Hammersmith and Fulham Council's Policy on Social Housing Taking the Ladder Away from those in Housing Need

The Conservative-run Council is gradually getting rid of its social housing through policies of sales, disposals and regeneration/demolition of a number of estates. The Council sees social housing as a problem in terms of deprivation, poverty and unemployment. Its Housing Strategy titled " uilding a Housing !adder of "pportunity" sets out its vision #ith home o#nership at the top of the $ladder$ and all other forms of tenure are secondary to this. It sees other tenures as rungs on the ladder leading to home o#nership. In tandem #ith its planning policies, the Council insists that no ne# socially rented housing is sought #hen it approves residential developments, so that the proportion of social housing in the orough is rapidly declining. This policy runs counter to #hat is re%uired by the !ondon &lan. Instead the Council prefers to see' #hat it deems to be affordable housing in the form of intermediate rent, shared o#nership and discounted mar'et sales. The Council should be aiming to obtain ()* affordable housing provision from the schemes brought for#ard by private developers, #ith +)* being for open mar'et sale. "f this ()*, +)* should be in the form of social rented housing and ()* should be lo# cost home o#nership or intermediate rent. Sales of !m"ty Council Housing In ,)--, the Council revie#ed its policy of allo#ing the sale of #hat are called e.pensive voids. &rior to ,)--, properties becoming empty and #hich #ere e.pensive to repair, #ere offered for sale on the open mar'et. The /pril ,)-- Cabinet meeting agreed to lo#er the threshold of #hat #as considered $e.pensive to repair$ from 01),))) to 0-2,))). This also coincided #ith the completion of the 3ecent Homes &rogramme #hich, according to Council figures, brought 44.+* of Council housing up to a good standard of repair at a total cost of 0,-1 5illion. Therefore, there #ould be in all probability, be fe# properties left that met the old 01),))) repair cost threshold. Sales of empty properties increased and raised large sums for paying off debt, providing more affordable housing and promoting regeneration 6such as the 7arls Court scheme #hich #ill result in the loss of 8ibbs 8reen and 9est :ensington 7states;. There seems to be little point in delivering other forms of affordable housing by the sale of perfectly good 6and decent; e.isting housing. The numbers of Council funded affordable housing schemes to date has been minimal especially in the conte.t of the large numbers lost in sales. In addition, using the proceeds of sales to finance the loss of more of the Council$s stoc' in the 7arls Court area, seems to be perverse. /ccording to Council figures, the number of sales totalled ,+, from ,))4 to the end of

,)-1 and revenue generated #as 0--,5illion. The number of sales #ent up from -2 in ,))4 to << in ,)-1. The Council is particularly secretive about its sales programme. It refuses to give anything other than the number of sales #hen as'ed about this under the =reedom of Information /ct. Ho#ever, research of auctioneers$ lists reveals a considerable amount of data about the Council$s property sales. The list of auction sales for the last three years is attached to this paper. The list #ill not give details of properties sold by private treaty, but it represents the vast ma>ority of sales - estimated at over 4)* of the total. It can be seen that ,- studio units, --- one bedroom units, () t#o bedroom units, 11 three bedroom units and , four bedroom units #ere sold in the last three years. "f these ?, #ere ground floor flats and 1- #ere #ere #hole houses. There is a huge shortage of houses available for letting in the Council$s stoc' #hich largely consists of flats. The loss of this number of houses further limits the Council$s ability to meet housing need - especially larger families. The number of ground floor units lost to the stoc' is also a matter of concern as some of these could have been let to people on the #aiting list #ho have mobility limitations. 9hen the Cabinet approved e.panding the sales policy, it #as advised by the /ssistant 3irector of !egal Services that scarce properties for #hich there is a pressing need should not normally be sold. It #as also advised that due regard must be given to the li'ely effects on persons protected by the 7%uality /ct ,)-). The loss of so many houses and ground floor properties must run counter to this legal advice. The legal advice also #arned that the sale of property must be motivated by bona fide housing policy and not be tainted by considerations of electoral advantage. The criteria and mechanism for the selection of properties to be disposed of must be ob>ective, transparent and uniform across the borough and be firmly rooted in housing policy. 8iven the Council$s secrecy about the sales, it is anything other than transparent and it runs the ris' of being accused of see'ing electoral advantage in the scale of its disposals. 8iven the history of 9estminster City Council and the gerrymandering scandal, the Council needs to be particularly careful about the number and location of sales. The list of sold properties sho#s some #ide disparities as to the #ard distribution of sold properties and it could be argued that the location of sales is not uniform across the orough - as legal advice indicated it should be. #ther Losses of Council Housing In addition to the loss of 8ibbs 8reen and 9est :ensington 7states as part of the 7arls Court development, the Council is also disposing of individual bloc's. T#o of these have been emptied in preparation for demolition at 9atermeado# Court and 7dith Summers'ill House. The &lanning 3ivision produced a &lanning /ssesment document

in @ovember ,)-, #hich stated that any proposal for 7dith Summers'ill House #ould result in the loss of ++ social rented units on the site - most li'ely it #ould be a high density development #ith some discounted mar'et sale units made available. 9atermeado# Court has been emptied in readiness for demolition though a scheme under the Council$s >oint venture partner, Stanhope &!C - as is the situation #ith 7dith Summers'ill House. It is not proposed to replace the loss of social rented units. The Council may see' to re-provide the number of social rented units at 8ibbs 8reen and 9est :ensington and this has been allo#ed for in the outline scheme so far approved. Such an allo#ance for rehousing these tenants #ill form part of the affordable housing re%uirement any#ay and it #ill form part of the developer$s re%uirement to provide the full ()* affordable housing as re%uired by the !ondon &lan. 9hether this #ill be achieved in practice is debateable. The controversial scheme approved at Shepherds ush 5ar'et #ill provide ,-, residential units, all but + #ill be for mar'et sale but the scheme #ill involve the loss of a further -, social rented units. Si. units for discounted mar'et sale have no# been included at the re%uest of the 3istrict Aaluer. "verall, #ith reference to all residential schemes approved by the planners in the last 2 years, there #ill be a net loss of 1? social rented units - not including 7dith Summers'ill House/8ibbs 8reen and 9est :ensington 7states and sales of empty properties. The loss of these additional properties #ill total <,) units plus the loss of properties sold under its empty property disposal programme #hich is no# approaching 1)). This is in the conte.t that some social housing has been provided in the last 2 years by Housing /ssociations, but this is totals around 14 d#ellings and has declined over recent years. The loss of social housing from the total stoc' is therefore significant. There #ill have been limited sales ta'ing place under right to buy provisions and the Council has no# approved a scheme to sell shares of each property to e.isting tenants. The Council has made its intentions clear as far as estates such as 9hite City are concerned. They are to be $regenerated$ probably in partnership #ith its >oint venture company. The 9hite City "pportunity /rea &lanning =rame#or' notes the imbalance of social rented units in the area and includes the 9hite City 7state #ithin the boundary of the 9C"/. This sets out the vision of Council tenants moving into ne# housing 6though not social housing; provided in the east of the area #hich #ould give "scope to consider a partial rene#al or redevelopment 6for instance by replacing bloc's considered to be environmentally unsuitable;....The estates could be transformed #ith a greater range of housing types and siBes." This is li'ely to mean that each bloc' #ill be redeveloped at a time #ith no obligation to replace the housing #ith more social housing. The vision indicated for 7dith Summers'ill House outlined in the Council planning document of

,)-, is li'ely to be adopted #hereby a proportion of the ne# housing #ill be for discounted mar'et sale. $hy %is"ose of Perfectly &ood Social Housing' 8iven the large amount of money spent in recent years bringing the Council$s stoc' up to a good standard, it seems #astefull of public funding to sell good %uality housing. &articularly so as housing need in the orough is increasing, as are the costs of providing temporary/emergency accommodation for those in the most urgent of housing need. In the period from -st Canuary ,)-) to ,) @ovember ,)-1, ,2)2 homeless households approached the Council for help. /s at ,) =ebruary ,)-1, there #ere -1< people sleeping rough on the streets of the borough. In the year ,)-,/-1 the Council$s emergency housing costs rose to 0-,?2-,))) up from 01<?,))) in ,))4/-). In the conte.t of human costs to families #ith children, the Council placed (+1 households #ith one or more child outside of the borough 6but #ithin !ondon; in the period Canuary ,)-, to 1- 3ecember ,)-,, at a cost of 0,,)1+,))). / further -,households #ith no children but to #hom the Council o#ed a homelessness duty #ere placed in accommodation outside the borough. "f all households housed temporarily that year, 1,4 #ere placed in D accommodation - often for longer than than the la# permits them to be in D accommodation. / further ,, households #ere housed outside of !ondon altogether that year at a further cost of 0?4,))). /ll told, over +)) households had to be housed outside of their local area in ,)-,, severing local connections such as schooling, friends, support net#or's and health care. It should be noted that the Council also sold its o#n accommodation for meeting urgent housing need in the form of homeless persons hostels. It gave itself planning permission for a change of use of -, hostels to general residential use follo#ing a decision in =ebruary ,))? that they #ere not needed anymore due to falling homelessness levels. &lanning permission #as given despite planning policy to resist the loss of hostel accommodation both locally and throughout !ondon 6as contained in the !ondon &lan$s policy;. It seems a lac' of forethought #ent into this decision as homelessness has never gone a#ay and the Council$s determination to reduce its o#n stoc', has and #ill #orsen the situation. The Council may #ell argue that housing need in the borough has fallen because its #aiting list only has ?+< households on it at /pril ,)-1, compared to 41+- households on the list at /pril ,)-). This disguises the fact that the Council has removed anyone on the register #ho does not meet its ne# criteria. The Council has no# removed those from the register #ho are homeless but are housed suitable temporary accommodationE have not lived in the borough for more than 2 yearsE applicants #ho don$t $behave$E

those #ho do not ma'e a community contributionE it has reduced its overcro#ding criteria by ignoring those #ho are overcro#ded by one bedroom 6living rooms count as a bedroom for ! H= purposes; and it #ill not house non-dependent young persons over -< years old living #ith the household. The revised register has had a small improvement on the average length of time households have to #ait for a suitable property to beome available. In ,)-,/-1 households #aited on average 1( months for a studio to become available, ,, months for a one bedroom flat to be available, (< months for a t#o bedroom unit, +1 months for a three bedroom unit and <2 months 6? years; for a four bedroom unit. y ,)-1/,)-( this had reduced to -- months, -- months, 1? months, 2( months and ?4 months respectively. Ho#ever, in the period ,))4 to ,)-, the Council disposed of/sold ,)4 properties, ,, of #hich #ere four bedroom or more, 1< #ere three bedroomed, (- t#o bedroomed, <( one bedroom and ,( studios. 3uring ,)-1 to date, a further ? studios, 2( one bedroom flats, -? t#o bedroom flats, -? three bedroom flats and t#o four bedroom houses have additionally been sold. The reuse of these properties for rehousing #ould have reduced the time households have to #ait, reduced the overall numbers on the housing register plus allo#ed for more rehousing of homeless families. Households #ishing to do#nsiBe due to housing benefit cuts to those deemed to be underoccupying 6the bedroom ta.; are also severely disadvantaged by the loss of one bedroom d#ellings from the stoc' and also ris' problems #ith rent arrears/homelessness as they #ait for a suitable smaller property to become available. In addition, the Council is ma'ing matters #orse by having to decant tenants from those bloc's #hich it see's to regenerate or dispose of in some other #ay - such as 7dith Summers'ill House and 9atermeado# Court. This sort of policy can only add to the e.isting pressures on the reducing housing stoc' - especially as the Council no# has its >oint venture partner appointed specifically to redevelop parts of the Council$s housing stoc'. (s there too much Social Housing in the )orough' It has already been noted #hat !ondon#ide affordable housing planning policy re%uires in ne# housing schemes. Hammersmith and =ulham Council state that no more social housing should be provided because there is an imbalance in the tenure pattern of the borough. /round -2* of the total housing stoc' is rented from the Council, #ith a further -2* rented from a Housing /ssociation mainly at a social rent level but this figure includes intermediate rented properties. In total 1-* of the orough$s stoc' is in the social rented tenure compared to the Inner !ondon average of 11*. So compared to the rest of Inner !ondon, there is no real disparity. There are %uite large variations by #ard #ith College &ar' and 9ormholt #ards having

more than 2)* in the Council/FS! sector according to the ,)-- Census. "thers such as 5unster and &arsons 8reen have ,)* or less in these sectors. Shepherds ush 8reen and Hammersmith road#ay have higher than average proportions of stoc' in the Council/FS! sector - at around 1<-()* but most other #ards have average levels of social housing or less than average. Sands 7nd #ard is one #ard #here large housing developments are either built or in the pipeline. /s at ,)--, the Council/FS! sector made up 1(* of the total stoc' 6slightly more than average; but ta'ing into account recent planning permissions, this is pro>ected to reduce to ,(* of the stoc'. The Council #ill lose <) more units through the demolition of 9atermeado# Court but despite these reductions, there is no social rented housing being provided by any scheme given planning permission in the last 2 years - other than to replace some lost at the planned Hurlingham Fetail &ar' scheme. 9hat has become apparent from a comparision bet#een the t#o Census figures ,))-/,)-- is the decline of the o#ner occupied sector as a percentage of the stoc'. This has dropped from (1* in ,))- to 12.+* in ,)-- and is said to be the second highest fall in the country. "ver the same period, the private rented sector has increased from ,1.(* to 11.-*. There have been an e.tra 21)) d#ellings added to the borough$s housing stoc' in the period and this seems to have fuelled the increase in the private rental sector. So rather than the Council achieving its vision of a property o#ning ma>ority, it appears to be achieving the opposite #hilst at the same time removing the social housing sector. A )orough of #""ortunity - for "ro"erty de*elo"ers In all schemes of over -) d#ellings, given planning consent in the last five years the Council has only managed to achieve provision of -+* of #hat it defines as affordable housing. 5ost of that -+* is in the form of discounted mar'et sale at (-* of the total affordable provision. The rest is either via shared o#nership 6<*; intermediate rent 6--*; 'ey #or'er 6(*; or replacement housing for the loss of the t#o 7arls Court estates and over ?)) units #hich have consent in outline only and #here the type of affordable housing tenure is un'no#n. / full list of schemes #ith more than -) d#ellings that have been given planning consent in the last five years is attached. The provision of affordable housing #ould have been considerably #orse if it #ere not for some Housing /ssociation schemes and a small number of Council$s o#n development. In a of number of instances, developers have not been obliged to provide any affordable housing or have been given the option to pay money to fund minimal off site provision 6#hich the !ondon &lan states should be used in e.ceptional circumstances only;. @otable developments #hich have no affordable housing provison are the To#n Hall/-<- :ing Street scheme 6-4+ d#ellings;,

Gueens 9harf/Fiverside Studios 6-+2 d#ellings; Harbour /venue 6<4 d#ellings; ,? St /nnes Foad 6<( d#ellings; ()2-()4 :ing Street 6() d#ellings; ?, =arm !ane 6(( d#ellings; and in the case of the Shepherds ush 5ar'et scheme of ,-, d#ellings, only + #ill be for discounted mar'er sale. 5a>or developments at the C Television Centre 6-),2 d#ellings;, @orth of 9estfield 6-2,, d#ellings; Carn#ath Foad 6,2? d#ellings; 7arls Court 62<(2 d#ellings; and the 3airy Crest site 6--2) d#ellings; have been approved #ith the developer being obliged to provide around -)* affordable housing. &lanning officers$ reports recommending a decision on these schemes more often than not >ustify not meeting the affordable housing target as being due to the scheme being on the margins of financial viability. This seems beyond credibility in a borough #ere property prices are particularly high and are said to be the fourth highest in the country. /s part of ma>or applications #ith housing content, developers usually submit a financial appraisal #hich considers the build cost, resale cost and any unusual site development costs. These appraisals are usually confidential and not available to the public. Ho#ever, occasionally the Council ma'es these confidential documents available. "ne such appraisal has been uploaded to the Council planning database in ,))4. The application for :elvin House in 8lenthorne Foad #as submitted at the start of the financial crisis and it made great store of the depressed state of the property mar'et. =ollo#ing approval, the original proposal #as resubmitted #ith a re%uest to reduce the affordable element from -( units to 2 due to the #orsening mar'et and this #as agreed by the Council. The scheme is for a development of <- d#ellings. The financial appraisal relied in large part on resale values and the li'ely poor returns. Aalues #ere pro>ected as being around 0,1),))) for a lo# floor one bedroom flat and up to 0(2),))) for a high floor t#o bedroom flat. The ma>ority of flats #ere predicted to realise less than 01)),))) - around 0,?),))). =igures from Fightmove.co.u' reveal that in late ,)-these flats #ere sold for considerably more #hen released for the first time. =our flats achieved a sale price of more than 02)),))), the ma>ority of one bedroom flats sold for around 01+),))) and the lo#est sale price listed #as 01-?,))). Sale prices #ere therefore 0<)--)),))) higher than that accepted by the Council$s planners. /ssuming an average undervaluation of 04),))) per d#elling on this scheme, the e.cess #ould net the developer slightlly under 0? 5illion, less any increased building cost but plus the in-built profit margin. The financial appraisal for /shlar Court near Favenscourt &ar' has also been uploaded onto the Council planning database. This scheme gained planning consent in ,)-- for a mi. of ne# build and refurnbishment of the former nurses home building. The planning officer$s report to committee indicated that + shared o#nership d#elllings #ill be made available 6as affordable housing; but it #as not possible to achieve the Council$s preferred tenure of discounted mar'et sale as the scheme #as at the limit of being financially viable.The financial appraisal lists e.pected sales values of each type of

property, ranging from 0,)+,))) for a studio flat, 0,4+,))) for one bedroom flats, 024,,))) for a three bedroom flat and 0+<2,))) for large t#o bedroom duple.es. In total the estimated sales value #as 0,<,(?-,))). The flats have been released onto the mar'et and are currently sho#ing on Fightmove.co.u'. / one bedroom flat is being mar'eted for 0+)),))), t#o bedroom duple.es are available at 0-.- million and three bedroom flats are being offered for 0-.)?2 million. The increase in value is in the order of -))* #hich #ould give the developer a #indfall profit of around 0,2 million e.tra. The developer$s contribution to#ards the affordable housing element is %uoted as 0,2),))) in the financial appraisal. 5ore recently, ()2-()4 :ing Street #as approved on the basis that , shared o#nership d#ellings be provided off site as this #as the limit of financial viability. The #hole site is being developed for mar'et sale. 9hilst no financial appraisal information is available on the Council$s #ebsite, the recent local rise in property prices since the scheme #as approved in ,)--, #ould suggest the $marginal viability$ >ustification for no affordable housing provision, ought to be revisited. Currently, the five bedroom houses are on the mar'et for 01 million each, three bedroom houses for 0-.( million each and a one bedroom flat for 0+,2,))). 7vidence suggests that t#o bedroom flats sold for around 0<4),))). If this #as repeated, sales #ould total around 0(( million. The development is for (- d#ellings and this suggests that development costs plus an allo#ance for profit e.ceeds 0-,))),))) per unit. It must be financially viable to provide affordable housing on site at these values and to suggest other#ise is not tenable. The financial appraisal model is seriously fla#ed as it only serves to demonstrate to the Council$s planning officers that schemes are at the limit of viability and this results in lo# levels of affordable housing provision in ne# developments. It seems that lo# valuations of ne# d#ellings is also being accepted by planners #ithout %uestion and it is particularly inept of the Council not to be achieving more than an average of -+* affordable housing provision in a borough of high property values - as the above three e.amples sho#. (s the Afforda+le Housing )eing Pro*ided, Afforda+le' The Council states that its preferred affordable housing types are intermediate rent, discounted mar'et sale and shared o#nership. 5ore social rented housing is not part of the affordable housing model. Intermediate rent is normally at a rent level #hich is <)* of the mar'et rent. !ettings are usually done through a Housing /ssociation on an /ssured Shorthold basis. 3iscounted mar'et sale 635S; offers properties to %ualifying residents at a fraction of the mar'et value. The rest of the property$s value is held in trust by the Council. Initially 35S offered properties at ?)* of mar'et value but this typically is unaffordable so it has been reduced and is lin'ed to income. Shared o#nership enables purchase of shares in a property, starting at ,2* #ith the aim of

eventually o#ning the #hole property. Hntil this happens, the occupier pays rent on the un-o#ned share. The Council has developed its o#n version of the Fight to uy called Fight to uy &art so in effect the tenant becomes a shared o#ner, paying rent on the un-o#ned share. Hnusually, the Council scheme starts #ith shares at -2*. This scheme #ill not apply to ne# developments as it is only open to e.isting tenants of social housing. The Council believes that intermediate rent is affordable housing. Some typical rents for the 9+ area have been ta'en from the Fightmove site. The cheapest one bedroom flat available in 9+ is listed at 0-)4+pcm, t#o bedroom flats are available in the range 0-1)) to 0-<))pcm and three bedroom flats are available at 0-+4) to 01)))pcm. /pplying the <)* calculation to the t#o bedroom e.ample, this #ould e%uate to 0-)() to 0-(()pcm. Ta'ing the mid point, a t#o bedroom intermediate rented flat #ould cost 0-,()pcm or 0-(<<) a year. It is inadvisable to spend more than 12-()* of the household income on housing, so this rent level #ould indicate a household #ould need to have an income of at least 01?))) 6after ta. and deductions;. Fealistically the re%uired salary level #ould need to be 02),))) #hich is #ithin range of t#o people earning 0,2))) for instance. Having one #age earner in the household #ould find it a bit of a struggle to meet this rent on a typical income. =igures ta'en from the Section -)+ agreement dated Canuary ,)-1 for the scheme at +-, 8orleston Street, #hich has ,1 intermediate rent units, %uote intermediate rent levels of 0,,) per #ee' for a one bedroom flat and 0,<) per #ee' for a t#o bedroom flat. The income levels %uoted as needing to sustain these rents is 01<,+2) for a one bedroom flat and 02-,2)) for a t#o bedroom flat. In the case of the later, 0,<) per #ee' e%uates to 0-(,2+) per year #ith an income needed of over 02),))) - #hich is not too dissimilar to the e.ample given above. Fent levels in the S9+ postcode area #ould be even higher than for the middle of the orough. /nd as for the penthouse units on top of the to#er bloc's at 7d#ard 9oods 7state developed by the Council for intermediate rent, households #ould need an income of over 0-)),))) per year to sustain rent and service charges. The Council announced its Coint Aenture deal #ith Stanhope &!C and outlined its plans for 7dith Summers'ill House and 9atermeado# Court. It believes that ()* of the resulting d#ellings #ill be available for discounted mar'et sale. / third of the d#ellings #ill be targetted to those on incomes of 01),))), a third #ill be available to those on incomes of 0(),))) and the rest for those #ith an income up to a limit of 0<),))). If residents of the borough have those sort of incomes then 35S #ill be affordable as a #ay into home o#nership, but they #ill never realise the full value of the property as the un-o#ned part is held by the Council in trust in perpetuity. They can only sell the proportion of the property that #as originally offered for sale after the discount #as

applied. The most that someone #ith an income of 0<),))) could borro# on a mortgage is around 0,<),))), #hich together #ith a deposit #ould probably mean that they #ill o#n around (2* of a typical one bedroom flat in the south of the borough. Shared o#nership tends to be geared to #hat households can afford to buy. Housing /ssociations administer shared o#nership schemes on their o#n developments and values tend to be lo#er than found in the open mar'et. Ho#ever, households needing larger units #ill also need to find higher amounts. =or instance a one bedroom flat is available via @otting Hill Housing Trust in 9-, has a full mar'et value of 01,),))) #ith shares available from 2)* at 0-+,,2)). This could be supported by an income of 0(?,))). Ho#ever, a three bedroom House in Sunde# /venue 9-, has a mar'et value of 0242,))) and shares are only available from +)* at 0124,))). This could only be supported by an income of more than 0-)),))). /s #ell as the mortgage to consider, households #ill need to budget for rent to be paid on the un-o#ned part as #ell as there being a liability for service charges and ma>or #or's costs. /s a form of tenure, the Census sho#s that shared o#nership has increased marginally from ).4* of the stoc' in ,))- to -.+* of the stoc' in ,)--. The Council has recently approved a shared o#nership scheme for its o#n tenants #hich allo#s tenants to buy up#ards of -2* of their property and rent the rest. It has added a further $rung$ to the housing ladder they claim. Ho#ever buying -2* also means that tenants/shared o#ners are no# liable for the cost of any #or' done to their estate/home together #ith regular service charges such as insurance and careta'ing. In effect they pay t#ice for these items - through their rent and the part purchase. The purchaser also becomes liable for repairs #ithin their demised property. The Fight to uy part purchase also effectively removes that property from the Council$s stoc' of potential relets to those in housing need. 8iven the Council$s regeneration vision for Council estates, it also might mean a shared o#ning household gets compulsorily purchased, paid a small sum in compensation and find themselves out of a home and unable to buy anything else. The Council is also not commiting itself as to #hether buying a part of your property means that the tenant loses out on the 0-)),))) discount that is available for right to buy purchases in !ondon. They #ill get a proportion of this discount related to their share - but until they o#n -))* of the property, they #ill not get the full FT discount. In terms of affordability, the 5ayor of !ondon$s Housing Strategy notes that a third of Council tenants in !ondon earn less than 0-),))) and a further third earn less than 0,),))). The scheme is unli'ely to be affordable for the ma>ority of tenants because as the Council calculates, a -2* share of a one bedroom flat in S9+ #ill re%uire an income of 0,++)) rising to 01++)) for a three bedroom flat. In addition for the one bedroom flat e.ample, the tenants monthly outgoings #ill rise from 0(,? to 02?4 per month.

/s #ith all of these schemes, they are only affordable if the re%uired amount of income is flo#ing into the household. y removing the social housing sector and through the Council$s refusal to promote this sector through ne# housing developments, those on lo# or modest incomes #ill be s%ueeBed out of the borough. 9hilst the Council sees lo# income households as a $problem$ it is effectively creating problems else#here as more households have to find an increasing part of their income to be able to afford to live in the borough and so reducing their disposable income to spend locally. 9hat is apparent in assessing affordability is that the re%uired income levels are not earned by the ma>ority of public sector #or'ers such as nurses, police and fire fighters. 5ost of these schemes #ill be unaffordable to 'ey public sector #or'ers and the %uestion has to be as'ed, #ho #ill run and maintain our health and other public services locally if they cannot afford to live in the boroughI

,2th /pril ,)-(