In 2005, there are 20.5 million residential dwellings in England. Out of these are 3.6 million that are classified as under the social housing scheme. Social housing is a government or a non-profit organization program that provides support for those who are unable to gain access into the expensive housing market1.
The system of social housing in the United Kingdom is essentially decentralized that is building and operations are headed by local councils. Hence the term council housing is given to the program.
Peter Lee and Alan Murie2 used the 1991 census to explore how far national patterns for social housing are replicated at the local level. This was done in the effort of knowing whether or not national policy solutions are appropriate for the individual councils. They saw that the national trend for disadvantaged household tend to gravitate towards council housing and the social rented sector applies to local level.
The most disadvantaged areas are typically associated with areas of council housing. However, many of the most disadvantaged areas include tenures other than council housing. There are also differences in the distribution of poverty and its relationship with housing tenure in different cities. The results of this study have implications for policies regarding the efforts on council housing that is the results are telling of where the government should focus its efforts on2. Deprived areas however are not exclusively areas of council housing. It has been discovered that the housing policy and regeneration activity targeted exclusively at areas of council housing exclude some disadvantaged groups. For instance, targeting council areas in Edinburgh would be an effective way of targeting deprivation.
On the other hand, targeting resources purely upon council estates would seriously neglect the problems of deprivation that exist in other tenures.
Social exclusion is relatively new to the housing debate in Britain. Despite this, it is relevant in a period where there is increased evidence from studies that housing is indeed related to and contribute to and contribute to problems of social disadvantage more generally. Housing and Housing policy should assist people in increasing their opportunities and life chances. Rather than doing so, it seems that they contribute to the process which disadvantage them more. The experience of homelessness and of living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods are key elements in the process through which people are disadvantaged2.
Lee and Murie concluded that their work shows that it is essential that approaches to regeneration do not focus exclusively on council housing. The implication for policy is the need to develop local strategies which are based on detailed analysis of local circumstances and which will enable the different elements, both in patterns of deprivation and patterns of housing, to be taken into account in decisions about resource allocation, policy and practice2.
From 1981 to 1990, the gap between well-off areas in cities and those most deprived have widened. Those deprived living under social housing may suffer under terrible living conditions as a result of substandard construction of their homes. The result may be directed towards an urban blight. In 2000, over 1.5 million social homes were not considered decent. Hence, in the same year, the Government introduced the Decent Homes Standard. The standard is a target to be met by all social housing by 2010. The following are the characteristics of a decent home3
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHRS), a statutory minimum standard should be met
It should have reasonably modern facilities and services
It should be in a reasonable state of repair
Ensures the provision of reasonable degree of thermal comfort. This means that the place should be properly insulated and should have an efficient heating system.
There are differences in efficiency between gasoil heating systems that is why the level of insulation should be matched with the system. For dwellings with gasoil programmable heating, cavity wall insulation, if possible, should be installed. Another option is that at least 50 mm loft installation (if there is loft space). For dwellings with
For the local authorities to fund and manage improvements to meet the Standards they could do four things. First is retention. This option means that the local authority will use existing levels of financial resources to bring housing up to decent homes standard. Second the management and ownership of council housing will be transferred from the local authority to a Registered Social Landlord (RSL). Next, they could also set up an arms length management organization (ALMO) to deliver its housing management services and improve homes to meet the decent homes standard. Lastly, they can install a Private Finance Initiative (PFI).
Although the original purpose of the social housing projects is to merely give shelter to the homeless, some people contend that the typified houses are unimaginatively design and that rigid council rules often forbade tenants from personalizing their houses. Moreover, tenants also had difficulties transferring from one property to another4.
Multi-storey housing, where tower blocks are categorized into, provides an economy for space but present intractable problems for urban policy. These multi-storey housing are structural failures or they present poor value for money. Regeneration projects have therefore commenced. These projects involve design solutions that should be technically and socially appropriate. Tenant participation in the design process has since then been valued. The personalization of social housing has been, to an extent allowed because of this.
A factor that affected social housing from the 1980s began around two decades earlier. In the late 1960s, a few tenants began to show signs of dissatisfaction and anger with their councils. Their opinions were never sought in any meaningful way. For them the developments were disappointing. Coupled with this disappointment was a series of proposed rent increases.
Despite movements from tenants, tenant action was the exception rather than the rule. Post-war reconstruction plans were just accepted by the people benefitting from the housing projects. From the late 1960s and throughout 1970s there was increasing rise of consumer rights. Gradually, welfarism was recognized and the people were more ready and willing to question authorities about decisions that will affect them. These changes paralleled an increase in tenant action across the country. A case in point is the protest of 23 tenant groups in Sheffield. Their complains ranged from the lack of recreation facilities to rent rebate schemes3.
Tenants had no choice. They did not have any of the options indicated in Professor Hills recent report. This is what created so much of the underlying frustration. Tenants knew where they wanted to reside and the type of homes in which they would like to live, but they were ignored. Again, the scale of the problem facing local authorities made consultation difficult, but this top-down approach was creating long-term problems. People were forced into homes they had no say in designing in areas with which they had no connection. Tenants were placed in areas according to the local authorities criteria. If a tenant refused an offer, they could be placed at the bottom of the waiting list or made increasingly worse offers, which would eventually have to be accepted because of the threat of eviction from their condemned property. They could even be taken off the list. For families who did not qualify for immediate re-housing under a clearance scheme, the situation was even worse. People dealt directly with the housing departments and councillors, but they were lone figures and, as such, unable to organize and act. Power lay with the council.3
Poor policies, management and maintenance records ruined public confidence in the council. Tenants did not have a chance in participating in the decision-making process, but they had to live with the consequences. Changes in the political climate gradually heard the various protests from different groups. Tenants wanted to have decent homes and services in their areas. Local authorities began to recognize that this was not necessarily an ideological issue and were much more aware of the possible benefits of developing participation schemes. Some departments in London began this movement of showing genuine interest in the development of tenant-participation schemes. Annie Richardson in the mid-1970s researched and produced a handbook entitled Getting Tenants Involved. The handbook was meant to promote tenant-involvement schemes across the country. In turn the quality of service is improved. Richardson recognised that participation schemes provided a vital bridge between the council and tenant. This allowed local authorities to gauge and absorb tenant opinions. Some local authorities tried out different schemes by holding discussion meetings, including tenants on advisory committees or giving them a place on the housing committees. It was a slow and fragmented process across the country. By 1975, a total of 46 local authorities had at least one tenant-participation scheme, including 70.6 per cent of all London boroughs but only 27.8 per cent of metropolitan councils. Only 11 schemes had existed prior to 1970.
Despite the positive changes, many local authorities still resisted the development of any schemes for tenant-participation. Some merely gave lip service to the ideal of participation. However, throughout the 1980s, the political climate continued to change for the benefit of the tenants. A moratorium on council-house construction effectively marked the end of large-scale local-authority house building. Responsibility for social housing was transferred to other non-profit-making organizations such as housing associations. Tenant rights were more protected at this time than the past. Central-government legislation and finance often demanded greater levels of consultation from the tenants. The City Challenge, implemented in the 1990s, depicted the value and benefits of extensive consultation and participation. In 1991, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Michael Heseltine, unveiled the scheme which would guarantee 7.5 million a year for five years, given to ten local authorities with the purpose of regenerating a run-down inner-city area. Fifteen cities had to compete with each other for the money.
From 1979, 1.6 million council houses have been sold to occupiers as a part of Right to Buy sale schemes1. The land still belongs to the local authority. The properties are sold leasehold. The housing providers are required to involve them in decisions concerning their environment and their proximity to other tenants.
A recent trend in housing in general is the development of environment-friendly homes, zero carbon homes. In an effort to cut down greenhouse gas emissions, the Government set a progressive minimum standard for new homes built between 2008 and 2016. The standard is the
called the Code for Sustainable Homes. An example of zero carbon home is the award-winning Baratt Green House which has the following features5
High thermal mass with the use of aircrete wall panels and pre-cast concrete floor slabs.
Heating from an air source heat pump and hot water from solar panels
Special provision for drying clothes at the top of the stairs using the rising warm air
Automatic window shutters to minimize over-heating in hot summer weather
Rainwater harvesting system
Although there are no explicit news that the Barratt Green House will be used for social housing, its features, its affordability makes it a good candidate in becoming a standard for council houses.
The move towards the personalization of public space for its tenants and the mobility given to them is socially sustainable. Economically, one may say that personalization may be a waste because of repeated renovation for personal whims or needs. Moreover, if a new family comes in the place, it may not be that easy to make changes. The multi-storey housing mentioned earlier conserves land uses and is very good for countries with limited land area such as Singapore. This type of housing is economically sustainable as land area usage is reduced yet maximized by the number of tenants it can accommodate. Although structure failures plague its existence, Government measures on the creation of decent homes suffice to curb the possibilities of an urban blight. There have been stricter measures regarding the assurance of quality service and construction of council homes. Another step that the government has been taking is the movement towards environmentally-friendly houses. The move towards zero carbon homes is something that should be encouraged as the effects of Climate Change are taking its toll. Although there is no global binding agreement in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in each country, the United Kingdom Government recognizes the importance of participating in the fight against global warming.
Social housing can be seen as a means to merely give shelter to those who cannot have one. Perhaps amongst all the factors that shaped the current form council housing, it is the recognition that what people need is more than just a shelter, but a home they can call their own is the strongest in terms of effects in social policies and design.
