Next stop for the Olympic flame will be London in 2012 and, while the capital’s organising committee will be poring over logistical details, there are also some interesting pointers for the housing world.

Ever since it was awarded the games in 2003, Vancouver has focused on tackling rough sleeping and homelessness in the city. It has courted controversy along the way - including over the use of a new provincial government law which empowers police to force rough sleepers into shelters in extreme weather - but the number of rough sleepers has fallen from highs of 1,200 five years ago.

Similarly, London has taken the view that the Olympics should be used to help tackle rough sleeping ahead of its games in July 2012. The city’s mayor Boris Johnson has gone a step further than his Canadian counterparts, pledging: ‘In 21st century London I am determined that rough sleeping should be a thing of the past, which is why I have committed to ending it.’ The bold aim - in keeping with the wider government target to end rough sleeping in England by an as yet undefined time - is laudable. So far progress towards meeting it has been too.

In its annual report this week the London Delivery Board, set up by Mr Johnson 12 months ago to fulfil his 2012 pledge, lays out an impressive set of achievements. Its work to help rough sleepers that have been sleeping on all-night bus services is a particularly eye-catching example.

However, the news that the mayor is seeking to redefine his 2012 pledge is disappointing. It immediately raises questions over the validity of any future claim to have delivered on the promise. The acknowledgement that rough sleeping cannot ever be entirely eradicated in London is sound, but had Mr Johnson made this clear from the outset, the sincerity of the aim would never have been doubted.

Homelessness sources, though, remain confident that a challenging target can still be set and, more importantly, delivered. A target which says ‘someone sleeping rough for a night is unavoidable, but a second night is unacceptable’ would be tough but realistic. Mr Johnson must be bold and not fudge the issue any further.

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment