westminster housing needs assessment final...

CITY OF WESTMINSTER

2006 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

July 2007

Fordham Research Ltd, 57-59 Goldney Road, London, W9 2AR

T. 020 7289 3988 F. 020 7289 3309 E. [email protected] www.fordhamresearch.com

Table o f Contents

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................1

SECTION A: CONTEXT OF THE STUDY .................................................................................15

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................17 1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 17 1.2 City of Westminster............................................................................................................................................ 17 1.3 Population projections ........................................................................................................................................ 18 1.4 Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix data ....................................................................................................... 20 1.5 Property prices and income levels ...................................................................................................................... 21 1.6 Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 21

2. Housing Needs Assessment - background..................................................................................23 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 23 2.2 Key points from the housing needs assessment guide........................................................................................ 23 2.3 Key points from Balancing Housing Markets .................................................................................................... 26 2.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 27

SECTION B: SURVEY AND INITIAL DATA.............................................................................29

3. Data collection ..............................................................................................................................31 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 31 3.2 Base household figures and weighting procedures............................................................................................. 31 3.3 Base figures ........................................................................................................................................................ 32 3.4 Sub-areas ............................................................................................................................................................ 33 3.5 Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 33

4. Current Housing in the City of Westminster ............................................................................35 4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 35 4.2 Type of housing.................................................................................................................................................. 35 4.3 Household type................................................................................................................................................... 36 4.4 Car ownership..................................................................................................................................................... 37 4.5 Commuting patterns ........................................................................................................................................... 38 4.6 Transience of households in Westminster .......................................................................................................... 41 4.7 Past moves.......................................................................................................................................................... 42 4.8 Future moves – existing households................................................................................................................... 46 4.9 Future moves – potential households ................................................................................................................. 50 4.10 Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... 52

5. The local housing market ............................................................................................................53 5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 53 5.2 National, regional and local picture.................................................................................................................... 53 5.3 Prices in adjoining areas..................................................................................................................................... 55 5.4 Estate Agents’ information................................................................................................................................. 55 5.5 Appropriate price level for the affordability test ................................................................................................ 57

We s t m i ns t e r – H o us in g N e eds A s s es s m en t 2 006

i i

5.6 Summary .............................................................................................................................................................58 6. Financial information and affordability .................................................................................... 59

6.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................59 6.2 Household income...............................................................................................................................................59 6.3 Household Savings and Equity ...........................................................................................................................60 6.4 Household characteristics and income ................................................................................................................61 6.5 Assessing affordability – existing households ....................................................................................................62 6.6 Assessing affordability – potential households ...................................................................................................65 6.7 Summary .............................................................................................................................................................66

SECTION C: THE GUIDE MODEL............................................................................................. 67

7. Backlog of existing need .............................................................................................................. 69 7.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................69 7.2 Unsuitable housing..............................................................................................................................................69 7.3 Migration and ‘in-situ’ solutions.........................................................................................................................73 7.4 Affordability........................................................................................................................................................73 7.5 Housing need and the need for affordable housing .............................................................................................74 7.6 Homeless households (backlog households) .......................................................................................................74 7.7 Total backlog need ..............................................................................................................................................76 7.8 Summary .............................................................................................................................................................77

8. Newly arising need ....................................................................................................................... 79 8.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................79 8.2 New household formation ...................................................................................................................................79 8.3 Ex-institutional population moving into the community.....................................................................................80 8.4 Existing households falling into need .................................................................................................................81 8.5 In-migrant households unable to afford market housing.....................................................................................82 8.6 Summary .............................................................................................................................................................83

9. Supply of affordable housing ...................................................................................................... 85 9.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................85 9.2 The Social Rented stock......................................................................................................................................85 9.3 The supply of affordable housing........................................................................................................................86 9.4 New dwellings.....................................................................................................................................................87 9.5 Shared ownership supply ....................................................................................................................................88 9.6 Vacant dwellings.................................................................................................................................................88 9.7 Changes in the supply of affordable housing ......................................................................................................88 9.8 Summary .............................................................................................................................................................89

10. Basic needs assessment model................................................................................................... 91 10.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................91 10.2 Total housing need ............................................................................................................................................91 10.3 The City of Westminster situation in context....................................................................................................93 10.4 Size requirements and sub-areas .......................................................................................................................93 10.5 Implications for affordable housing policy .......................................................................................................95 10.6 Intermediate housing .........................................................................................................................................96 10.7 A longer term view of the housing requirement..............................................................................................100

Table o f Contents

i i i

10.8 Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 101 SECTION D: BROADER HOUSING MARKET & FUTURE CHANGES ............................103

11. Market housing.........................................................................................................................105 11.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 105 11.2 Owner-occupied sector................................................................................................................................... 105 11.3 The private rented sector ................................................................................................................................ 106 11.4 The social rented sector .................................................................................................................................. 108 11.5 Data comparisons ........................................................................................................................................... 109 11.6 Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 110

12. Balancing housing markets .....................................................................................................111 12.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 111 12.2 Procedure in outline........................................................................................................................................ 112 12.3 Why gross flows cannot predict tenure .......................................................................................................... 113 12.4 Adapted Gross Flows (AGF).......................................................................................................................... 113 12.5 Summary of data ............................................................................................................................................ 114 12.6 Implications of analysis .................................................................................................................................. 115 12.7 Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 115

SECTION E: THE NEEDS OF PARTICULAR GROUPS .......................................................117

13. Households with support needs...............................................................................................119 13.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 119 13.2 Data coverage ................................................................................................................................................. 119 13.3 Households with support needs: overview ..................................................................................................... 119 13.4 Characteristics of support needs households .................................................................................................. 121 13.5 Requirements of support needs households.................................................................................................... 123 13.6 Accommodation preferences .......................................................................................................................... 124 13.7 Care & repair and staying put schemes .......................................................................................................... 126 13.8 Support needs households and the basic needs assessment model ................................................................. 126 13.9 Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 127

14. Older person households .........................................................................................................129 14.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 129 14.2 The older person population ........................................................................................................................... 129 14.3 Characteristics of older person households .................................................................................................... 129 14.4 Dwelling characteristics ................................................................................................................................. 131 14.5 Accommodation preferences .......................................................................................................................... 132 14.6 Older person households and the basic needs assessment model ................................................................... 133 14.7 Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 134

15. Key worker households............................................................................................................135 15.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 135 15.2 Number of key workers .................................................................................................................................. 135 15.3 Housing characteristics of key worker households......................................................................................... 136 15.4 Previous household moves of key worker households ................................................................................... 137 15.5 Housing aspirations of key worker households .............................................................................................. 139


i v

15.6 Income and affordability of key worker households .......................................................................................140 15.7 Key workers and the basic needs assessment model .......................................................................................142 15.8 Summary .........................................................................................................................................................143

16. Black and Minority Ethnic households.................................................................................. 145 16.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................145 16.2 Household size ................................................................................................................................................145 16.3 Tenure .............................................................................................................................................................146 16.4 Household type and support needs..................................................................................................................148 16.5 Geographical location .....................................................................................................................................149 16.6 Income and savings levels...............................................................................................................................151 16.7 Unsuitable housing..........................................................................................................................................151 16.8 BME households and the basic needs assessment model................................................................................153 16.9 Country of birth...............................................................................................................................................153 16.10 Summary .......................................................................................................................................................154

17. Overcrowding and under-occupation .................................................................................... 155 17.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................155 17.2 Overcrowding and under-occupation ..............................................................................................................155 17.3 Household characteristics................................................................................................................................156 17.4 Income levels ..................................................................................................................................................158 17.5 Moving intentions of under-occupying households ........................................................................................159 17.6 Summary .........................................................................................................................................................159

GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................... 161

Appendix A1 Further property price information ..................................................................... 165 A1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................165 A1.2 Reasons for housing market study..................................................................................................................165 A1.3 Background to housing market analysis .........................................................................................................166 A1.4 Government guidance on the study of housing markets.................................................................................166 A1.5 The need for primary data ..............................................................................................................................167 A1.6 Estate agents survey: Methodology................................................................................................................168 A1.7 Land Registry data .........................................................................................................................................169 A1.8 Comparing prices in neighbouring areas ........................................................................................................169 A1.9 Historical results for Westminster ..................................................................................................................170 A1.10 Differences within Westminster...................................................................................................................171 A1.11 List of Estate Agents ....................................................................................................................................173

Appendix A2 Supporting information ......................................................................................... 175 A2.1 Non-response and missing data ......................................................................................................................175 A2.2 Weighting data ...............................................................................................................................................176

Appendix A3 Balancing housing market analysis ...................................................................... 179 A3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................179 A3.2 Analysis of City of Westminster data.............................................................................................................179

Appendix A4 Health and housing................................................................................................. 183 A4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................183

Table o f Contents

v

A4.2 Tenure............................................................................................................................................................ 183 A4.3 Dwelling characteristics ................................................................................................................................ 183 A4.4 Geographical location.................................................................................................................................... 184 A4.5 Household composition ................................................................................................................................. 185 A4.6 Support needs and ethnicity........................................................................................................................... 186 A4.7 Overcrowding/under-occupation ................................................................................................................... 187 A4.8 Summary........................................................................................................................................................ 187

Appendix A5 Attitudes to the local area ......................................................................................189 A5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 189 A5.2 Overall satisfaction ........................................................................................................................................ 189 A5.3 Geographical variations................................................................................................................................. 189

Appendix A6 Comparisons between Westminster, Haringey and Barnet................................197 A6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 197 A6.2 Household composition ................................................................................................................................. 197 A6.3 Financial information .................................................................................................................................... 198 A6.4 Housing stock comparisons ........................................................................................................................... 198 A6.5 House prices .................................................................................................................................................. 199 A6.6 Threshold costs for market housing............................................................................................................... 201 A6.7 Housing market activity................................................................................................................................. 202 A6.8 Results of the Basic Needs Assessment Model ............................................................................................. 202 A6.9 A comparison of imbalances in the whole housing market ........................................................................... 203 A6.10 Summary...................................................................................................................................................... 204

Appendix A7 Households with children.......................................................................................205 A7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 205 A7.2 Tenure............................................................................................................................................................ 205 A7.3 Dwelling characteristics ................................................................................................................................ 205 A7.4 Geographical location.................................................................................................................................... 206 A7.5 Household composition ................................................................................................................................. 206 A7.6 Ethnicity ........................................................................................................................................................ 207 A7.7 Overcrowding/under-occupation ................................................................................................................... 208 A7.8 Summary........................................................................................................................................................ 208

Appendix A8 Second Homes in Westminster ..............................................................................211 A8.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 211 A8.2 Household characteristics .............................................................................................................................. 211 A8.3 Summary........................................................................................................................................................ 213

Appendix A9 The social rented sector..........................................................................................215 A9.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 215 A9.2 Dwelling characteristics ................................................................................................................................ 215 A9.3 Household composition ................................................................................................................................. 215 A9.4 Ethnicity ........................................................................................................................................................ 216 A9.5 Overcrowding/under-occupation ................................................................................................................... 216 A9.6 Financial information .................................................................................................................................... 217 A9.7 Social rented households and affordability.................................................................................................... 217


v i

A9.8 Summary ........................................................................................................................................................218 Appendix A10 Survey Questionnaire........................................................................................... 219

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY

PAGE 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Context of the Study Fordham Research were commissioned to carry out a Housing Needs Assessment for The City of Westminster. The study was designed to assess the future requirements for both affordable and market housing. To do this the study drew on a number of sources of information. These included:

• Primary data collected using personal interviews • Interviews with local estate and letting agents • Review of secondary data (including Land Registry, Census and HSSA data).

The City of Westminster – study area

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006


PAGE 2

Survey and initial data The study consisted of 1,261 personal interviews covering a wide range of issues. It included questions about:

• Current housing circumstances • Past moves • Future housing intentions • The requirements of newly forming households • Income levels

Information from the questionnaire survey was used throughout the report (along with secondary information) to make estimates about the future housing requirements in the City. The data shows that just under half of households were owner-occupiers with around 22% in the social rented sector and around 34.3% in the private rented sector.

Number of households in each tenure group

Tenure Total number of households

% of households

Owner-occupied (no mortgage) 21,668 19.3% Owner-occupied (with mortgage) 27,451 24.4% Council 12,197 10.9% RSL 12,477 11.1% Private rented 38,602 34.3% TOTAL 112,395 100.0%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The survey reported on a number of general characteristics of households in the City of Westminster. The study estimated that almost 90% of households lived in flats and that only 16.2% of all households contained children. The study also looked at car ownership (which is often used as an indication of wealth, however in a metropolitan area such as Westminster where public transport is very good the importance of owning a car is diminished). The figure below shows car ownership in Westminster by tenure. It is clear that there are large differences between the different tenure groups, with owner-occupiers (with mortgage) having a significantly greater level of car ownership than households in the social rented sector.


PAGE 3

Car ownership and tenure

0.88

0.240.38 0.39

0.67

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Owner-occupied (no

mortgage)

Owner-occupied

(withmortgage)

Council RSL Privaterented

Aver

age n

umbe

r of c

ars/v

ans a

vaila

ble fo

r us

e


The study also looked at past trends in household movement and future expectations. The broad findings were:

• An estimated 22.5% of households have lived in their current home for less than two years; with 41.0% of moves occurring within the City.

• In terms of future household moves, the survey estimates that 27,437 existing and 6,086 potential households need or expect to move within the next two years. In both cases a higher proportion would like to move to owner-occupation than expect to do so.

One of the main sources of secondary information used was the Land Registry. This data source suggested that property prices in the City of Westminster are above the national average and also higher than the regional average. Information from the Land Registry shows that between the 4th Quarter of 2000 and the 4th quarter of 2005 average property prices in England and Wales rose by 79.7%. For London the increase was 47.7% whilst for the City of Westminster the figure was 45.2%.


PAGE 4

Land Registry price changes 2000–2005 (4th quarters)

£0

£100,000

£200,000

£300,000

£400,000

£500,000

£600,000

£700,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005Year

Aver

age p

rice

England & WalesLondonWestminster

Source: HM Land Registry, property price data, 2006

A survey of local estate and letting agents identified estimates of the minimum costs of housing to both buy and rent in the City of Westminster. It revealed that property prices in the North West area of the City (W9 and W10) were notably lower than elsewhere. Overall, the survey suggested that prices started at around £198,000 for a one bedroom flat with private rental costs starting from around £890 per month.

Minimum property prices/rent in

City of Westminster

Property size Minimum price Minimum rents

(per month) 1 bedroom £198,000 £890 2 bedrooms £275,000 £1,290 3 bedrooms £370,500 £1,785 4 bedrooms £482,500 £2,617

Source: Survey of Estate and Lettings Agents (2006) The information about minimum prices and rents was used along with financial information collected in the survey to make estimates of households’ ability to afford market housing (without the need for subsidy). The survey estimated average gross annual household income (including non-housing benefits) to be £45,587. There were, however, wide variations by tenure; with households living in social rented housing having particularly low income levels.


PAGE 5

Income and tenure

£23,528

£13,656

£72,974

£41,584

£45,578

£0 £10,000 £20,000 £30,000 £40,000 £50,000 £60,000 £70,000 £80,000

Private rented

RSL

Council

Owner-occupied (withmortgage)

Owner-occupied (nomortgage)

Annual gross household income (including non-housing benefits)

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The Guide model As part of the study, an estimate of the need for affordable housing was made based on the ‘Basic Needs Assessment Model’ (BNAM). The BNAM is the main method for calculating affordable housing requirements suggested in Government guidance ‘Local Housing Needs Assessment: A Guide to Good Practice’ (ODPM 2000). The BNAM sets out 18 stages of analysis to produce an estimate of the annual requirement for additional affordable housing. The model can be summarised as three main analytical stages with a fourth stage producing the final requirement figure. The stages are:

• Backlog of existing need • Newly arising need • Supply of affordable units • Overall affordable housing requirement


PAGE 6

Summary of Basic Needs Assessment Model

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 Overall, using the BNAM it was estimated that there is currently a shortfall of affordable housing in the City of 5,621 units per annum. The data suggested that there are shortfalls for all sizes of accommodation. The largest shortfall is for one and two bedroom units. In addition the survey showed that there is a requirement for additional affordable housing in all 5 of the sub-areas in the City; this is most apparent in the Central Strip where the largest shortfalls are experienced. Putting the results in context suggests that the affordable housing requirement in City of Westminster is significantly above averages found in other Fordham Research assessments both nationally and regionally. The figure below shows the affordable housing requirement standardised as an annual rate per thousand households.


PAGE 7

Typical levels of need for new affordable housing

899

12161617

2732

51

4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

East Midlands

North

West Midlands

Scotland & Wales

East

United Kingdom

South East

South West

Outer London

Inner London

Westminster

Affordable housing requiremement/000 households

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 Broader Housing Market & Future Changes In addition to concentrating on the need for affordable housing in isolation the study looked at housing requirements in the private sector market. The analysis began by looking at the differences between three broad housing sectors (owner-occupation, private rented and social rented). The survey data revealed large differences between the three main tenure groups in terms of stock profile (size of accommodation), turnover and receipt of housing benefit (or income support towards mortgage interest payments in the case of owner-occupiers). These figures are based on information collected in the survey, and on those households wishing to move in the next 2 years, therefore the figures will vary slightly from HSSA and CORE information.

Profile and turnover of stock and housing benefit claims by tenure

Tenure % of properties with

less than three bedrooms

Annual turnover of stock (% of households)

% claiming housing benefit (income

support for owners) Owner-occupied 41.4% 1.7% 0.9% Private rented 76.9% 35.1% 9.2% Social rented 72.8% 7.2% 43.9% ALL HOUSEHOLDS 60.4% 14.4% 11.2%



PAGE 8

Having studied the need for affordable housing using the Basic Needs Assessment Model, the study moved on to look at housing requirements across all tenures. A ‘Balancing Housing Markets’ (BHM) assessment looks at the whole local housing market, considering the extent to which supply and demand are ‘balanced’ across tenure and property size. This model is based on households’ aspirations and level of stock in the City. It is important also to note that this does not take into account households which may have an outside City solution. The inherent idea behind the BHM method is that it seeks to meet the requirements of the current population first with the amount of in-migration used to ‘balance’ figures to the estimated scale of new housing in the area. The table below shows the overall results of the BHM analysis.

Total shortfall or (surplus)

Size requirement Tenure

1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4+ bedrooms TOTAL

Owner-occupation (334) 179 487 73 405 Affordable housing 983 1,756 1,380 39 4,158 Private rented (1,981) (1,180) (625) (97) (3,882) TOTAL (1,332) 755 1,243 14 680

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 A number of conclusions can be drawn from this analysis:

i) In terms of the demand for affordable housing in the City it is clear that this is on-going. The BHM methodology suggests a significant shortfall of affordable housing of all sizes of accommodation, most notably two and three bedroom homes.

ii) Overall, the data shows a shortfall in the owner-occupied sector. Within this sector there

is a shortfall of all dwelling sizes with the exception of one bedroom properties which display a surplus. The main shortage is for three bedroom homes.

iii) The model indicates that there is a large surplus in the private rented sector. In this sector

all dwelling sizes show a surplus, since many households view this sector as an undesirable long term solution whilst the supply of private rented housing is likely to be large due to the temporary nature of the tenure.


PAGE 9

The Needs of Particular groups The study moved on from a consideration of future needs for additional housing to look at the needs of particular groups. The survey concentrated on the characteristics and requirements of households with support needs, older person households, key workers, Black and Minority Ethnic households and overcrowded households. Households with support needs There are groups that may, because of their condition or vulnerability, have requirements for specialised forms of housing provision, or else require support services in order to continue living an independent life in their existing home. Some 11.5% of all the City of Westminster’s households (12,971) contain support needs members. 'Physically disabled' is the largest category with support needs.

Support needs categories

Category Number of households

% of all households

% of support needs

households Frail elderly 5,042 4.5% 38.9% Physical disability 7,451 6.6% 57.4% Learning disability 59 0.1% 0.5% Mental health problem 2,782 2.5% 21.5% Severe sensory disability 256 0.2% 2.0% Other 570 0.5% 4.4%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 Support needs households, identified in the table above, are generally smaller than the average for the City of Westminster, and are disproportionately made up of older persons only. Support needs households are more likely than households overall to be in unsuitable housing. Support needs households in general stated a requirement for a wide range of adaptations and improvements to the home. A lift/stair lift and level access shower units were most commonly required.


PAGE 10

Older person households Older persons are defined as those of a pensionable age i.e. men aged 65 or older and women aged 60 or over. Some 17.7% of households in the City of Westminster contain older persons only, and a further 5.0% contain a mix of both older and non-older persons. Older person only households are solely comprised of one or two persons, providing implications for future caring patterns. Although the majority of older person only households live in the private sector, it is interesting to note that a relatively high proportion of social rented accommodation houses older people only (24.2%). Key worker households The term intermediate housing is often used with reference to specific groups of households such as key workers. The survey therefore analysed such households (the definition being based on categories of employment and notably including public sector workers). Analysis of survey data indicates that there are an estimated 12,109 people in key worker occupations.

Key worker categories

Category Number of persons % of key workers Health (NHS) 4,557 37.6% Education 3,727 30.8% Community, social services, prison and probation staff

2,827 23.3%

Emergency services 825 6.8% Transport 143 1.2% Local authority planners 31 0.3% TOTAL 12,109 100.0%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The survey also estimated that 6,972 households are headed by a key worker; these households were subject to additional analysis. The main findings from further analysis of this group of households can be summarised as follows:


PAGE 11

• Around 15% of key worker households had moved in the last five years, below that of non-key workers; they were more likely to have moved from social rented accommodation than non-key workers

• Key worker households are more likely to want to move within the City and are more likely to want to buy their own home

• Key worker households have slightly higher incomes than non-key worker households (in employment)

• Some 52.5% of key worker households can afford market housing in the City. Of those that cannot afford it, 88.1% can afford intermediate housing options

• In terms of the need for affordable housing the study suggests that around 0.8% of the net affordable housing requirement comes from key worker households

Black & Minority Ethnic households Information was gathered in the survey to find out the ethnic origin of the head of household (and partner if applicable) for each sample household in the survey. Due to the small sample size of some of the groups, some of the categories have been re-classified, resulting in nine different ethnic groups. The table below shows estimates of the number of households in each of the nine ethnic groups.

Number of households in each ethnic group

Ethnic group Total number of

households % of households

White - British 65,921 58.7% White - Irish 4,914 4.4% White - Other 17,195 15.3% Mixed 3,021 2.7% Asian or Asian British 7,213 6.4% Black or Black British - African 5,604 5.0% Black or Black British - Other 2,173 1.9% Arab 4,439 3.9% Any other ethnic group 1,914 1.7% All households 112,395 100.0%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The survey indicates that Mixed households have the highest average household size with an estimated 3.33 persons per household. In contrast White - British households have the lowest average household size at 1.74 persons per household. These figures compare with a City average of 1.96 persons per household.


PAGE 12

The survey showed considerable difference in both income and savings levels between the different groups. Overall an estimated 41.9% of the gross affordable housing requirement is for households headed by a White-Other person. Overcrowding and under-occupation Finally, the survey looked briefly at overcrowding and under-occupation, overcrowding having been shown as one of the most important reason for households to be living in unsuitable housing. The study suggested that 2.7% of all households are overcrowded and 20.9% under-occupy their dwelling. The owner-occupied (no mortgage) sector shows the highest levels of under-occupation; the Council rented sector the highest overcrowding.

Overcrowding and under-occupation

Number of bedrooms in home Number of bedrooms required 1 2 3 4+ TOTAL 1 bedroom 33,477 24,462 18,101 2,575 78,615 2 bedrooms 1,496 7,937 10,258 2,765 22,456 3 bedrooms 13 553 5,285 3,721 9,572 4+ bedrooms 11 36 515 1,191 1,753 TOTAL 34,997 32,988 34,159 10,252 112,395

KEY: Overcrowded households Under-occupied households

Note: The bottom two cells of the 4+ bedroom column contain some households that are either overcrowded or under-occupied – for example they may require three bedrooms but live in a five bedroom property or may require a five bedroom property but currently be occupying a four bedroom property.

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 Overcrowded households tend to have low incomes (per person) and are far more likely to state that they need or expect to move than other households. Conclusions The housing needs assessment in the City of Westminster provides a detailed analysis of housing requirement issues across the whole of the City. The study began by following the Basic Needs Assessment Model, which estimated a shortfall of 5,621 affordable dwellings per annum (for the next five years).


PAGE 13

The study continued by looking at requirements in the whole housing market using a ‘Balancing Housing Markets’ methodology. This again suggested a significant requirement for additional affordable housing to be provided along with a requirement for units with two or more bedrooms in the owner-occupied sector. In the light of the affordable housing requirement shown, it would be sensible to suggest that the Council will need to maximise the availability of affordable housing from all possible sources (including new build, acquisitions, conversions etc). Attention should also be paid to the cost (to occupants) of any additional housing to make sure that it can actually meet the needs identified in the survey.


PAGE 14

S E C T I ON A : C O N T E X T O F TH E S T U DY

PAGE 15

SECTION A: CONTEXT OF THE STUDY This report is the result of a Housing Needs Assessment undertaken by Fordham Research on behalf of City of Westminster. It provides an overview of the housing situation in the City of Westminster, calculating an estimate of affordable housing requirements and also looking at housing demand across all tenures and property sizes. Data collection and analysis for the assessment has been implemented in line with ODPM guidance, which was published in 2000 in an attempt to standardise Housing Needs Assessments. These assessments are a key piece of research for Local Authorities, informing the development of Affordable Housing Policies. The report is divided into five sections. The first sets the scene in the City of Westminster, pinpointing key issues within the City’s housing sector, which are then addressed within the following chapters. The second section provides a summary of data collection techniques and outlines the range of information collected, explaining its importance for assessing housing need. The third section works through the three stages of the model, as outlined by ODPM guidance, in order to assess whether there is a shortfall or surplus of affordable housing in the City of Westminster. The fourth section considers the degree to which the housing market in the City of Westminster is in balance and the fifth considers housing requirements of specific groups.


PAGE 16

1 . I n t ro du c t i on

PAGE 17

1. Introduction

1.1 Introduction This report contains a comprehensive assessment of housing need across all tenures in the City of Westminster area. Three main aims and objectives were set out in the Council’s brief for the project. These are summarised as:

• Analyse the housing market and assess levels of housing need across all tenures within the City of Westminster

• Inform the Council’s Local Development Framework • Guide future investment in the provision of social and intermediate housing.

1.2 City of Westminster

The City of Westminster is located in the heart of London and is bordered by the London boroughs of Kensington and Chelsea to the west, Brent to the north-west, Camden to the North, the City of London to the east, and Lambeth and Wandsworth to the south. The City of Westminster is a diverse and extremely high profile borough containing a large proportion of the country’s major public and private buildings including the Palace of Westminster and Buckingham Palace. It is also home to many cultural and historical attractions such as Madame Tussauds and the West End Theatres. Many of the city’s major retail centres are also located within Westminster, from Oxford Street to Covent Garden. It is also home to several large areas of open space such as St James’s Park, Green Park, Hyde Park and Regent’s Park. In terms of public transport, the City of Westminster is very well connected, and served by a majority of the Underground lines (Victoria, Jubilee, Central, Piccadilly, Bakerloo, Northern, Circle, District, Hammersmith & City, Metropolitan), as well as major National Rail stations of Paddington, Marylebone, Charing Cross and Victoria. According to the Indices of Deprivation, in 2004, the City of Westminster ranked 18th out of 33 London boroughs (1 being the most deprived).


PAGE 18

Figure 1.1 City of Westminster – study area


1.3 Population projections

One further topic of interest is to consider population projections. The Greater London Authority (GLA) has calculated projections for each individual Borough. Projections are taken from a 2001 base and have been projected to 2021. The table below shows population estimates for five year periods up to 2021. Also included is data for 2001 (the base date of the projections). Incremental changes are also shown for each five year period.


PAGE 19

Table 1.1 Population change in the City 2001-2021

Date Population Change % change 2001 203,329 2006 214,727 11,398 5.61% 2011 214,658 -69 -0.03% 2016 218,438 3,780 1.76% 2021 221,033 2,595 1.19% TOTAL 17,704 8.71%

Source: Greater London Authority The table indicates an increase in population over the period. Overall the population is projected to reach 221,033 by 2021, an increase of 8.71% over 20 years. It is also worth looking briefly at projected changes in age structure. The table below shows the above figures broken down into different age bands.

Table 1.2 Populations projections by age

Age band 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 Change (2001-2021)

% change

from 2001

0-19 34,446 36,524 38,243 39,676 40,125 5,679 16.5% 20-29 47,231 42,620 38,459 38,545 38,656 -8,575 -18.2% 30-44 56,468 69,485 70,901 70,240 69,354 12,886 22.8% 45-49 10,652 12,723 14,417 15,487 16,005 5,353 50.3% 50-54 11,926 10,631 11,793 13,182 13,896 1,970 16.5% 55-59 9,952 11,100 9,890 10,871 11,893 1,941 19.5% 60-64 8,034 8,361 8,816 8,148 8,852 818 10.2% 65-69 7,037 6,509 6,479 6,930 6,491 -546 -7.8% 70-74 6,226 5,614 5,104 5,182 5,554 -672 -10.8% 75-79 4,982 4,797 4,308 4,056 4,161 -821 -16.5% 80-84 3,379 3,509 3,376 3,156 3,047 -332 -9.8% 85+ 2,996 2,853 2,871 2,967 2,999 3 0.1% ALL AGES 203,329 214,727 214,658 218,438 221,033 17,704 8.7%

Source: Greater London Authority The overall results can be summarised as:

1. The 0-19 age group shows an increase to 2021 of 5,679 persons (16.5%). 2. The 20-29 age group shows a decrease of 8,575 persons (-18.2%). This group is of interest

as many new households will come from this segment of the population.


PAGE 20

3. The 45-59 age group shows a sharp increase of 28.5%. This group is of interest as many of

these people will be economically active and towards the end of their career so could be expected to be on higher earnings.

4. There is expected to be a projected decrease in the number of people aged 65 and over of

9.6% in the period to 2021. This group is likely to mainly be retirees icluding those that require additional care.

It is important to note, that when compared with population projections produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), however, the GLA projections appear to be conservative. Westminster’s population growth to 2021 from ONS data is 72,000 more than the GLA estimate.

1.4 Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix data One further source of data that is of interest is the Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix (HSSA) data. This data source contains a significant amount of data about the local housing stock including the number of dwellings, vacancy rates, supply information and information about levels of affordable house building. For the purposes of this section we look briefly at the Housing Register (Section C) and homelessness (Section E). The table below shows the number of households on the Housing Register from 2002 to 2005 (all data is as of 1st April). The data shows that as of April 2005 there were 6,565 households on the Housing Register. The table indicates that between 2002 and 2003 the number of registered households almost doubled, but since 2003 the number has been more consistent varying between 5,600 and 6,600.

Table 1.3 Number on Housing Register 2002-2005

Year Number of households

2002 3,709 2003 6,591 2004 5,667 2005 6,565

Source: City of Westminster HSSA returns


PAGE 21

The table below shows the number of homeless acceptances per annum for the period 2002 to 2006. The table shows that between 2002 and 2005 the numbers remained largely the same before falling notably between 2005 and 2006. This was largely due to the remodelling of the service to focus on homelessness prevention from October 2005.

Table 1.4 Number of households accepted as homeless 2002-2006

Year Number of households

2002 1,154 2003 1,074 2004 1,117 2005 1,114 2006 931 Source: Westminster Borough Council HSSA returns

1.5 Property prices and income levels

Land Registry data for the fourth quarter of 2005 demonstrates that house prices in the City of Westminster have increased by 45.2% over the five year period from 2000: a lower rate than observed nationally and a slightly lower rate than observed regionally. The average house price at £590,661 is higher than the average for England and Wales, and also higher than the London average. Data from the 2005 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings suggests that the median full-time wage of residents in the City is £30,101. Average prices are therefore more than nineteen times average incomes. On the basis of this data alone it is clear that there is likely to be an issue of access to affordable housing for many households.

1.6 Summary The City of Westminster is located in the heart of London and spans a number of high profile areas. In 2006, the population was estimated to be around 214,727. As would be expected of a London borough, at £590,661, average house prices are significantly higher than those found nationally, though the rate of increase is lower (largely due to the high base price). Secondary data shows that the number of households on the Housing Register is high at 6,565 (April 2005) as is the level of homelessness acceptances, although this is falling. Population projections indicate that the population of the City of Westminster is set to grow at a gradual rate in


PAGE 22

the future (by 8.7% between 2001 to 2021) and that a large proportion of this growth will be of those aged 45-59.

2 . H o u s i n g N ee d s As s es s m e n t - b a c k g ro u n d

PAGE 23

2. Housing Needs Assessment - background

2.1 Introduction The assessment closely follows guidance set out by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in ‘Local Housing Needs Assessment: A Guide to Good Practice’ (July 2000). It should be noted that throughout this report reference is made to the ODPM Guidance, although at the time of publication the Department was titled DETR. The main aspect of the ODPM guide is its Basic Needs Assessment Model (BNAM) which is discussed further in this chapter. In March 2005 a ‘discussion draft’ of a revision to the above guidance was published. In addition the Housing Markets Assessments Draft practice guidance published by the ODPM in December 2005 provides advice on how housing need should be assessed. This report has taken account of some of the main changes proposed in the new guidance and several elements of the methodology, such as the affordability test and unsuitable housing categories, have been adjusted accordingly. It is unlikely that these will change when the new guidance is finalised. The study also looks at housing requirements using our ‘Balancing Housing Markets’ methodology (BHM). This is a demand-led method which looks at potential housing shortages (and surpluses) across the whole housing market – including affordable housing. This requirement has been brought into focus as part of the Audit Commission’s Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA). The CPA includes the requirement for local authorities to consider ‘balancing housing markets’. In carrying out this assessment using both the BNAM and the BHM we are able to cast some considerable light on the housing situation in the City of Westminster. The two methods are quite complementary. The BNAM looks predominantly at trend data whilst the BHM studies households’ future aspirations, expectations and affordability. The two methods taken together provide detail on certain crucial matters, such as the types of affordable housing which can meet housing need and suggested affordable housing policy responses (such as target and threshold levels).

2.2 Key points from the housing needs assessment guide The basis for carrying out housing needs assessments has been standardised by the publication of the Guide (formally: Local Housing Needs Assessment: A Guide to Good Practice – ODPM Housing, July 2000). Since the Guide provides the test of a good Housing Needs Assessment, it is important to summarise its key features. This section is devoted to that purpose.


PAGE 24

(i) Introduction This Guide, published in July 2000, has gone a long way to filling the gap which has been apparent ever since, in Circular 7/91, the Government told councils they could seek affordable housing provided that there was evidence of housing need (without defining ‘need’). There are still a number of detailed difficulties with the advice, but they are minor compared with the gaps that have been filled. The following summary focuses upon the key issues, and in particular those that affect affordable housing. It should be noted that the ODPM published, in December 2005, a Housing Markets Assessments Draft practice guidance which provided advice on how housing need should be assessed. The questionnaires for this survey were agreed before this guidance was published and so follow the current Guide. However, this report has taken account of some of the main changes proposed in the new guidance and several elements of the methodology. All future references in this report to the ‘ODPM Guide’ refer to the current guidance, since the subsequent version published in March 2005 and the advice contained within the Housing Market Assessment Draft practice guidance December 2005 were both very much drafts. (ii) Definition of housing need The definition of housing need controls which households are defined as being in need, and indirectly affects what constitutes affordable housing. Affordable housing is, in principle, designed to address the identified housing need. The current Guide defines a household in housing need as one which is living in housing that is not suitable for its requirements and who cannot afford to resolve this unsuitability within the private sector housing market.

ODPM Guide

‘Housing need refers to households lacking their own housing or living in housing which is inadequate or unsuitable, who are unlikely to be able to meet their needs in the housing market without some assistance’. [Appendix 2 (page 116)]

(iii) Procedure An 18-stage procedure is set out in the Guide. This is aimed at producing an estimate of the net need for new affordable housing. Thus the Guide is very much geared to the requirements of planning for clear indications of the affordable housing requirement. The following table reproduces the stages from the key table of the Guide.


PAGE 25

The table includes an element of in-migrant need (Stage 12). Out-migration is accounted for in Stage 2 of the model and also by implication at Stages 8/9. Additionally where a supply of affordable housing arises due to out-migrating households this is included as part of the calculations at Stage 14.

Table 2.1 Basic Needs Assessment Model: (from Table 2.1 of the Guide)

Element and Stage in Calculation

B: BACKLOG OF EXISTING NEED 1. Households living in unsuitable housing 2. minus cases where in-situ solution most appropriate 3. times proportion unable to afford to buy or rent in market 4. plus Backlog (non-households) 5. equals total Backlog need 6. times quota to progressively reduce backlog 7. equals annual need to reduce Backlog N: NEWLY ARISING NEED 8. New household formation (gross, p.a.) 9. times proportion unable to buy or rent in market 10. plus ex-institutional population moving into community 11. plus existing households falling into need 12. plus in-migrant households unable to afford market housing 13. equals Newly arising need S: SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE UNITS 14. Supply of social relets p.a. 15. minus increased vacancies & units taken out of management 16. plus committed units of new affordable supply p.a. 17. equals affordable supply 18. Overall shortfall/surplus

Source: Local Housing Needs Assessment: A Guide to Good Practice – ODPM Housing, 2000

(iv) Conclusions The Guide provides a coherent definition of housing need, and a great deal of advice on how to implement it. This report has been prepared in accordance with the Guide. Throughout this report key methodological quotes from the guide are highlighted in boxes. This is to help the reader understand and to reinforce the reasoning behind the analysis carried out.


PAGE 26

2.3 Key points from Balancing Housing Markets As part of the Balancing the Housing Market component of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment conducted by the Audit Commission, each Council must assess the extent to which it understands its entire housing market, the extent to which it is taking appropriate actions to balance the housing market, and to demonstrate that it is adequately monitoring progress in achieving a balanced housing market. The suggestion of ‘Balancing Housing Markets’, indeed, appears in the ODPM guidance on Housing Needs Assessment (under the heading of ‘Gross Flows’).

ODPM Guide

‘A further development of the approach (the Basic Needs Assessment Model) together with demographic components is to try to build a model showing the gross annual flows of households between each of the main tenures within the City. Such a model would also show the flows of new and migrant households into the system and of dissolving and out-migrating households out of the system’. [Appendix A7.4 (page 157)]

Fordham Research has developed an innovative methodology to allow the information gathered in the housing needs assessment to be used as part of the diagnostic assessment the Council is required to undertake. A full chapter in the report is devoted to this analysis, which assesses the extent to which housing markets are balanced and suggests the directions the Council might take to approach a more balanced condition. This Balancing Housing Market methodology (an Adapted Gross Flows approach) shows exactly what shortages and surpluses exist and are likely to persist in the medium term according to size of dwelling and tenure in relation to the aspirations and affordability of would-be movers. Aspirations of households are determined by direct questions in the survey and are different from their assessed needs, as calculated during analysis with reference to the household size and composition. Whilst one of the outputs of the BHM model is an estimate of the shortfall of affordable housing this should not be taken as an estimate of the absolute need for such housing. As the BHM is a demand and aspiration driven model (unlike the BNAM, which is mainly based on past trends and on need as calculated with reference to a strict bedroom standard) there are inevitably some households who have a demand for affordable housing but under the BNAM would not be considered as needing such housing. Additionally as the bulk of the supply in the BHM is based on expected future household moves it is often the case that this model shows a lower supply level than the trend data of the BNAM (typically drawn from the HSSA).


PAGE 27

It is therefore common to find that the BHM shows a slightly higher estimate of the affordable requirement than the BNAM but this should not be taken as the survey’s base estimate of the absolute requirement for affordable housing (which is measured using the ODPM's Basic Needs Assessment Model). The BHM is however particularly useful at ascertaining what shortages exist in the private sector market and can help to guide councils in securing an appropriate mix of market housing on new housing developments. The inherent idea behind the BHM method is that it seeks to meet the requirements of the current population first with the amount of in-migration used to ‘balance’ figures to the estimated household growth of an area.

2.4 Summary Housing Needs Assessments have become, over the past decade, a standard requirement for local authorities across Britain. The publication of Local Housing Needs Assessment: A Guide to Good Practice by ODPM in July 2000 has now standardised the form of such assessments. They are designed to underpin housing and planning strategies by providing relevant data for them. In addition to focussing on the need for affordable housing, this study addresses housing requirements across all housing tenures. This is with a view to producing information, which will assist policy making in relation to both housing and planning policy, as well as the Comprehensive Performance Assessment.


PAGE 28

S E C T I ON B : S U R V E Y A N D IN I T I A L D A T A

PAGE 29

SECTION B: SURVEY AND INITIAL DATA This section starts by giving a brief description of data collection and then moves on to outline the affordability assessments used in estimating the affordable housing requirement. The two crucial types of information required for these assessments are current market housing ‘entry-level’ prices and households’ financial information. It is important to note that the data in some of the tables in this report may not necessarily add up to the totals presented, or alternatively some of the percentage figures may not sum to 100%. This is due to the rounding of the survey data during the analysis.


PAGE 30

3 . D a t a c o l l e c t i o n

PAGE 31

3. Data collection

3.1 Introduction The primary data was collected using personal interviews, a total of 1,261 were undertaken. These households were selected completely at random. The number of responses provides sufficient data to allow complete, accurate and detailed analysis of needs across the City and geographical breakdowns for the 5 sub-areas identified in the City. Prior to analysis, data must be weighted in order to take account of any measurable bias. The procedure for this is presented in the following sections.

3.2 Base household figures and weighting procedures Firstly, the total number of households is estimated. This is necessary in order to gross up the data to represent the entire household population. A number of different sources were consulted, primarily the Council’s Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix (HSSA) (2005), the Council Tax Register and 2001 Census results. Using this information, the base household figure for City of Westminster was estimated as follows: Total number of households = 112,395 Analysis of the survey data indicated the presence of a significant number of student-only households living in the private rented sector. Student households are a special case, particularly in relation to affordable housing. Most have low incomes but do not generally qualify for affordable housing due to the short-term nature of their residence. Although student-only households raise their own housing issues, as these do not directly impact on the need for affordable housing, they are not addressed in the affordability model in this study. Analysis of the data shows an estimated 3,215 student-only households in the City of Westminster. It will be indicated in each particular section where student households have been removed. It should be noted that although student households are excluded from the assessment of the affordable housing need, they can form part of the projection of housing need. Such households will appear as part of the projection where information based on past trends suggests that such households have moved into ‘ordinary’ residential accommodation.


PAGE 32

3.3 Base figures The table below shows an estimate of the current tenure split in the City of Westminster along with the sample achieved in each group. The data shows that 43.7% of households were owner-occupiers with 22.0% in the social rented sector and around a third in the private rented sector. The private rented sector includes those living in tied accommodation and those living in accommodation owned by relatives or friends.

Table 3.1 Number of households in each tenure group

Tenure Total

number of households

% of households

Number of returns

% of returns

Owner-occupied (no mortgage) 21,668 19.3% 245 20.1% Owner-occupied (with mortgage) 27,451 24.4% 263 21.6% Council 12,197 10.9% 265* 21.8% RSL 12,477 11.1% 152 12.5% Private rented 38,602 34.3% 293 24.1% TOTAL 112,395 100.0% 1,218 100.0% * The sample for council tenants is particularly large, however since the survey has been weighted according to HSSA information the weighted survey distribution corrects this imbalance.

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 Survey data was weighted to match the suggested tenure profile shown above. An important aspect of preparing data for analysis is ‘weighting’ it. As can be seen from the table above, social survey responses never exactly match the estimated population totals. As a result it is necessary to ‘rebalance’ the data to correctly represent the population being analysed.

ODPM Guide

‘If inconsistencies are found between survey results and benchmark sources, there may be a case for re-weighting the data in-line with the distribution indicated by the benchmark source’. [Section 4.2 (page 54)]

Data was also weighted to be in line with the estimated number of households in each of various groups (along with tenure displayed above):

• 20 wards (from Council Tax Register) • Number of people in household (2001 Census) • Household type (2001 Census) • Accommodation type (2001 Census) • Car ownership (2001 Census) • Ethnicity of the household head (2001 Census)

3 . D a t a c o l l e c t i o n

PAGE 33

The estimated number of households and number of responses for each of these groups is shown in Appendix A3.

3.4 Sub-areas Sampling for the survey was such that results are statistically significant for each of the 5 sub-areas in the City. The figure below shows the wards within the City of Westminster, and their attributed sub-area.

Figure 3.1 City of Westminster sub-areas


3.5 Summary

The Housing Needs Assessment included a survey carried out on a random sample of households in the City of Westminster area. Data was collected using personal interviews, providing a total sample of 1,261 households, which is sufficient data to allow reliable analysis of housing need in accordance with ODPM guidance.

Westminster sub-areas

North West North Central Strip South Central South


PAGE 34

The survey data was grossed up to an estimated total of households and weighted according to key characteristics so as to be representative of the City’s household population. In total it is estimated that there were 112,395 resident households at the time of the survey.

4 . Cu rr e n t H o u s ing in t h e C i t y o f We s t m in s t e r

PAGE 35

4. Current Housing in the City of Westminster

4.1 Introduction This chapter sets out some of the main findings from the survey of local households. Throughout the analysis tabulations are made along with tenure (shown in the previous chapter).

4.2 Type of housing The table below shows current accommodation types in the City. The table shows that 11.4% of households live in houses or bungalows, whilst 88.6% live in flats. The main house type in the City is a purpose built flat. Additionally, just 80 households stated that they were living in a bungalow.

Table 4.1 Dwelling type

Dwelling type Number of households

% of households

Detached house/bungalow* 747 0.7% Semi-detached house/bungalow 2,804 2.5% Terraced house/bungalow 9,166 8.2% Purpose-built flat/maisonette 68,089 60.5% Other flat/maisonette** 31,588 28.1% TOTAL 112,395 100.0%

* Includes mobile homes **Other flat/maisonette includes flats that are part of a converted or shared house and flats in a commercial building


By tenure a clear trend emerges with households living in owner-occupation more likely to live in houses/bungalows. There are relatively few houses/bungalows outside of the owner-occupied tenure group. The rented sector has a higher proportion of flats that are part of a converted or shared house and flats in a commercial building.


PAGE 36

Figure 4.1 Dwelling type by tenure

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Owner-occupied (no mortgage)

Owner-occupied (with mortgage)

Council

RSL

Private rented

Detached Semi-detached Terraced Purpose built flat Other flat


4.3 Household type The table below shows the household type breakdown in the City. The survey estimates that just under a fifth of households are pensioner only, and that only 16.2% of households contain children. The most common household type is single non-pensioner. The data reveals that 2.6% of households are lone parent households.

Table 4.2 Household type

Household type Number of households

% of households

Single pensioner 15,914 14.2% 2 or more pensioners 3,938 3.5% Single non-pensioner 39,032 34.7% 2 or more adults, no children 35,328 31.4% Lone parent 2,896 2.6% 2+ adults, 1 child 7,483 6.7% 2+ adults, 2+ children 7,805 6.9% TOTAL 112,395 100.0%



PAGE 37

The figure below shows household type by tenure. As with dwelling type there are clear differences between the tenure groups. The owner-occupied (no mortgage) sector contains the largest proportion of pensioner households. The council rented and the owner-occupied (with mortgage) sectors have the largest proportion of households with children. Non-pensioner households that do not contain children dominate the private rented sector.

Figure 4.2 Household type by tenure

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



Council

RSL

Private rented

Single pensioner 2 or more pensioners Single non-pensioner2 or more adults, no children Lone parent 2+ adults, 1 child2+ adults, 2+ children


4.4 Car ownership A further question asked in the City of Westminster survey was car ownership/availability. Although the central location of Westminster means that households are less likely to own a car than elsewhere in London, it can still be a useful variable for some indication of wealth. The table below shows the number of cars households have available for use by tenure. Over two thirds of all households in social rented housing have no access to a car or van, this compares with one-third of owner-occupied (with mortgage) households. The average household has 0.55 cars; this figure varies from 0.24 for households in Council rented accommodation to 0.88 for owner-occupiers with a mortgage.


PAGE 38

Table 4.3 Car ownership and tenure

Number of cars/vans available for use

Tenure 0 1 2 3+

Average number of cars/vans

Owner-occupied (no mortgage) 44.3% 46.9% 6.7% 2.2% 0.67 Owner-occupied (with mortgage) 33.1% 47.9% 16.5% 2.4% 0.88 Council 78.9% 18.5% 2.6% 0.0% 0.24 RSL 67.6% 28.6% 2.1% 1.7% 0.38 Private rented 66.4% 28.9% 3.8% 0.9% 0.39 TOTAL 55.5% 35.9% 7.1% 1.5% 0.55


4.5 Commuting patterns The survey questionnaire also looked at commuting patterns and the place of work. The table below shows the place of work of the head of household, and shows that almost a third work within the City of Westminster (including those that work at home), a quarter work elsewhere in London and 43.5% are not in employment, although this category does include students.

Table 4.4 Place of work

Place of work Number of households

% of households

Work mainly from home 4,644 4.1% In City of Westminster 30,701 27.3% Elsewhere in London 26,518 23.6% Elsewhere in the South East 665 0.6% Elsewhere in the UK 404 0.4% Abroad 500 0.4% Not in employment 48,963 43.6% TOTAL 112,395 100.0%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The average journey time of all heads of households in employment is 21 minutes. The average journey time for those that work in the City of Westminster is 19 minutes, whilst for those that work elsewhere in London the average journey time is 25 minutes. This average journey time is low in comparison to other London boroughs, as Westminster is particularly well connected in terms of public transport.


PAGE 39

The table below presents the areas within the City of Westminster that household heads stated they worked in. The data shows that 12.5% of heads of households working in City of Westminster work in the West End and 12.3% work in St James’s.

Table 4.5 Place of work within City of Westminster

Ward of work (within City of Westminster)

% of households

West End 12.5% St James’s 12.3% Lancaster Gate 9.4% Hyde Park 7.9% Marylebone 7.6% Maida Vale 6.9% Harrow Road 6.1% Warwick 6.0% Knightsbridge & Belgravia 4.9% Abbey Road 4.1% Queens Park 4.1% Bayswater 3.8% Churchill 3.3% Little Venice 3.1% Bryanston & Dorset 2.7% Church Street 1.7% Westbourne 1.4% Tachbrook 0.8% Regents Park 0.8% Vincent Square 0.6%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 Similarly, the table below presents the other London boroughs in which household heads stated they worked. The data shows that of the 26,518 heads of household that work elsewhere in London, 33.0% work in the City of London, 14.8% work in Kensington & Chelsea and 13.1% work in Camden.


PAGE 40

Table 4.6 Place of work within London

Borough of work (elsewhere in London)

% of households

City of London 33.0% Kensington & Chelsea 14.8% Camden 13.1% Lambeth 6.3% Southwark 6.0% Hammersmith & Fulham 5.6% Tower Hamlets 3.3% Wandsworth 2.5% Brent 2.2% Ealing 2.1% Islington 2.1% Haringey 2.0% Hounslow 1.9% Newham 1.9% Hackney 1.2% Hillingdon 0.7% Barnet 0.7% Croydon 0.2% Bromley 0.1% Enfield 0.1% Lewisham 0.1% Barking & Dagenham 0.1%



PAGE 41

4.6 Transience of households in Westminster The table below indicates the length of time households have lived in Westminster. The data indicates that some 63.2% of households in the City of Westminster have lived in Westminster for more than ten years, indicating that the majority of households see the City as a long-term place of residence. Around 15% of households have lived in Westminster for less than two years.

Table 4.7 Length of residency in Westminster

How long lived in Westminster

Number of households

% of households

Less than one year 10,888 9.7% 1 to 2 years 6,385 5.7% 2 to 5 years 13,247 11.8% 5 to 10 years 10,823 9.6% Over 10 years 51,595 45.9% Always lived here 19,457 17.3% TOTAL 112,395 100.0%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The table below indicates the number of times households have moved home in the last two years. The data shows that 22.5% of households have lived at their home for at least two years. Of those households that have moved home in the last two years, the majority (76.4%) have moved only once. However there are some 4,389 households that have moved twice and an estimated 1,590 households that have moved three or more times. This indicates that whilst the majority of households in City of Westminster do not move home on a regular basis a subset of the population are highly transient.

Table 4.8 Number of house moves in the last two years

Number of moves Number of households

% of households

None 87,053 77.5% One 19,363 17.2% Two 4,389 3.9% Three or more 1,590 1.4% TOTAL 112,395 100.0%



PAGE 42

4.7 Past moves An important part of the survey analysis concerns past household moves. This is for both existing and newly forming households moving in the last two years. These moves are important in terms of estimates of projected future needs (which are largely based on past trend information). Newly forming households are households that were previously living with parents, friends or relative. Existing households are all other households. The table below sets out the number and proportion of households who have moved home within the past two years. The data suggests that 22.5% of households in the City of Westminster have moved home in the last two years. Most of these moves were made by existing households.

Table 4.9 Past moves in City of Westminster

Type of moving household Number of households

% of households

Newly forming households 3,441 3.1% Existing households 21,901 19.5% Non-movers 87,053 77.5% TOTAL 112,395 100.0%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 This data can further be looked at in terms of trends in migration. The table below shows the locations of previous homes for both the newly forming and existing households. The table shows a considerable proportion of households moved from outside the City. In total 41.0% of moves were made from an address within the City, almost 30% were made from elsewhere in London with around a fifth of moves from abroad. Existing households are less likely to have moved from outside the City than newly forming households. Newly forming households are more likely to have moved from abroad than existing households. Existing households however are more likely to have moved into the City of Westminster from elsewhere in London.

Table 4.10 Location of previous home

Location of previous home Newly

forming households

Existing household

TOTAL

City of Westminster 10.0% 45.9% 41.0% Elsewhere in London 8.4% 33.3% 29.9% Elsewhere in the South East 0.3% 0.7% 0.7% Elsewhere in the UK 5.6% 9.8% 9.2% Abroad 75.7% 10.3% 19.2% TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%



PAGE 43

Households moving from abroad are most likely to live in the Abbey Road, Queen’s Park and Westbourne wards. They are also much more likely to be living in private rented accommodation. Some 96.5% of households that have moved into the City of Westminster from abroad in the last two years live in this form of accommodation. The survey also shows that over half of these households gave ‘to be closer to employment or other essential services’ as one of the reasons for moving. The analysis of the previous location of households can be expanded to consider the sub-area within the City that households previously residing in Westminster lived in as well as the Housing Corporation sub-region1 households that moved from elsewhere in London previously lived. This is presented in the table below. The table shows a third of households that moved within Westminster were previously resident in the North sub-area, with almost a quarter previously living in the Central Strip. Of the 7,572 households that moved from elsewhere in London, 42.9% previously live in the East sub-region and 29.9% moved from the North.

Table 4.11 Location of previous home

Location of previous home Number % of area

moves % of all moves

City of Westminster 10,402 100.0% 41.0% North West 1,241 11.9% 4.9% North 3,620 34.8% 14.3% Central Strip 2,447 23.5% 9.7% South Central 2,009 19.3% 7.9% South 1,085 10.4% 4.3%

Elsewhere in London 7,572 100.0% 29.9% North 2,261 29.9% 8.9% East 3,248 42.9% 12.8% South East 244 3.2% 1.0% South West 783 10.3% 3.1% West 1,036 13.7% 4.1%

Elsewhere in the South East 174 - 0.7% Elsewhere in the United Kingdom 2,334 - 9.2% Abroad 4,860 - 19.2% TOTAL 25,342 - 100.0%


1 The Housing Corporation has compiled five sub-regions for London. These are the North (Barnet, Camden, Enfield, Haringey, Islington and Westminster), East (Barking, City of London, Hackney, Havering, Newham, Redbridge, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest), South-East (Bexley, Bromley, Greenwich, Lewisham, Southwark), South-West (Croydon, Kingston-upon-Thames, Lambeth, Merton, Richmond-upon-Thames, Sutton and Wandsworth), and West (Brent, Ealing, Hammersmith & Fulham, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow and Kensington & Chelsea).


PAGE 44

The survey collected information that enables the pattern of migration of households into the City of Westminster to be considered over several moves. Households were asked to identify the location of both their previous home and the home they lived in before that. The table below considers the routes of migration into Westminster from elsewhere in London. It presents the (Housing Corporation) sub-region of household’s previous home against the sub-region of their second to last home for households whose previous two homes were elsewhere in London. To ensure that the sample size is sufficient it is necessary to analyse data for households that moved to their current home in the last five years.

Table 4.12 Previous homes outside Westminster

Second to last home Last home

North East South East

South West West Total

North 1,693 115 454 546 195 3,003 East 1,148 81 221 387 54 1,891 South East 19 18 700 29 0 766 South West 23 0 139 355 55 572 West 19 293 177 13 1,059 1,561 TOTAL 2,902 507 1,691 1,330 1,363 7,793

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The data indicates that households previously resident in the North sub-region were likely to move elsewhere within the North sub-region before they moved to City of Westminster. Households previously resident in the West sub-region were also likely to move within the sub-region before they moved to the City of Westminster. The data also indicates that households previously resident in the South West were likely to move to the North sub-region before they moved into Westminster. Surprisingly a significant number of households previously resident in the North sub-region moved to the East sub-region before they moved into Westminster. It is also of interest to look at households’ past and current tenure. The table below shows this information for households that moved to their current home in the last two years. The table shows that the majority of households remained within the same tenure, however over half of households that were previously owner-occupiers moved into the private rented sector. The data suggests that just 11.6% of newly forming households moved to owner-occupation with 81.8% moving to the private rented sector and the remaining 6.6% moving to the social rented sector.


PAGE 45

Table 4.13 Previous and current tenure

Previous tenure Tenure Owner-

occ’d Social rented

Private rented

Newly forming

TOTAL

Owner-occupied (no mortgage) 527 0 0 103 630 Owner-occupied (with mortgage) 584 181 192 297 1,254 Council 0 709 2,153 203 3,065 RSL 0 361 608 24 993 Private rented 1,296 85 15,203 2,814 19,398 TOTAL 2,407 1,336 18,156 3,441 25,340

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 Finally, we look at the reasons for households having moved home. The table below shows the reasons for households moving. The totals come to more than the total number of households moving home as each household was able to answer as many reasons as they felt were applicable. The main reason for households moving was ‘To live closer to employment or other essential facilities’ followed by ‘Other’ reasons (some examples being moving to study, bereavement, hospital treatment, and health reasons). These reasons can be seen to be the local drivers for households that have moved to a new home in the City of Westminster in the last two years.


PAGE 46

Table 4.14 Reasons for moving home

Reason for moving % of households To live closer to employment or other essential facilities 34.1% End of tenancy agreement 18.9% To move to a different neighbourhood 9.5% Previous home lacked adequate facilities 7.0% To live independently 6.0% To move to a better environment 5.8% You were the victim of harassment 5.7% Was moved by the Local Authority 5.4% Previous home was too small 5.0% Relationship breakdown 3.8% To move to cheaper accommodation 3.6% Relatives/friends unable/unwilling to accommodate 3.4% To be in a school catchment area 3.2% Wanted to move to a larger home 2.7% To move to live with partner 2.5% Evicted/repossessed 2.4% Previous home was unsuitable for a family 2.3% To get on to the property ladder 2.0% Previous home was too big 1.3% Previous home was in poor condition 1.2% Previous home was difficult to maintain 1.1% Access problems (e.g. steps, stairs) 0.8% Wanted to move to a smaller home 0.4% Other 20.2%


4.8 Future moves – existing households In addition to looking at past moves, the survey questionnaire collected information about households’ future needs, expectations and aspirations. This information is particularly important in the ‘Balancing Housing Markets’ exercise carried out later in this report. The table below shows estimates of the number and proportion of households who need or expect to move home over the next two years by tenure. The data shows that around 24.4% of households state a need or likelihood of moving home over the next two years. Households living in the private rented sector are particularly likely to be future movers.


PAGE 47

Table 4.15 Households who need or are likely to move in next two years by tenure

Tenure

Number who

need/likely to move

Total number of

households

% need/likely

to move

Owner-occupied (no mortgage) 300 21,667 1.4% Owner-occupied (with mortgage) 3,335 27,451 12.1% Council 1,707 12,196 14.0% RSL 1,307 12,477 10.5% Private rented 20,788 38,602 53.9% TOTAL 27,437 112,395 24.4%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 Again we can look at the reasons for households moving. This is shown in the table below. The desire to own a home is the main reason for households needing or expecting to move in the future. The most popular reason for a future move is ‘want to get on to the property ladder’. The desire to move to a larger home is also a commonly cited reason. These reasons can be seen to be the local drivers for existing households in the City of Westminster that intend to move to a new home in the next two years.


PAGE 48

Table 4.16 Reasons for needing/being likely to move home

Reason for moving % of households Want to get on to the property ladder 20.3% Current home is too small 19.6% Want to move to a larger home 18.5% To move to cheaper accommodation 15.5% To live closer to employment or other essential facilities 9.1% To move to a better environment 8.6% End of tenancy agreement 6.4% Current home is unsuitable for a family 6.1% To have a garden 5.8% Threat of eviction/repossession 5.5% To move to a different neighbourhood 4.8% To live independently 3.2% Access problems (e.g. steps, stairs) 2.2% To have a car parking space 1.2% To be in a school catchment area 1.0% Current home is too big 0.9% To receive/give care or support 0.5% Current home is in poor condition 0.5% Want to move to a smaller home 0.5% Current home is difficult to maintain 0.4% To move to live with partner 0.3% Relationship breakdown 0.3% Being moved by the Local Authority 0.2% Current home lacks adequate facilities 0.1% You are the victim of harassment 0.1% Other 30.1%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 Some distinct variations are apparent if this analysis is broken down by tenure. The most popular reasons for owner-occupiers (without mortgage) needing/being likely to move is wanting a garden, wanting a better environment or because their home is too big. Owner-occupiers with a mortgage, Council tenants and RSL tenants are most commonly motivated by the need for a larger home. Private rented households predominantly give other reasons, such as the end of studies, health reasons and to move abroad/back to country of origin. Private rented households also commonly cite the desire to get on the property ladder and the need to move to cheaper accommodation. The survey moved on to look at where households would both like and expect to move to. The results of this analysis are shown in the table below. The table suggests that more households would like to live in the City of Westminster than would expect to do so. No households would like to live in Hackney but 10.0% would expect to live there. However, differences between preferences and expectations outside London are small.


PAGE 49

Table 4.17 Where households would like and expect to move

Location of next home Like Expect City of Westminster 61.3% 47.5% Kensington & Chelsea 6.6% 0.7% Camden 2.8% 6.5% Bromley 2.2% 2.1% Tower Hamlets 1.5% 1.5% Hammersmith & Fulham 1.3% 1.3% Lewisham 1.3% 1.0% Islington 1.3% 8.0% Merton 0.7% 0.9% Lambeth 0.7% 0.1% Greenwich 0.4% 0.4% Brent 0.4% 0.0% Harrow 0.3% 0.0% Richmond Upon Thames 0.2% 0.6% Ealing 0.2% 0.0% Barnet 0.1% 0.4% Barking & Dagenham 0.1% 0.1% Kingston Upon Thames 0.1% 0.1% Hackney 0.0% 10.0% Newham 0.0% 0.0% Elsewhere in the South East 1.9% 2.0% Elsewhere in the UK 0.7% 0.7% Abroad 16.0% 16.0% TOTAL 100.0% 100.0%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 Households were similarly asked about what tenure they would both like and expect to move to, with the results shown below. The results suggest that around half of all households would like to move to owner-occupation; however only 29.6% expect this type of accommodation. More households say they expect to rent in the private sector than would like to.


PAGE 50

Table 4.18 Housing tenure aspirations and requirements Tenure Like Expect Buy own home 48.6% 29.6% Council rented 14.7% 14.7% RSL rented 5.2% 5.2% Private rented 25.6% 46.7% Tied 5.6% 1.7% Shared ownership 0.0% 1.5% House/flatshare in the private rented sector

0.3% 0.3%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006

The table below shows a cross-tabulation between current tenure and future tenure preference. The table shows that generally households would like to remain in the same tenure as they currently live in. The exception to this is the private rented sector. Almost half (48.9%) of households in the private rented sector would like to move to owner-occupation. It should be noted that for analytical purposes figures for tied and house/flatshare are included in private rented whilst those for shared ownership are within owner-occupation.

Table 4.19 Current tenure and tenure preference

Tenure preference Tenure Owner-

occupied Social rented

Private rented

TOTAL

Owner-occupied (no mortgage) 301 0 0 301 Owner-occupied (with mortgage) 2,403 528 405 3,336 Council 334 1,373 0 1,707 RSL 138 1,169 0 1,307 Private rented 10,164 2,374 8,249 20,787 TOTAL 13,340 5,444 8,654 27,437


4.9 Future moves – potential households A similar analysis can be carried out for newly forming (potential) households. These are households which are currently resident within Westminster and plan to move in the next two years, and to form a household with someone not currently within the same household. The survey estimates that there are 6,086 of these households who need or are likely to move over the next two years. The table below suggests that potential households are slightly more likely to want to remain in the area than existing households; in total 69.1% of potential households would like to remain in the area. However, the number expecting to remain in the area is less.


PAGE 51

Table 4.20 Where potential households would like and expect to move

Location of next home Like Expect City of Westminster 69.1% 44.2% Camden 5.6% 0.6% City of London 0.0% 1.1% Hackney 1.1% 3.8% Hammersmith & Fulham 1.5% 0.3% Lambeth 0.0% 1.0% Tower Hamlets 0.3% 0.1% Richmond-upon Thames 1.0% 0.5% Elsewhere in the South East 12.3% 15.1% Elsewhere in the UK 0.0% 24.3% Abroad 9.0% 9.0% TOTAL 100.0% 100.0%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 In terms of tenure preferences and expectations, the table below shows some interesting results. In total an estimated 22.5% of potential households would like to move to owner-occupied accommodation, however, only 8.5% expect to secure such accommodation. Almost a third of potential households wish to move to private rented accommodation but a greater proportion expect to move there.

Table 4.21 Housing tenure aspirations and expectations – potential households

Tenure Like Expect Buy own home 22.5% 8.5% Council 26.0% 15.6% RSL 0.8% 13.8% Private rented 30.5% 41.8% Tied-linked to a job 2.1% 2.1% Shared Ownership 0.3% 0.3% House/flat share 0.5% 0.5% Other 17.4% 17.4% TOTAL 100.0% 100.0%



PAGE 52

4.10 Summary The household survey collected a significant amount of data about households’ current circumstances. Some of the main findings were:

• Almost 90% of households in the City of Westminster live in a flat and households living in rented housing are most likely to live in flats.

• Just under a fifth of all households are ‘pensioner-only’ and 16.2% contain children. Non-pensioner households that do not contain children dominate the private rented sector.

• Car ownership data suggests that there is an average of 0.55 cars per household in the City. There are large differences by tenure with owner-occupiers (with mortgage) having an average of 0.88 cars per household whilst Council tenants have an average of 0.24 cars per household. Over two-thirds of all households in social rented accommodation have no use of a car or van.

• Around a quarter of workers work in the City of Westminster area. The average journey to work time of all heads of households in employment is 21 minutes.

• Around 22% of households have lived in their current home for less than two years; with 41.0% of moves occurring within the City.

• Households moving from abroad are much more likely to be living in private rented accommodation, with 96.5% living in this form of accommodation. The survey also shows that over half of households moving from abroad moved to be closer to employment or other essential services.

• In terms of future household moves, the survey estimates that 27,437 existing and 6,086 potential households need or expect to move within the next two years. In both cases a higher proportion would like to move to owner-occupation than expect to do so.

5 . Th e lo c a l h o u s in g mar k e t

PAGE 53

5. The local housing market

5.1 Introduction

This chapter sets out the results of an analysis of housing market prices and rents in Westminster. Information was collected from two sources:

• Land Registry • Survey of local estate and letting agents

The analysis provides a context for the property price situation in Westminster and then a sequence of analyses based on information collected from estate/letting agents. This leads to figures that show the minimum price/rent of housing for a range of dwelling sizes.

5.2 National, regional and local picture

Information from the Land Registry shows that between the 4th Quarter of 2000 and the 4th quarter of 2005 average property prices in England and Wales rose by 79.7%. For London the increase was 47.7% whilst for the City of Westminster the figure was 45.2%. The table below shows average prices in the 4th quarter of 2005 for each of England and Wales, London and the City of Westminster. The table shows that average prices in Westminster are over three times the average for England, and over twice the London average.

Table 5.1 Land Registry average prices (4th quarter 2005)

Area Average price As % of E & W England & Wales £191,327 100.0% London £289,247 151.2% Westminster £590,661 308.7%



PAGE 54

Figure 5.1 Land Registry price changes 2000–2005 (4th quarters)

£0

£100,000

£200,000

£300,000

£400,000

£500,000

£600,000

£700,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005Year

Aver

age p

rice

England & WalesLondonWestminster


The table below shows average property prices for the City for each dwelling type (from Land Registry data). This data is compared with regional price information. The volume of sales by type is also included for both areas.

Table 5.2 Land Registry average prices and sales (4th quarter 2005)

City of Westminster London Dwelling type

Average price % of sales Average price % of sales Detached £1,761,000 0.5% £564,566 4.1% Semi-detached £2,281,363 1.0% £325,732 16.2% Terraced £1,085,436 8.8% £299,584 31.3% Flat/maisonette £516,384 89.7% £246,964 48.4% All dwellings £590,661 100.0% £289,247 100.0%

Source: HM Land Registry, property price data, 2006 The largest volume of sales in the City was for flats (89.7%) with an average price of £516,384. The price of all property types in Westminster are significantly above the average for London. Sales regionally show a higher proportion of houses.


PAGE 55

5.3 Prices in adjoining areas

As the table below demonstrates, all of the local authorities around Westminster have prices well above the average for England and Wales. When compared with neighbouring Local Authority areas Westminster shows an average price at the top end of the scale. Prices in Westminster are lower than in Kensington & Chelsea but higher than all other neighbouring London Boroughs. Brent displays the lowest average price in the area.

Table 5.3 Price levels in Westminster and adjoining areas (4th quarter 2005)

Council area % of England & Wales Kensington & Chelsea 393.4% Westminster 308.7% Camden 222.0% Wandsworth 177.5% City of London 171.6% Southwark 145.6% Lambeth 143.8% Brent 141.5%

Source: HM Land Registry, property price data, 2006 5.4 Estate Agents’ information

(i) Purchase prices During April 2006 a total of 11 estate and letting agencies were contacted in order to obtain detailed information about the local housing market across the Westminster area. Agents were contacted across the City in order to capture localised variations. Average and minimum property prices were collected for a range of property sizes and tenures. Comments were also collected from the agents to describe the main features of the current market in Westminster, a summary of which is presented below. Agents tended to describe property sales levels in the City of Westminster as reasonably steady. It was felt that there was a shortage of properties across the market, and therefore demand is outstripping supply. Clear geographical distinctions were apparent during the estate agent interviews, with property prices in the West End (W1) and in the Mayfair and Belgravia (SW1) areas being considerably higher than other areas and property prices in the North West areas of the City (W9 and W10) being notably lower. The prices quoted in this report are those from the cheaper areas of the City, namely Harrow Road and Queen’s Park.


PAGE 56

If we take averages of the prices identified by individual agents for each dwelling size and price level, the property price results are as presented in the figure below. The figure shows that estimated entry-level prices ranged from £198,000 for a one-bedroom property up to £482,500 for four bedrooms. Average prices were generally around 30-60% higher than the minimums.

Figure 5.2 Minimum & average property prices in Westminster (W9 & W10 only) (as of April 2006)

£198,000£275,000

£370,500

£482,500

£258,000

£367,000

£516,500

£767,500

£0

£100,000

£200,000

£300,000

£400,000

£500,000

£600,000

£700,000

£800,000

1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom

Minimum Average

Source: Survey of Estate and Lettings Agents (2006) (ii) Private rent levels Average and minimum rents were also collected from agents and the results of this analysis are shown in table 5.4. Minimum monthly rents varied from £890 (one bed) to £2,617 (four beds) with average rents only around 20-40% more expensive than this.

Table 5.4 Minimum and average private rents in Westminster (W9 & W10 only)

Property size Minimum rent

(monthly) Average rent

(monthly) 1 bedroom £890 £1,120 2 bedrooms £1,290 £1,570 3 bedrooms £1,785 £2,270 4 bedrooms £2,617 £3,665

Source: Survey of Estate and Lettings Agents (2006)


PAGE 57

(iii) New build prices Estate agents commented that there are few new build developments in the area, and so getting a new build property on their books was very rare. In particular, there are very few four bedroom new build properties so these prices have been estimated using experience and knowledge Fordham Research has gained by conducting many housing needs assessments.

Table 5.5 Average new build prices in Westminster

Property size Average price 1 bedroom 425,000 2 bedrooms 510,000 3 bedrooms 650,000 4 bedrooms 825,000

Source: Survey of Estate and Lettings agents (2006)

5.5 Appropriate price level for the affordability test Having established minimum and average prices in each of the four size categories it is necessary to decide what price level is the most appropriate to use for assessing whether or not a household is able to access the housing market. It is necessary to consider two aspects:

• The appropriate measure of price (e.g. minimum or average prices/costs) • How to deal with a situation where price variations have been identified within the Council

area On the first point, we use the minimum prices collected in the estate agents survey, since these have been designed to represent the ‘entry level’ into the housing market. For consistency we will also use minimum private rental costs as part of the affordability test.

ODPM Guide

‘The most commonly used affordability test involves comparing estimated incomes of unsuitably housed households against ‘entry level’ house prices.’ [Section 4.3 (page 57)]

‘…approaches which compare maximum prices payable against average house prices are certainly questionable.’ [Section 4.3 (page 57)]


PAGE 58

A key issue in deciding the appropriate price assumptions to use in assessing overall City-wide affordability is whether a household that could afford market priced housing by moving a reasonable distance should be assessed as being in housing need. In this case the term ‘reasonable distance’ is taken to mean ‘within the City of Westminster boundary’ and it is recognised that some households would therefore need to move from their current locality to afford private sector housing.

5.6 Summary An analysis of the local housing market is a crucial step in any housing study. In this report information was drawn from both the Land Registry and local estate/letting agents to provide the context for local property prices/rents. Some of the main findings of the analysis are:

• Average prices in Westminster rose by 45.2% in the period 2000 to 2005. This is below the rate of increase observed regionally and nationally.

• The average property price in Westminster in the 4th quarter 2005 was well above the average figure for London.

• Sales of properties in Westminster are predominantly flats with only 10.3% of sales in the 4th quarter of 2005 being houses.

• The estate agent survey suggested that minimum prices ranged from £198,000 for a one bedroom property rising to £482,500 for a four bedroom property.

