Allocation rules to favour local people
Councils are to be allowed to favour social housing applicants with a strong local connection, in a shake up of allocation policy.
The government will unveil ‘localism laws’ this autumn which will allow local authorities to introduce new allocation criteria for social housing.
Housing minister Grant Shapps said: ‘We plan to provide more flexibility to local authorities to judge the proper criteria for the waiting list.
‘Apart from a limited number of prescribed cases – homelessness, for example – there should be the flexibility to write your own housing allocation criteria.’
Councils will still have a legal obligation to house those in priority need.
Shadow housing minister John Healey said the plans were ‘pure spin’.
He added: ‘Grant Shapps described the freedoms I gave councils last year, so they can already choose to give greater priority to people with local family links and those who have waited longest or who need to move to get work.’
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (47)
Anonymous | 31/08/2010 9:32 am
So, another non-policy from the Con-dems? The fact that it has been rehashed from the previous government and that priority has to be given to those in need when the shortage of social housing is as acute as it is renders it pretty much meaningless. Spin City indeed!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 31/08/2010 10:16 am
'Shadow housing minister John Healey said the plans were ‘pure spin’.'
To be fair Healey should know all about spin.
Labour are now coming across like grumpy school kids. 'I thought of that first...'
They need to go away and concentrate on picking a Milliband, Lefty Ed or the other one with the bad haircut.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Harry Lime | 31/08/2010 10:19 am
Policy Exchange are undoubtedly the precursors of eventual coalition (tory) policy. One of the "nice" outcomes for this would be that the biggest surpluses to be achieved will be in high value areas where developers are likely to build executive style housing. This policy would probably enable developers to bypass affordable housing and give the residents a good few years of council tax bills being covered - cheers, G&T's all round. Whereas in lower value areas the schemes will barely "wash their face" and as such surpluses would be neglible so the "bribe factor will not be as high, so locals may well vote against such schemes - bad times......
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 31/08/2010 10:23 am
Independently of what approach a council has to take to the allocation policy - how is an applicant going to check that it is followed?
How it is possible to challenge councils whether they are following a policy or not?
You can tell me you can complain to the Ombudsman, but you can't because there is just no way for an applicant or any citizen to check anything - so how can the applicant get proof for a complaint?
There is no accountability and council corruption and infficiency will go on spreading unchecked, only to surface in some execeptional case, and hiding the all-pervading rot below.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 31/08/2010 10:25 am
This will be interesting if and when applied as the Migration Watch Tendency will discover just how many of thier immigrants are in fact local people with local needs. Perhaps it will lift the colour bar from these collective sados, but I will not be holding my breath.
On a more pertinent point, doesn't this direction in policy contradict the national mobility policy Shapps was talking about but doing little to action last month. It appears that thinking in the Department of Housing these days is not only a two-way street but a road crash in slow motion.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Outside Housing | 31/08/2010 10:32 am
There is a (Labour) Council who are at this moment finalising details of their new Allocations Policy which will see people prioritised in terms of their status including in the community. The Council have stated that prioirty will be given to those working (we know this has been mentioned before by the government) but also dependant on what they actually do for the community e.g. school governors even scout leaders have been mentioned!
Anyone working in housing will know this will be far too subjective for Allocations departments and an admin nightmare to even attempt to commence.
When Councils start to go down this road and clients are judged on their percieved worth it won't be long before there are cries for allocations to be again done on simple criteria by computers.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 31/08/2010 11:04 am
"Anyone working in housing will know this will be far too subjective for Allocations departments and an admin nightmare to even attempt to commence."
Yes - and anyone working in housing will know the system will be clogged with appeals and legal actions at huge cost to the taxpayer... and less allocations will take place because of it..... and housing officers will be blamed more by tenants for it..... and more nepotistic allocations will happen too.
And why a few backhanders too? Psst, you want a council house in London saving £1000 a month on a private rent... that will be £10k to you Sir, where would you like it?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 31/08/2010 11:08 am
The policy is quite similar to that contained in the BNP manifesto on local conection someone copying ideas then CONDEM!!! THIS IS A major concern what has MR CLEGG got to say then.....people should look at what has been writen......
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Junior | 31/08/2010 11:41 am
While I was in Essex this was part of Housing Allocation Policy already you couldn't just walk in from another Borough without a local connection and the connection was checked out. This also applied to th Homeless. So it nothing new to Essex Borough Council's
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 31/08/2010 11:45 am
An idea should not be rejected just because it is similar to that put forward by a morally repugnant group of people. It is not the source but the idea that is important. I look forward to a mature government that avoids being partisan as I believe that partisan politics has caused considerable harm over the years in much the same way as the one-party state policy over the economy has failed to address social disadvantage.
In the case of this policy however it is flawed as it fails to enable the geographical flexibility that employers now require, fails to allow the choice of home location that people request, and fails to ensure that housing goes to those with greatest need (which as such a limited resource is essential).
On a three strikes and your out basis this policy then falls. The fact that it is at odds with other stated coalition ideas does not help either. Perhaps the Minister for Nimbys needs to rethink!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment