Diane Abbott MP: ‘The only real solution to the housing crisis’
Calling for more new homes: Diane Abbott MP
The government’s recent Housing White Paper falls far short of what is needed to tackle the deepening housing crisis, which we see manifestations of every day in my constituency of Hackney North and Stoke Newington.
In particular, the White Paper didn’t lift the borrowing cap so councils like Hackney can directly fund and build homes for their communities, nor is there any new money for the existing fund to help councils and housing associations build homes for social rent or shared ownership.
The Government’s own figures show that affordable housebuilding has fallen to the lowest level in 24 years, with the number of homes being built for social rent now at the lowest level since records began.
Furthermore, whilst the Government has claimed to become the friend of private tenants, in this area not only have the Tories failed to take the action needed, ministers even voted down Labour’s efforts to ensure that private rented homes were simply fit for human habitation.
For those on the London Living Wage, the only type of housing that is affordable is housing association or council rented property but both are under attack from right-to-buy and forced sale schemes.
In terms of those wishing to own their home, the average house price to earnings ratio for first-time buyers in London was 3.7 in 1983. By 2016, this had become 10.4.
A report by the National Housing Federation has shown that to purchase the average London property by 2021, you need to start saving £2,300 per month now. That’s more than the entire take home pay of someone on the capital’s median salary of £30,000.
Furthermore, due to growing economic insecurity those paying rent and mortgages can expect even tougher times.
A study last year for Shelter found 48 per cent of families named the cost of housing as the biggest drain on their budget, and that one in three families in England could not pay their rent or mortgage for more than a month if they lost their job.
Alongside this, we have seen an epidemic of homelessness. Since 2010 homelessness has risen dramatically with almost 60,000 households becoming homeless last year.
The number of households with dependent children accepted as homeless has increased by 62 per cent, despite the Tories previously saying their success will be judged by how “we care for the weakest and most vulnerable.”
There are reportedly more than 2,700 families without a permanent home in Hackney.
Nationally, Shelter estimates that more than a quarter of a million people have no permanent home. In 2016, 4,000 people slept rough on any given night across England. This is more than double the 2010 figure.
Whilst it is welcome that the Government recently announced the funding of the costs of the Homelessness Reduction Bill, it must be fully funded.
Additionally the sum of £35 million offered for the next financial year, when divided between councils, is likely to be less than the estimates made by authorities themselves.
Particularly worrying is that the funding falls to zero within two years. There is no evidence provided by the Government that savings will offset costs by this time. Indeed, the Local Government Association has requested a full review of costs after two years.
In terms of the homelessness epidemic and the broader housing crisis, the Government must also bring forward further plans to building more genuinely affordable homes, and dedicate at least 4,000 of these to avert rough sleeping.
The biggest cause of homelessness is the ending of shorthold tenancy.
Yet, the government has quietly decided to go ahead with plans to cut housing benefits for 18- to 21-year-olds, which are due to take effect on all claims submitted after 1 April this year.
From this date, anyone aged 18-21 who is unemployed (or been working for fewer than six months) who applies for Universal Credit will no longer be eligible for any help with rent, and will be forced to live with their parents, find a way to pay rent, or become homeless.
The only exceptions are those with dependent children and care leavers.
In terms of tackling all these aspects of the housing crisis, whilst the Mayor of London is showing the way by insisting on high levels of shared ownership and genuinely affordable social rented homes in new developments, to get the volume and type of housing that Londoners can afford requires major initiative by central Government.
The Government needs to give councils the freedom to build homes rather than just try to put them under pressure to do so. This is particularly important as local authorities have only two sources of funding to finance new homes. One is funding from the sale of Right to Buy council properties, which must be spent within three years or repaid to government with interest.
The second is borrowing through their housing revenue accounts, which is capped at £160 million. Hackney’s Mayor Philip Glanville has described this figure as “arbitrary,” explaining that even if you know “that [they] will pay back [the borrowed money] in three years’ time when homes are sold … if that pushes you over the £160 million you can’t borrow the money.”
We also need better provision for homeless people and a drive against sub-standard private sector hostels.
The construction of at least a million homes, over half of which should be council housing, would not only see the building of genuinely affordable homes, both to rent and buy, but also give a boost to the economy. This isn’t utopian thinking – it’s the only real solution to the deepening housing crisis.
meanwhile Hackney’s Labour council plan massive cuts to funding for services for rough sleepers
nice one
I agree that the situation is dire – so why in the hell are Hackney Council planning the whole-sale demolition of a number of estates (which will not be replaced like-for-like with council accommodation, but with “affordable” homes at 80% market rent)? And why is London Mayor Khan so in hoc to property developers rather than sticking up for the residents who voted for him (he has back-tracked on his promises re percentage of social housing in new-builds and his recent housing strategy paper reads like a demolishers/developers charter)?
Despite my initial optimism, it seems Khan is just as close to Tory dogma as a lot of his more New Labour chums. Ms Abbott makes a good point, but there are blocks being built all over her constituency that’ll have minimal affordable housing, let alone social housing. It’s a false economy and the time for excuses has surely passed…(vain hope, no doubt)
Housing is different from practically all other social expenditure in that it is potentially self-funding. There are various ways round the spending limits. At the last Mayoral elections the Lib Dems in Hackney proposed using a Council linked independent Housing Association, a measure incidentally which has been used by other Labour councils and is now being suggested, late in the day, for Hackney. I recollect ex-mayor Jules Pipe dismissing this as “pie in the sky”. It’s not that Diane and Jules don’t have their hearts in the right place (on housing at least) but that there seems to be no initiative or ability to think outside the box, perhaps because having a one-party administration for so long has entrenched the same old faces in the same places so that everything has to be done the way it’s always been done.
Building more housing expends labour and capital, thus increases housing costs in aggregate, even if it means lower prices.
A Land Value Tax would reduce selling prices and rental incomes by an average of 65%. It would also allow the market to allocate immovable property at optimal efficiency. This would rationalise our existing stock of housing, reducing vacancy and under occupation, thus reducing costs.
The only real solution is therefore to deal with fundamental economic injustice, which means sorting out the demand side first. Only then can the market supply the right kind of housing to where its needed.
Dear Dianne
You did absolutely nothing when I exposed corruption in Hackney Planning except you got your assitant to say “you don’t know who to believe” perhaps if you read this it may help to persuade you:-
Dear Mr Glanville
My apologies but I am putting this on the Hackney Citizen so that everyone can see just how your council treats those who try to expose corruption and I don’t believe you would bother reading it otherwise.
I am sorry to see that you have taken the view that there was no corruption involved in the (mislaid) failing of planning permission and then the passing of an identical building that exceeded the height of the failed application AND the approved one.
If you are being truly honest about it you will be able to answer or have your planning dept answer the following unanswered (since the case began) relevant questions:-
Your planning department refused planning permission, stating among other detrimental things that “…would adversely affect light and outlook to the rear of these properties to an unacceptable degree, reducing the quality of life of these residents”
The full detriment to the surrounding existing properties was detailed by the planning dept. In a 4 page report which your planning dept “mislaid” to the public AND to councillor Sylvia Anderson (who was asked to stand down by the then leader Max Caller) for revealing Hackneys corrupt planning depts methods to me and acquiring the councils “mislaid documents.
The height of the failed application was to be 7.1 metres. Minuscule changes were made – the biggest being a whopping 8 inch reduction in the height. No explanation was given how this 8’” reduction would reduce or reverse the detriment that they had detailed in the first refusal.
Suddenly all the udps that it was failed on were ignored.
The final height of the building came to 7.2 metres. and I forced your regulatory service to admit that was in breach of planning, however they said that they could not prove whether the ground had been sunk. I offered them a before and after photo of the existing rear wall whereby all they had to do was count the courses of bricks (which remained the same as the ground was not lowered). but your regulatory services declined my offer as they had no intention of digging up your councils underhanded corrupt practices.
The planning officers Cindy Badoe, Femi Nwanzi and Kelvin Williams are deeply involved in this abuse of office and they
Wrote to potential objectors on the 23rd Dec knowing full well that most people would be busy doing other things over christmas and that they were closed so no one could ask them anything. They also stated that they would be informing residents when the neighbourhood committee would be held (which they had no intention of doing) and sure enough they didn’t.
The second application which they approved committed ALL the detriment that they had clearly laid out in the first and they fabricated measurements to the extent that my 5 meter garden stretched to 8meters which also falls short of the councils UDP policies.
The approved the second application 3-4 days before the deadline they gave to objectors showing that they had no concerns whatsoever about the damage they knew it would cause.
One of the reasons that they approved it 4 days before the objectors deadline was because they had to get it through the `NC before the secretary of state for the environment stepped in who also failed the first application, criticising the planning officers for using outdated merits from the 70s.
Once the SoSftE had made its decree (failing it because the site was too small) it would have been impossible for your bent officers to change and so they greased The second application through the NC before he even visited
Your planning dept also “mislaid” the SoSftE’s report which also showed the true detriment this development would cause.
Your planning officers ensured (by telling us that they would inform us of the dates and then not doing so) that there would be no objectors at the NC (as we were still waiting for them to inform us).
In the report submitted to the NC there were at least 20 discrepancies such as falsified measurements, L shaped pictures design to cut out peoples kitchens or gardens, misleading statements e.g.
“…would adversely affect light and outlook to the rear of these properties to an unacceptable degree, reducing the quality of life of these residents” got changed to “…Mr Lane will lose his light in the morning only” – even this new statement was designed to mislead as the morning light was the only light my previous home received – so Mr Lane will lose 100% of his light and have to keep his lights on all day would have been a little more truthful.
In fact in the 2nd report there was just one sentence in 4 pages of text that referred to the failed application. What was a terrible idea that would cause too much damage to the environment of the existing properties, had now become a wonderful idea and caused no detriment at all and all because the building (on paper as it was never carried out) was to be lowered by 8”
The application was passed by all councillors present (including laughably Chit Chong from the Green party) except for Sylvia Anderson who pointed out to all present that this was too close and likely to cause a lot of damage. She was ignored.
I was informed by Councillor John Hudson that if there were any anomalies (in this case there were many) that I could contact the head of the council and ask him to revoke the decision. But unfortunately he joined in with the scurrilous smear campaign your planning officers launched against me.
He asked the officers to arrange a meeting with me but they already knew i would be asking them questions which they could not answer without incriminating themselves. So the bent officers orchestrated a smear campaign against me libellously saying that they couldn’t entertain a meeting because I had threatened Ms Badoe in the one telephone conversation I was able to get with her. She had agreed to come to my home (in our telephone conversation) to see what all the fuss was about (although it was plain to see she knew full well).
A simple question would be explain how you felt the 8” reduction would alleviate the damage you yourselves have detailed in your “mislaid report. Or why did you pass the application 4 days before the deadline you gave to objectors. Or why did you lie about measurements (my garden went from 5 to 8 metres) Shortly after this conversation on the day of our meeting whereby I had a planning lawyer arranged, They cancelled the meeting stating that I had threatened Ms Badoe in “words and tone”. What they didn’t know at the time is that I had recorded my conversation with Badoe and so could prove without doubt, that she and her colleagues were lying. They merely changed their statement each time they were proven to lie (oddly the subsequent Ombudsmans whitewashed investigation allowed them to change this one to my “tone” was threatening – omitting the “words” were threatening as they knew by now that I had recorded the conversation.
There are many more things you could ask your bent officers and each question would see them floundering, but I believe that you know this already and you simply want to carry on (like your predecessors Max Caller and Jules Pipe who made Jessica Crowe deputy mayor in charge of Hackneys environment knowing full well that she was involved in this (she was one of the councillors that approved it).
The story continues with once everyone involved in your establishment knew full well about the real damage – they awarded the developers £4k of council tax payers money for there environmentally friendly eco design – of course no mention was made of the loss of light, privacy and overbearing loos of amenity it had stripped from the surrounding homes.
Your officers abused their office, destroying many peoples homes – mine was the worst hit directly behind and facing east. They then covered up what they had done by mislaying all documents that they themselves had issued detailing the damage, ignored the fire officers report (on the first application the fire officer said operations could be put in “jeopardy” so your bent officers didn’t bother getting a fire officers report for the second application as they knew he would say – what difference does 8” make?
You don’t have to do much to find out they are corrupt – you could just ask them to answer how they went from failure to passing by reducing the building by 8 inches? Or what procedure did they use to ignore the deadline for objectors, Or how do they justify ignoring the fire officers report, Or why they can’t expand on their false accusations of threatening words (although this ones obvious). Or why they felt it necessary to “mislay” or hide from public and councillors view the true picture of the damage that they knew it would cause. Or Why your council has continued to defend their actions whilst providing no answers to the above, Or how does what they did comply with any of the udp policies designed to stop this sort of corruption from happening.
You have advised me to go through council complaints and the ombudsman (which I did at the time) between both of them I was unable to get any of my questions answered and thats why I am asking you (I will ask each new mayor until I get one honest enough to investigate).
When I contacted your complaints dept. One Debbie Davey (I believe she was head of complaints) felt that she needed to “concoct” a story about me in order to side tract or obfuscate. When I contacted the ombudsman she said she was not allowed to comment on the merits of the councils decision making, as most of their lies are in the merits (or non merits of the case she was not allowed to ask any relevant questions. Although she did allow Cindy Badoe to remind her false statement of falsely accusing me of threatening her in “words and tone” to “tone” – she did The ombusdsmans inspector allowed your officers to repeatedly change their story (which is atypical thing that liars do).
Subsequent FOI reports show that the ombudsman was biased towards the council from the start in correspondence between Kelvin Williams and your complaints dept (Ms Debbie Davey) she said that “she understands the council’s point of view but she says that she still requires the documents in order that she can demonstrate (to me) that she has looked into the case properly” This is not the sort of statement one would expect from an ombudsman who normally should be unbiased.
You say “I am always happy to investigate resident’s complaints and enquiries” then you should be happy to get your staff to answer the serious unanswered concerns some of which I have detailed above.
The reason that I am unable to “move on” is because I was libelously accused of something I am innocent of, forced to uproot myself and my family and move because I could not wake up every morning to see this 7 metre high shed like monstrosity blottting out all light and amenity and knowing that my home was destroyed some very deceitful unworthy characters employed by your council.
Re – “I have made enquiries with the Council’s Planning service and have advised that the property known as 108a Palatine Road, granted planning permission in 2000, has been built in accordance with the approved plans.”
Here you are either misled or you are doing what all involved have done and closing ranks to cover up this scandal. It has not been “built in accordance with the approved plans” as they clearly stated 6.9metres high the final development went to 7.2 (there is documented evidence of this) I can provide it to you so you will be in no doubt that you are being misled.
Finally if a reduction of 8 inches was supposed to alleviate the detriment the planning office clearly detailed (then mislaid) then allowing it to go passed its illegally approved height by a further 12 inches would (according to your planning officers rational) cause at least a third more damage than they had originally detailed.
The damage your council and its bent officers have done to my mental health and any trust I had for those in authority is immense. I am a Shirley Oaks Childrens home survivor (its taken 50 years for us to uncover the criminals that called themselves Lambeth council and now they are finally exposed) my first home which your council destroyed was more of an achievement for me than most people buying their first home (I had no help just working day and night) and your council wrecked it. I should also point out that in the midst of your council destroying my property in 2000, I had a child, my father died and unexpectedly my partners father died – all these things pale in comparison to the anguish and torment your council and its operatives put me through – thats why I shall continue exposing this issue regardless of your fabricated denials
Best regards
Steve Lane