This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2015/aug/03/london-housing-what-would-a-ban-on-poor-doors-achieve
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| What would a ban on 'poor doors' achieve? | What would a ban on 'poor doors' achieve? |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| Following New York mayor Bill de Blasio’s declaring war on housing developments with one entrance for its wealthier residents and another for its poorer ones, there was outrage at the discovery that so-called “poor doors” are built in London too. Now, Tooting MP Sadiq Khan, considered a front runner in the race to become Labour’s 2016 London mayoral candidate, has pledged to ban them if he becomes the next boss of City Hall. It’s easy to see that such a measure would be popular among the Labour members and supporters who will soon begin to choose their candidate. But what effect would such a ban actually have? | Following New York mayor Bill de Blasio’s declaring war on housing developments with one entrance for its wealthier residents and another for its poorer ones, there was outrage at the discovery that so-called “poor doors” are built in London too. Now, Tooting MP Sadiq Khan, considered a front runner in the race to become Labour’s 2016 London mayoral candidate, has pledged to ban them if he becomes the next boss of City Hall. It’s easy to see that such a measure would be popular among the Labour members and supporters who will soon begin to choose their candidate. But what effect would such a ban actually have? |
| Unlike a number of items on the London left’s housing wish list, this is a change that a London mayor can bring about on his or her own. The next holder of the office will be able to argue the case for statutory rent caps, a land value tax, more resources for building social housing and so on, but would struggle to actually implement such measures unless a national government devolved the powers and resources to do so or introduced such policies nationally. Given that the Conservatives who currently run the country do not, to put it mildly, appear that way inclined, we may be waiting for some time. | Unlike a number of items on the London left’s housing wish list, this is a change that a London mayor can bring about on his or her own. The next holder of the office will be able to argue the case for statutory rent caps, a land value tax, more resources for building social housing and so on, but would struggle to actually implement such measures unless a national government devolved the powers and resources to do so or introduced such policies nationally. Given that the Conservatives who currently run the country do not, to put it mildly, appear that way inclined, we may be waiting for some time. |
| However, a London mayor can put a block on “poor doors” by using existing controls over planning decisions being pondered by London’s boroughs. So if, for example, Wandsworth or Southwark (or any other you care to name) is looking kindly on a developer’s plan for a mixed-tenure residential tower which would contain some percentage of “affordable” flats served by a communal entrance separate from the one that serves the more expensive flats in the same tower, the mayor could block the plan until this was changed or even take over the entire process. In practice, the very knowledge that a mayor can intervene in such ways would discourage both boroughs and developers from entertaining such arrangements in the first place. | However, a London mayor can put a block on “poor doors” by using existing controls over planning decisions being pondered by London’s boroughs. So if, for example, Wandsworth or Southwark (or any other you care to name) is looking kindly on a developer’s plan for a mixed-tenure residential tower which would contain some percentage of “affordable” flats served by a communal entrance separate from the one that serves the more expensive flats in the same tower, the mayor could block the plan until this was changed or even take over the entire process. In practice, the very knowledge that a mayor can intervene in such ways would discourage both boroughs and developers from entertaining such arrangements in the first place. |
| That sounds desirable - a idea of different social classes physically separated within the same building right down to the way they enter it goes right against the grain. But it could have problematic effects too. The Ham & High has been quickly on the case, quoting from the housing policy of Labour-run Camden: | |
| The Council does not generally seek to mix affordable and market dwellings on the same corridors or sharing the same stairs, lifts and entrance lobbies. This is because occupiers have to pay a service charge and/or management charge for the cleaning and maintenance of communal spaces. Service charges are often a significant proportion of overall housing costs, particularly in market housing blocks, and can simply be too high for the occupiers of affordable housing to pay. | The Council does not generally seek to mix affordable and market dwellings on the same corridors or sharing the same stairs, lifts and entrance lobbies. This is because occupiers have to pay a service charge and/or management charge for the cleaning and maintenance of communal spaces. Service charges are often a significant proportion of overall housing costs, particularly in market housing blocks, and can simply be too high for the occupiers of affordable housing to pay. |
| In other words, doing away with “poor doors” can make “affordable” homes less affordable than they would otherwise be. And Camden’s cabinet member for planning, Phil Jones, told the Ham & High it would also mean less below market-priced homes altogether: | In other words, doing away with “poor doors” can make “affordable” homes less affordable than they would otherwise be. And Camden’s cabinet member for planning, Phil Jones, told the Ham & High it would also mean less below market-priced homes altogether: |
| We do not demand mixing door by door as the higher costs and difficult management arrangements would just result in far fewer genuinely affordable homes being built. | We do not demand mixing door by door as the higher costs and difficult management arrangements would just result in far fewer genuinely affordable homes being built. |
| Camden, remember, has a good record on affordable housing. In 2011, it built the first new council homes in Britain since the 1990s and its leader Sarah Hayward has claimed that in 2013/14 one in 20 council homes delivered nationwide was built in her borough. | Camden, remember, has a good record on affordable housing. In 2011, it built the first new council homes in Britain since the 1990s and its leader Sarah Hayward has claimed that in 2013/14 one in 20 council homes delivered nationwide was built in her borough. |
| The practicalities and possible perverse effects of a poor doors ban have also been explored by the specialist journal Planning Resource, which quotes Westminster Council’s planning director John Walker. He makes the same point about service charges as Phil Jones and adds that it is illegal to increase the service charges in the market-priced parts of a mixed tenure building in order to subsidise those of “affordable” housing residents (were that not so, it might become possible for residents of the “affordable” homes to afford the same entrances as their better off neighbours). Neither does housing benefit cover service charges. Unless and until those rules are changed - and a lot more besides - that’s the way it is. | |
| So here’s one of those unpalatable but unavoidable dilemmas faced by boroughs committed to getting homes built for residents on low and middling London incomes (including teachers, nurses and other public sector workers) and which must rely heavily on doing deals with private developers to do so. | So here’s one of those unpalatable but unavoidable dilemmas faced by boroughs committed to getting homes built for residents on low and middling London incomes (including teachers, nurses and other public sector workers) and which must rely heavily on doing deals with private developers to do so. |
| Some developers, of course, would far sooner have no “affordable” homes on their sites at all - it makes marketing their properties easier if they can boast about this to potential buyers. Not very nice. Moreover, it is argued - including by me - that developers use dodgy viability assessments to get away with providing fewer “affordable” homes than they can, in fact, afford, and that boroughs sometimes don’t drive hard enough bargains. | Some developers, of course, would far sooner have no “affordable” homes on their sites at all - it makes marketing their properties easier if they can boast about this to potential buyers. Not very nice. Moreover, it is argued - including by me - that developers use dodgy viability assessments to get away with providing fewer “affordable” homes than they can, in fact, afford, and that boroughs sometimes don’t drive hard enough bargains. |
| Fine. But that doesn’t make the dilemma over “poor doors” go away. Put simply, if politicians refuse to accept them because they segregate the poor (and other lower end income groups) from the rich within individual buildings, the experience of London boroughs shows that this can risk fewer homes for the least well off being supplied, and those that are supplied being more expensive than they might otherwise have been. It’s not an easy situation, but it’s not going to go away and London’s next mayor will have to deal with it. Sadiq Khan has sent a statement outlining what his approach would be: | Fine. But that doesn’t make the dilemma over “poor doors” go away. Put simply, if politicians refuse to accept them because they segregate the poor (and other lower end income groups) from the rich within individual buildings, the experience of London boroughs shows that this can risk fewer homes for the least well off being supplied, and those that are supplied being more expensive than they might otherwise have been. It’s not an easy situation, but it’s not going to go away and London’s next mayor will have to deal with it. Sadiq Khan has sent a statement outlining what his approach would be: |
| Being a leader means not ducking the biggest challenges. We can increase the provision of genuinely affordable housing without resorting to the use of poor doors and there are plenty of housing experts who agree. I want the social homes that are built while I am mayor to be part of mixed and integrated communities, not stigmatised and segregated by poor doors. I’ll work with boroughs, planners and developers to ensure that becomes a reality. That’s the difference I will make as mayor. | Being a leader means not ducking the biggest challenges. We can increase the provision of genuinely affordable housing without resorting to the use of poor doors and there are plenty of housing experts who agree. I want the social homes that are built while I am mayor to be part of mixed and integrated communities, not stigmatised and segregated by poor doors. I’ll work with boroughs, planners and developers to ensure that becomes a reality. That’s the difference I will make as mayor. |
| Lots more knotty London housing issues will be ventilated in this column soon. | Lots more knotty London housing issues will be ventilated in this column soon. |
| Update, 12:20: I’m hoping to get some more detail from Sadiq Khan on how he would deal with the “poor doors” issue in the next couple of days and will update this article accordingly. |