Energy bills for the latter are therefore much higher.

There is considerable and much appreciated green space on the estate.

I give this as background to the Housing Assess Management Strategy Report that is going to the Brent Executive tomorrow.  The report contains a mixture of measures which involves  disposing of some properties and selling the freehold on some blocks.  It involves plans to build a small number of new units of existing estates, initially between 70 and 100, to cater for larger families and a long-term 7 year plan for 1,000 new 'affordable' homes.  Importantly there are plans for refurbishment of existing stock. Clearly new homes and refurbishment will be very welcome.

The plans will be financed by the sell-offs, some borrowing and controversially rent increases.The latter has caused concern amongst Labour Party members as well as tenants because the documents going to the Executive seem to indicate that existing tenants' rents will increase over the next 5 years to 'converge' at 80% of market rents, which by some definitions is an 'affordable rent' - a figure the Council has challenged in the past..  At the same time the new properties will be immediately let at an affordable rent with some caveats (see extract below).

The concern is that the convergence strategy will result in a likely doubling of rent for existing tenants over the next 5 years at a time when incomes are static but the cost of living is rising and benefits have been cut.

What I and others have been trying to work out from the documentation going before the Executive is whether that is what is really envisaged and hopefully, as a result of protests due to representations that will be made, it will become clearer. The figures quoted do not seem to equate to a doubling of rent.

Meanwhile here is an extract from the Appendices that readers

The extract below from the Appendices sets out the rent strategy and I leave readers to try and interpret wht it means concretely:

Rent Policy

Strategic Approach

For rents to continue to increase in line with the  rent convergence regime- a maximum annual increase in 2014 of RPI +0.5% plus £2 per week and from 2015 CPI+ 1% plus £2 per week for existing tenants - subject to any direction by Government

Following rent convergence for the annual increase  to be set at CPI+1%

For properties to be re-let at target rents

For consideration to be given annually to restraint in rent increases for 4-bedroom and larger properties in order to assure affordability under the overall benefits cap

For new-build and newly-acquired properties (except where required for decant) to be let at affordable rents in line with the thresholds set out within the Council’s Tenancy Strategy.

Context

Rents are the primary income to the HRA business plan and provide the funding to support stock investment and for new development.

In recent years the Council has increased rents in  line with the government’s rent convergence regime. The government has recently issued guidance

that rent convergence should end from 2015/16 at which point the majority of the HRA stock will not have achieved convergence. Currently the Council retains the discretion to not follow the recent guidance. Further clarification of the

position by Government is expected by early 2014 and account will need to be taken of this.

The government has also issued recent guidance that from 2015 rent increases will be linked to a different inflation index – and be based on CPI plus 1% rather than RPI plus 0.5% as previously.

Approach

In order to provide a secure basis for the funding of the Asset Management Strategy, a rent policy for the next five-year period will operate. The policy will be for rents for existing tenants to continue to rise in line with the principles of the government’s previous Rent Convergence regime unless government directs otherwise. For 4-bed and larger units rent increases may be constrained in order to assure affordability under the Overall Benefits Cap.

In order to support viability, new homes will be let at Affordable Rents. These will be limited to varying percentages of the market-rent depending on the size of the unit in order to assure affordability for those affected by the Overall Benefits Cap.

Source: http://democracy.brent.gov.uk/documents/s20059/rg-hra-app1.pdf

Brent housing and welfare campaign meeting tonight

Greens: Bring railways back into public ownership

This week saw another price hike in rail fares. With the UK already having the highest rail fares in Europe, The Green Party calls for the British railway system to be come back into public ownership.  It has been approximated that “£1.2 billion of public money is lost each year as a direct result of privatisation and fragmentation”

The Green Party has condemned the rail fare rise of an average of 6.2% announced yesterday.

Alan Francis, Green Party Transport Speaker, said:

We need to make rail travel more affordable, not less. Many people have had their wages frozen for several years. These fare rises will hit them hard. This fares increase makes rail travel even more unaffordable each year and pushes people back into cars on our already congested roads. Instead of an RPI+3% formula we should have a RPI-X% formula so that fares are reduced in real terms each year.

Rail privatisation and fragmentation has been bad for the railways and for passengers and has significantly increased costs. These higher costs, as much as £1bn per year, are paid by both passengers and taxpayers. We favour the railways being brought back into the public sector and more integration. This would reduce costs and so allow lower fares. Consequently we believe that as each TOC franchise ends it should be retained in the public sector, initially operated by the government-owned Directly Operated Railways. There would be no cost to the taxpayer.