The system of social housing in the United Kingdom is essentially decentralized that is building and operations are headed by local councils. Hence the term council housing is given to the program.
Peter Lee and Alan Murie2 used the 1991 census to explore how far national patterns for social housing are replicated at the local level. This was done in the effort of knowing whether or not national policy solutions are appropriate for the individual councils. They saw that the national trend for disadvantaged household tend to gravitate towards council housing and the social rented sector applies to local level.
The most disadvantaged areas are typically associated with areas of council housing. However, many of the most disadvantaged areas include tenures other than council housing. There are also differences in the distribution of poverty and its relationship with housing tenure in different cities. The results of this study have implications for policies regarding the efforts on council housing that is the results are telling of where the government should focus its efforts on2. Deprived areas however are not exclusively areas of council housing. It has been discovered that the housing policy and regeneration activity targeted exclusively at areas of council housing exclude some disadvantaged groups. For instance, targeting council areas in Edinburgh would be an effective way of targeting deprivation.
On the other hand, targeting resources purely upon council estates would seriously neglect the problems of deprivation that exist in other tenures.
Social exclusion is relatively new to the housing debate in Britain. Despite this, it is relevant in a period where there is increased evidence from studies that housing is indeed related to and contribute to and contribute to problems of social disadvantage more generally. Housing and Housing policy should assist people in increasing their opportunities and life chances. Rather than doing so, it seems that they contribute to the process which disadvantage them more. The experience of homelessness and of living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods are key elements in the process through which people are disadvantaged2.
Lee and Murie concluded that their work shows that it is essential that approaches to regeneration do not focus exclusively on council housing. The implication for policy is the need to develop local strategies which are based on detailed analysis of local circumstances and which will enable the different elements, both in patterns of deprivation and patterns of housing, to be taken into account in decisions about resource allocation, policy and practice2.
From 1981 to 1990, the gap between well-off areas in cities and those most deprived have widened. Those deprived living under social housing may suffer under terrible living conditions as a result of substandard construction of their homes. The result may be directed towards an urban blight. In 2000, over 1.5 million social homes were not considered decent. Hence, in the same year, the Government introduced the Decent Homes Standard. The standard is a target to be met by all social housing by 2010. The following are the characteristics of a decent home3
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHRS), a statutory minimum standard should be met
It should have reasonably modern facilities and services
It should be in a reasonable state of repair
Ensures the provision of reasonable degree of thermal comfort. This means that the place should be properly insulated and should have an efficient heating system.
There are differences in efficiency between gasoil heating systems that is why the level of insulation should be matched with the system. For dwellings with gasoil programmable heating, cavity wall insulation, if possible, should be installed. Another option is that at least 50 mm loft installation (if there is loft space). For dwellings with
For the local authorities to fund and manage improvements to meet the Standards they could do four things. First is retention. This option means that the local authority will use existing levels of financial resources to bring housing up to decent homes standard. Second the management and ownership of council housing will be transferred from the local authority to a Registered Social Landlord (RSL). Next, they could also set up an arms length management organization (ALMO) to deliver its housing management services and improve homes to meet the decent homes standard. Lastly, they can install a Private Finance Initiative (PFI).
Although the original purpose of the social housing projects is to merely give shelter to the homeless, some people contend that the typified houses are unimaginatively design and that rigid council rules often forbade tenants from personalizing their houses. Moreover, tenants also had difficulties transferring from one property to another4.
Multi-storey housing, where tower blocks are categorized into, provides an economy for space but present intractable problems for urban policy. These multi-storey housing are structural failures or they present poor value for money. Regeneration projects have therefore commenced. These projects involve design solutions that should be technically and socially appropriate. Tenant participation in the design process has since then been valued. The personalization of social housing has been, to an extent allowed because of this.
A factor that affected social housing from the 1980s began around two decades earlier. In the late 1960s, a few tenants began to show signs of dissatisfaction and anger with their councils. Their opinions were never sought in any meaningful way. For them the developments were disappointing. Coupled with this disappointment was a series of proposed rent increases.
Despite movements from tenants, tenant action was the exception rather than the rule. Post-war reconstruction plans were just accepted by the people benefitting from the housing projects. From the late 1960s and throughout 1970s there was increasing rise of consumer rights. Gradually, welfarism was recognized and the people were more ready and willing to question authorities about decisions that will affect them. These changes paralleled an increase in tenant action across the country. A case in point is the protest of 23 tenant groups in Sheffield. Their complains ranged from the lack of recreation facilities to rent rebate schemes3.
