Social housing stock is underoccupied
Research has found around 27,000 homes are underoccupied in the east of England.
The National Housing Federation, Chartered Institute of Housing and former East of England Regional Assembly commissioned research to establish the level of underoccupation in social housing stock in the region and to examine what can be done to encourage people living in homes too big for their needs to move.
The study, which was carried out by the University of Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research, found 7 per cent of all social housing stock in the area is underoccupied by two spare rooms or more, with the largest number of households with two or more spare rooms having a main tenant aged 75 or above.
The research found what motivated people to downsize was not cash incentives but finding the right property and receiving practical support during the move.
The region has a waiting list of more than 147,000 for social housing and fewer than 6,000 new social homes are being built per year.
Sue Coulson, head of central region for the NHF, said: ‘Housing associations cannot afford to ignore the issue of underoccupation. By tackling underoccupation, you are not only freeing up homes for those in desperate need of housing but also considering the needs of older residents who deserve to live in accommodation which most suits their needs and aspirations.’
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (8)
Steven Grant | 20/07/2010 9:37 am
Any link to the document?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 20/07/2010 10:20 am
147,000 wating
6,000 planned to be built
Just the reason the problem exists really, isn't it.
Moving granny to a bedsit will help, but it's a drop in the ocean compared to the investment that is needed to replace all the sold of social homes and overcome the self-created crisis.
P>S note that moving granny normally kills granny - or is that the idea!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20/07/2010 11:35 am
There is no way that sufficient investment is going to be forthcoming to provide 147,000 homes in the south east in the foreseeable future. It's easy to spot the problem, the difficult part is finding a solution.
The only realistic choice is to manage the stock effectively and move people out of underoccupied homes.
Instead of focusing on the plight of the underoccupier why not focus on the family who can move out of expensive TA and into a home that meets their needs. Nobody is setting out to kill your Granny PSR!!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Harry Lime | 20/07/2010 12:19 pm
I've said it before, it is far, far cheaper to build one and two bedroom flatted schemes in convenient "nice" locations and reserve them for over 55's that are willing to free up family RSL accommodation. Granted it's not forcing them to move out, but you will get plenty of takers, possibly even throw in the stat home loss payment. Will still work out massively more efficient than buillding the equivalent number of family houses. Also it would have the added bonus these family homes would be distributed in established areas and communities rather than potentially build (for example) 30 RSL family properties in close proximity which can cause problems.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Only One | 20/07/2010 1:52 pm
Curse those over 55s. They're the route of all problems, if only we kicked them out of their family homes we could free up 147,000 properties and the problem has gone. And let's face it, there isn't enough flat development going on!
Sue Coulson is a tad patronising by suggesting providers should be "considering the needs of older residents who deserve to live in accommodation which most suits their needs and aspirations" I'd have thought that the best placed people to consider this was the older tenants themselves who will usually be offered a sub-standard flat in a not fit for purpose sheltered accommodation unit where the on-site support has been withdraw due to SP cuts!!! Joined up thinking Sue, it's about joined up thinking!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 20/07/2010 2:31 pm
Simple really.
Just change HA tenancy agreements to state that when all the children in a household have vacated they must relocate to a smaller property which would be allocated by that HA.
I'll email Cameron that one.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Michael Read | 20/07/2010 4:35 pm
It's the CIH again, oh yes, with the NBF in tow.
Same story as the last one and as the one before that.
Research methodology?
"We sniffed the wind and thought it was a good idea to say exactly what we said last week and thw week before that.
"Saves the hard work of ever having an original thought and ever having to actually research anything. Clever or what"
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20/07/2010 7:24 pm
Are we reading too much into this? Who the hell wants to live in East of England!! Far too risky - Norfolk and chance!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment