Decent, or not decent?
Kate Davies CBE FRICS
Consultancy to help the property, technology, investor and maintenance sector understand social housing better.
I have been waiting for the new Decent Homes standard to arrive, and I have now had time to read it. And of course to submit a view during the consultation period (you have until 10 September).
It is surely positive that the social sector is no longer singled out as being in need of regulation, and that residents in the private rented sector are now covered too. The government estimates the average cost of the work will be around £10,000 per home.
However the changes are otherwise rather disappointing. Very similar to the existing DHS category 1 health and safety standards have to fixed, homes have to be in "good repair", must include a kitchen, bathroom and toilet (!), and meet EPC C by 2030.
What is new is that window restricters, and other safety features for windows and doors are obligatory, floor covering too, with a mandate to fix damp and mould (as per Awaab's law). This goes slightly beyond the existing DHS, mainly in response to campaigns around safety and the indignity, noise and danger of moving into a home with naked floor boards. As noted by many commentators while landlords need to start to address these issues they have at least ten years to sort it out.
Here is my comment.
Many homes classified as "decent" now and then will not be what you or I consider acceptable. It is a minimum standard and it is fundamentally dishonest in that the landlord decides what is legal, rather than what a tenant may consider acceptable.
We need to move from legally "decent" to an acceptable, lettable standard. This is not an abstract concept. It is to determine that a home is a home - a place you or I, or the applicant, is happy to live in. A home that meets the resident's needs, is in the right place, with the right facilities and adaptations (where required), that is warm in winter and cool in summer. A place they can happily bring up their family in, entertain friends, and feel justly proud of. This goes far beyond not being dangerous or hazardous.
Practically I would propose using the next ten years to work with residents for them to grade their home from say 1 to 10 with low evaluations being tackled first. These works will be the most expensive, and undoubtedly some will not be worth investing in. But the worst homes will be improved, sold or replaced and gradually, over the next ten years the social housing stock will improve from say an average of 5 to an average of 7 or 8. Which would be something we could celebrate.
Group Chief Executive Officer at Elim Housing Association, Charity Trustee and award winning author.
1moThe problem we have is that the public sector (and through the rtb the private sector) is owning a large number of homes which are beyond their practical life. Like my body the cost and efficacy of keeping it going is getting harder and harder. We need to bite the bullet and admit that the mass of concrete homes built after the war and tower blocks built in the 1960s do not all have a viable future. Dumping them on owner occupiers is not the answer, many need to be demolished and new communities built. When we looked at this in Bristol in 2020 you were talking about a cost of £2bn to regenerate the poorest quality estates, I guess this is even more now with accelerating costs but at some point we have to admit some properties are beyond rescue. A tower block built in 1960 is now 65 years old, I wonder if anyone thought they would last that long?
Director of Assets | Building Surveying Expertise, Compliance, Retrofit, Disrepair and Disposals.
2moDepends on what lense you look through. Taking a national view of housing & DH2 this should be about improving quality of housing, reducing emissions, reducing demand on NHS. It should not be about passing the poorest housing from those most capable of improving it to those least capable. RPs should be encouraged to improve poor homes to a standard and then dispose of and this could be a mix of private rented, first time buyers, homeowners with a ratchet of subsidy. More subsidy for FTB, less for private landlords. We need to fix all housing, not just bits of it. We need to 1. Improve quality of housing 2. Improve health 3. Reduce emissions If we do not do 3 then good quality housing is turned into poor and people’s health is impacted. Retrofitting is about health as much as emissions. It’s the one thing.
Asset Co-ordinator
2moLove this take, Kate
NED | Board Member | Trustee | Public Speaker | Commentator | Housing | Third Sector | Social Purpose Past President, Chartered Institute of Housing
2moWe still let homes as if society, and the economy, is the same as it was forty years ago. The link between wages and housing costs is unrecognisable from then, as is the role that the social security/welfare system plays or doesn’t play. The world has changed and we haven’t adapted.
NED, trustee, co-optee. What I’ve done is past, what I’m going to do is the interesting bit.
2moI wonder how much retrofit for net zero will cost on top of this - £20,000 minimum extra ? Without massive grants it's not going to happen.