Tenants had no choice. They did not have any of the options indicated in Professor Hills recent report. This is what created so much of the underlying frustration. Tenants knew where they wanted to reside and the type of homes in which they would like to live, but they were ignored. Again, the scale of the problem facing local authorities made consultation difficult, but this top-down approach was creating long-term problems. People were forced into homes they had no say in designing in areas with which they had no connection. Tenants were placed in areas according to the local authorities criteria. If a tenant refused an offer, they could be placed at the bottom of the waiting list or made increasingly worse offers, which would eventually have to be accepted because of the threat of eviction from their condemned property. They could even be taken off the list. For families who did not qualify for immediate re-housing under a clearance scheme, the situation was even worse. People dealt directly with the housing departments and councillors, but they were lone figures and, as such, unable to organize and act. Power lay with the council.3
Poor policies, management and maintenance records ruined public confidence in the council. Tenants did not have a chance in participating in the decision-making process, but they had to live with the consequences. Changes in the political climate gradually heard the various protests from different groups. Tenants wanted to have decent homes and services in their areas. Local authorities began to recognize that this was not necessarily an ideological issue and were much more aware of the possible benefits of developing participation schemes. Some departments in London began this movement of showing genuine interest in the development of tenant-participation schemes. Annie Richardson in the mid-1970s researched and produced a handbook entitled Getting Tenants Involved. The handbook was meant to promote tenant-involvement schemes across the country. In turn the quality of service is improved. Richardson recognised that participation schemes provided a vital bridge between the council and tenant. This allowed local authorities to gauge and absorb tenant opinions. Some local authorities tried out different schemes by holding discussion meetings, including tenants on advisory committees or giving them a place on the housing committees. It was a slow and fragmented process across the country. By 1975, a total of 46 local authorities had at least one tenant-participation scheme, including 70.6 per cent of all London boroughs but only 27.8 per cent of metropolitan councils. Only 11 schemes had existed prior to 1970.
Despite the positive changes, many local authorities still resisted the development of any schemes for tenant-participation. Some merely gave lip service to the ideal of participation. However, throughout the 1980s, the political climate continued to change for the benefit of the tenants. A moratorium on council-house construction effectively marked the end of large-scale local-authority house building. Responsibility for social housing was transferred to other non-profit-making organizations such as housing associations. Tenant rights were more protected at this time than the past. Central-government legislation and finance often demanded greater levels of consultation from the tenants. The City Challenge, implemented in the 1990s, depicted the value and benefits of extensive consultation and participation. In 1991, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Michael Heseltine, unveiled the scheme which would guarantee 7.5 million a year for five years, given to ten local authorities with the purpose of regenerating a run-down inner-city area. Fifteen cities had to compete with each other for the money.
From 1979, 1.6 million council houses have been sold to occupiers as a part of Right to Buy sale schemes1. The land still belongs to the local authority. The properties are sold leasehold. The housing providers are required to involve them in decisions concerning their environment and their proximity to other tenants.
A recent trend in housing in general is the development of environment-friendly homes, zero carbon homes. In an effort to cut down greenhouse gas emissions, the Government set a progressive minimum standard for new homes built between 2008 and 2016. The standard is the
called the Code for Sustainable Homes. An example of zero carbon home is the award-winning Baratt Green House which has the following features5
High thermal mass with the use of aircrete wall panels and pre-cast concrete floor slabs.
Heating from an air source heat pump and hot water from solar panels
Special provision for drying clothes at the top of the stairs using the rising warm air
Automatic window shutters to minimize over-heating in hot summer weather
Rainwater harvesting system
Although there are no explicit news that the Barratt Green House will be used for social housing, its features, its affordability makes it a good candidate in becoming a standard for council houses.
The move towards the personalization of public space for its tenants and the mobility given to them is socially sustainable. Economically, one may say that personalization may be a waste because of repeated renovation for personal whims or needs. Moreover, if a new family comes in the place, it may not be that easy to make changes. The multi-storey housing mentioned earlier conserves land uses and is very good for countries with limited land area such as Singapore. This type of housing is economically sustainable as land area usage is reduced yet maximized by the number of tenants it can accommodate. Although structure failures plague its existence, Government measures on the creation of decent homes suffice to curb the possibilities of an urban blight. There have been stricter measures regarding the assurance of quality service and construction of council homes. Another step that the government has been taking is the movement towards environmentally-friendly houses. The move towards zero carbon homes is something that should be encouraged as the effects of Climate Change are taking its toll. Although there is no global binding agreement in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in each country, the United Kingdom Government recognizes the importance of participating in the fight against global warming.
Social housing can be seen as a means to merely give shelter to those who cannot have one. Perhaps amongst all the factors that shaped the current form council housing, it is the recognition that what people need is more than just a shelter, but a home they can call their own is the strongest in terms of effects in social policies and design.
No comments:
Post a Comment