Tonight:
4°c
Mayor attacks councils for 'lack of affordable housing'
Ross Lydall, City Hall Editor12 Nov 2007
Ken Livingstone has gone into battle with two flagship Conservative boroughs over affordable housing - despite them being among the best in London at providing new homes.
The Mayor has sought to "name and shame" Wandsworth because of its low proportion of affordable homes and because it makes far more properties available to key workers than low-income families.
He has also attacked Hammersmith and Fulham for seeking to reduce its affordability target from 65 per cent to 40 per cent - below the "aspirational" 50 per cent London benchmark - even though the council has provided a greater percentage of low-cost homes than any other borough over a three-year period.
Hammersmith and Fulham has accused the Mayor of being obsessed with targets, claiming that its aim of increasing the overall supply of homes from 450 a year to between 600 and 650 will also mean more affordable properties - a minimum of 240 a year, compared with its mayoral target of 225.
The Mayor said he expected Wandsworth's housing plans to be rejected by an independent inspector because the council had failed to set a target for affordable homes for rent.
He wants half of all new developments in London to be "affordable". Of these homes, seven in 10 should be for rent - akin to old-fashioned council housing - and the remaining three available for purchase or part-purchase in schemes normally favoured by key workers.
At the heart of the debate is Mr Livingstone's belief that rented property is the only way of providing decent homes for the 60,000 homeless households in the capital and the 200,000 in temporary accommodation.
He said: "For the great majority of these families, social rented housing offers the only affordable way out of desperate circumstances. It is disgraceful that Wandsworth councillors should ignore their poorest residents by failing to make provision for them."
Wandsworth believes that it is important to offer homes for purchase as well as rent - a move that is in line with government policy to promote shared ownership.
But it has pioneered a "hidden homes" programme under which it has built more council properties than any other local authority in London - 130 to date, with a target of 300. The scheme involves building on unused land on council estates, which minimises the cost. A Standard analysis of government housebuilding figures shows that of the 27,578 homes completed in the capital in 2006-07, only seven boroughs exceeded their mayoral targets.
Five of these were Tory-controlled boroughs - Ealing, Enfield, Havering, Hillingdon and Merton - while the other two are run by the Liberal Democrats: Richmond and Sutton.
A total of 722 homes were built in Wandsworth, almost hitting the Mayor's target for the borough of 745.
It is not known how many of these properties were affordable, but between 2003-04 and 2005-06, 3,872 homes of all types were built in the borough, of which 571 (15 per cent) were affordable. But of these, only 257 (6.6 per cent) were for social rent. Mr Livingstone believes there should have been 1,355 such homes.
A Wandsworth spokesman said the borough was committed to providing a "balance" between affordable homes for rent and for purchase. "We are trying to help local young people get their foot on to the housing ladder," he said.
Across the river, Hammersmith and Fulham has led the way in affordable housing. Between 2003-04 and 2005-06, 955 homes were built in the borough, of which 782 (82 per cent) were affordable.
It, too, wants to help young Londoners get on the housing ladder after finding that people earning between £20,000 and £50,000 a year accounted for nearly one in four of its residents.
Council leader Stephen Greenhalgh said: "It is a natural aspiration to want to own your own home but for many Londoners - especially in Hammersmith and Fulham - the chance of owning, or even part-owning, a property is a dream rather than a reality.
"If we are not careful, we are in danger of becoming a borough that is out of reach to hard-working, low- and middle-income families, key workers and first-time buyers."
NEW HOMES 2006-07
Borough - Homes built/Mayoral target
Barking and Dag - 684/1,190
Barnet - 377/2,055
Bexley - 212/345
Brent - 632/1,120
Bromley - 484/485
Camden - 378/595
City of London - 2/90
Croydon - 845/1,100
Ealing - 1,325/915
Enfield - 998/395
Greenwich - 1,134/2,010
Hackney - 420/1,085
Ham and Fulham - 202/450
Haringey - 35/80
Harrow - 320/400
Havering - 650/535
Hillingdon - 194/365
Hounslow - 1,556/445
Islington - 743/1,160
Kensington and Chelsea - 139/350
Kingston - 172/385
Lambeth - 942/1,100
Lewisham - 463/975
Merton - 646/370
Newham - 471/3,510
Redbridge - 513/905
Richmond - 298/270
Southwark - 512/1,630
Sutton - 455/345
Tower Hamlets - 1,904/3,150
Waltham Forest - 394/665
Wandsworth - 722/745
Westminster - 242/680
TOTAL - 27,578/30,500
Sources: Department for Communities and Local Government, Greater London Authority
Reader views (6)
I have recently been looking for a small flat to rent in London. Nothing fancy, near a tube, and somewhere that isn't going to make me feel depressed when I wake up in the morning.
For £800-£1000 per month, you can find a small 1 bed flat, but it takes a lot of searching to find something half-decent.
For £600-£800 per month, you get houses where every room has been converted into a tiny studio or bedsit.
Below £600, you get flatshares, but nothing you could call your own space.
As an IT contractor, I earn over twice the average salary, but am also trying to save money in order to get myself out of debt. Spending that sort of money on rent just feels like throwing good money away.
- James, London, 16/11/2007 18:42
Report abuse
We don't have a housing crisis in this country; we have a population crisis, created by an incompetent government. Firstly address the issue of illegals who have entered and continue to enter the country. When that problem has been resolved we can begin to sort out the mess left by the Blair/Brown/Livingstone triumvirate and their cronies.
- Rick, London, England, 13/11/2007 11:38
Report abuse
Next year he is gone and then London can become cool again. Now it is just not pleasant, overtaxed, overbuilt, unsafe to keep valuables in your home or walking on the street at night, transport is a mess etc.
- Jacqueline, Hampstead, London, 12/11/2007 19:38
Report abuse
Ken Livingstone should be grateful to the so called high flyers who work, rent and buy in the capital, many of whom struggle to pay their outgoings each month. If it wasn't for the people who work and pay income tax, many of the people he champions would suffer much more. Without the people who pay taxes he wouldn't have any money to run his office! As for affordable housing,instead of blaming the Tories, if anyone in this country is at fault for the low paid being unable to find the price of a house these days, it is the Estate agents who push the prices up as far as they can to make more commission!
- Wooram, Alicante, Spain, 12/11/2007 19:34
Report abuse
I've read the Hammersmith and Fulham housing strategy which will double house building. Incredibly hardly anyone has applied for affordble housing despite 50% of residents renting their accomodation.
The strategy says about 3,000 people are on the waiting list (out of a potential 80,000 renters). The council plans to build 3,000 new homes.
So if you are a moaning first-time buyer get on your bike and fill in the form and you'll probably get a home!
- Marc, Fulham, 12/11/2007 16:48
Report abuse
It is time Livingstone started attacking his political cronies rather than criticising the high-performing Conservative authorities. He needs to look at the figures for Tower Hamlets, Newham, Hackney, Brent, Barking and Dagenham.
- Richard Tracey, Wandsworth, 12/11/2007 14:11
Report abuse