• Minimum rents ranged from £890 to £2,617 per month depending on size. • The Harrow Road and Queen’s Park (W9 & W10) areas are significantly cheaper than other

parts of the City, therefore the prices in this area will be applied to households in all parts of the City when it comes to testing affordability.

6 . F in a n c ia l i n fo r ma t ion a n d a f fo rd a b i l i t y

PAGE 59

6. Financial information and affordability

6.1 Introduction The previous chapter studied the local housing market. The results from that chapter are brought together with household financial information to make an assessment of affordability for each individual household. The issue of affordability is crucial in assessing both backlog and newly arising need in the Council area. It should be noted that student households have been excluded from the analysis in this chapter as they do not contribute to the need for affordable housing. Having set out the financial information collected in the survey the section continues by concentrating on the methodology behind the assessment of affordability.

ODPM Guide

‘An accurate estimate of household income is one of the most important pieces of information that has to be obtained from a housing needs survey’. [Section 3.6 (page 39)]

To complete an accurate assessment of affordability, the survey collected information regarding households’ gross earned income (including benefits), savings and equity levels.

6.2 Household income The response to the survey income question was good with 74.3% of respondents answering this question. Survey results for household income in the City of Westminster estimate the average gross income level (crucial for the assessment of affordability) to be £45,587 per annum. The median income is noticeably lower than the mean (at £26,901 per annum). The figure below shows the distribution of income. As stated above students have been removed from this analysis, however the average income of student households in the City is £2,460.


PAGE 60

Figure 6.1 Distribution of annual gross household income (including non-housing benefits)

22.1%

18.7%

12.9%

2.6%

11.6%

6.3%

25.7%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

up to £10k £10k-£20k £20k-£30k £30k-£40k £40k-£50k £50k-£60k £60k+


6.3 Household Savings and Equity The average household has £19,144 in savings (median of £3,827). The figure below shows the distribution of savings in the City. Over a third of households had no savings at all whilst 6.1% had savings of over £40,000. Households with no savings also include those in debt.

Figure 6.2 Household savings

34.3%

20.9%18.4%

16.3%

3.9%6.1%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%

Nosavings

Under £5k £5k - £10k £10k -£20k

£20k -£40k

Over £40k



PAGE 61

The survey also collected information about the amount of equity owner-occupiers have in their property. For both owner-occupier groups together (with and without mortgages) the average amount of equity was estimated to be £266,282 (median of £117,119).

6.4 Household characteristics and income The table below shows average income, savings and equity by tenure. As might be expected, the households with the lowest average incomes (and savings) are those in the social rented sector. Whilst owner-occupiers with no mortgage have an average household income considerably lower than those with a mortgage, this group contains many older people who are not working but have redeemed their mortgages. These households therefore have much higher levels of savings and equity.

Table 6.1 Financial information by tenure

Tenure

Average annual gross

household income

Average savings

Average equity

Owner-occupied (no mortgage) £41,584 £46,204 £417,801 Owner-occupied (with mortgage) £72,974 £17,815 £146,685 Council £13,656 £1,128 - RSL £23,528 £4,721 - Private rented £45,578 £14,900 - AVERAGE £45,587 £19,144 £266,282

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The figure below looks at income levels by household type and sub-area. Single pensioner and lone parent households show average incomes considerably below the City average. Households with two or more adults and children show average incomes above the City average. By sub-area, it is clear that significant differences exist. The highest average incomes are found in South Central and the lowest average incomes in the North West.


PAGE 62

Figure 6.3 Income and household type and sub-area

£40,241

£50,475

£48,395

£23,913

£59,941

£63,571

£35,612

£46,261

£50,096

£55,653

£40,747

£17,971

£0 £10,000 £20,000 £30,000 £40,000 £50,000 £60,000 £70,000

Single pensioner

2 or more pensioners

Single non-pensioner

2 or more adults - no children

Lone parent

2 or more adults & 1 child

2 or more adults & 2 or more children

North West

North

Central Strip

South Central

South

Annual gross household income (including non-housing benefits)


6.5 Assessing affordability – existing households All households were tested for their ability to afford either a mortgage or private rented housing in the local area. These two measures were then combined to estimate households unable to afford either form of private sector housing. The general methodology and results are presented below. (i) Mortgage affordability The definition of mortgage affordability is shown below: Mortgage affordability: A household containing one person in employment is eligible for a mortgage if the gross household income multiplied by 3.5 is greater than the cost of the mortgage requirement. A household containing more than one person in employment is eligible for a mortgage if the gross household income multiplied by 2.9 is greater than the cost of the mortgage requirement.


PAGE 63

The mortgage requirement is based on taking the level of savings and any equity away from the estimated property price and then checking the income level of the household in relation to the likely amount of mortgage remaining. Income from housing related benefits is not included in the affordability calculation. A worked example of the mortgage affordability test is shown below: A household containing a couple with one child would require, at minimum, a two bedroom property. The minimum cost of such a property in the City of Westminster is estimated to be £275,000. If the couple have £20,000 in savings then they would require a gross household income of £87,931 ((£275,000-£20,000) divided by 2.9) if both adults were in employment, or £72,857 ((£275,000-£20,000) divided by 3.5) if one person is in employment.

ODPM Guide

‘A household is considered likely to be able to afford to buy a home that costs 3.5 times the gross household income for a single earner household, or 2.9 times the household income for dual income households.’ [Paragraph 6.17 March 2005 Discussion Draft Guidance]

(ii) Private rental affordability The definition of private rental affordability is shown below: Private rental affordability: A household is unable to afford private rented housing if renting privately would take up more than 25% of its gross household income (excluding housing benefits).

A worked example of the rental affordability test is shown below: A household containing a couple with no children will require at minimum a one bedroom property. The minimum weekly rental for this is £205. This means that the household must have a weekly gross income of at least £820 (£205 ÷ 0.25) to be able to afford the property.

(iii) Combined affordability It is important to assess the numbers who cannot afford either of the above options. This is the measure of combined affordability, which is defined below:


PAGE 64

Combined affordability: A household containing one person in employment is not eligible for a mortgage if the gross household income multiplied by 3.5 is less than the cost of the mortgage requirement. A household containing more than one person in employment is not eligible for a mortgage if the gross household income multiplied by 2.9 is less than the cost of the mortgage requirement.

AND A household is unable to afford private sector housing if renting privately would take up more than 25% of its gross household income.

This combined affordability measure will be used to assess affordability in the Basic Needs Assessment Model. It is worth briefly noting the affordability of local households. The table below shows affordability by tenure. The table shows that of all households in the City, 51.4% are unable to afford market housing (if they were to move home now). The differences by tenure are substantial. In total 92.4% of social and 68.5% of private tenants are unable to afford. These figures compare with 18.3% of all owner-occupiers.

Table 6.2 Affordability and tenure

Affordability

Tenure Unable to

afford market housing

Number of h’holds

% of h’holds unable to

afford

Owner-occupied (no mortgage) 4,101 21,668 18.9% Owner-occupied (with mortgage) 4,875 27,451 17.8% Council 11,950 12,197 98.0% RSL 10,931 12,477 87.6% Private rented 24,237 35,387 68.5% TOTAL 56,094 109,180 51.4%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The table below shows the tenure expectations of households that need or are likely to move home within the next five years that expect to move elsewhere in Westminster in comparison to what the affordability measure indicates they will be able to afford. The table indicates that some 78.4% of households that would like to buy a home in Westminster in the next five years will be able to do so, whilst only 37.0% of households that expect to move to a private rented home will be able to afford this tenure. The table also indicates that some 12.3% of households that expect a social rented property are able to afford some form of market housing.


PAGE 65

Table 6.3 Affordability and expected tenure

Affordability

Expected tenure Afford owner-occupation

Afford private rent

Unable to afford market

housing Total

Owner-occupied 2,541 233 466 3,240 Private rented 228 2,043 3,868 6,139 Social rented 43 502 3,897 4,442 TOTAL 2,812 2,778 8,231 13,821


6.6 Assessing affordability – potential households The Housing Needs Assessment ascertained whether or not potential households (namely persons who currently live as part of another household and commented on further in the following chapter) would be able to access the private sector housing market by asking the following question to the survey respondent:

‘In your opinion, will they be able to afford suitable private sector housing in the City of Westminster area (this can either be rented (excluding the use of housing benefit) or bought?’

This would appear to be broadly in line with ODPM guidance which says:

ODPM Guide

‘It is difficult to estimate the incomes of future newly forming households. Unless potential household members are interviewed specifically, it is not practical to collect complete income data relating to this group through a housing needs survey. Even where the fieldwork includes concealed household interviews, there are doubts as to the value and reliability of any income data which might be collected.’ [Section 4.4 (page 62)]

‘One way around this problem is to substitute a subjective judgement about future housing prospects in place of a formal affordability test.’ [Section 4.4 (page 60)]

It should be noted that this approach is used when assessing the ability of potential households to afford market housing in the balancing housing markets assessment in Chapter 12. Future estimates of the needs from household formation are based on past trend information – an approach in line with the ODPM guide.


PAGE 66

6.7 Summary The collection of financial information is a fundamental part of any assessment of housing need. The survey estimates that mean annual gross household income (including non-housing benefits) in the City of Westminster is £45,587. The average conceals wide variations among different tenure groups with households in social rented housing showing average incomes significantly below the City average. Having collected detailed information on the local housing market and the financial situation of households it is important to use appropriate affordability measures to assess their ability to afford market priced housing in City of Westminster. A combined affordability test is used to assess whether they can afford to either buy or rent a property of a suitable size.

S E C T I ON C : TH E G U I D E M O D E L

PAGE 67

SECTION C: THE GUIDE MODEL This section sets out calculation of the three key elements of the model outlined in Table 2.1 of the ODPM Guide to Housing Needs Assessment and described in detail in Chapter Four of the Guide. The aim is to assess the level of housing need through estimating the net shortfall/surplus of affordable housing. The first step measures backlog of existing need, the second newly arising need and the third looks at current supply of affordable housing. The section finishes with a brief discussion of the implications for affordable housing policy and about the types of housing that might meet the affordable need. The ODPM Guide definition of housing need is given below.

ODPM Guide

‘Housing need refers to households lacking their own housing or living in housing which is inadequate or unsuitable, who are unlikely to be able to meet their needs in the housing market without some assistance’. [Section A2.2 (page 116)]

It is important to note that in this section that deals with the Basic Needs Assessment Model, student households have been excluded from analysis.


PAGE 68

7 . B a ck lo g o f e x i s t i ng n e ed

PAGE 69

7. Backlog of existing need

7.1 Introduction This chapter of the report assesses the first part of the ‘Basic Needs Assessment Model’ – Backlog of Existing Need. This begins with an assessment of housing suitability and affordability and also considers backlog of homeless households before arriving at a total backlog need estimate.

7.2 Unsuitable housing This section looks at households whose current accommodation is in some way unsuitable for their requirements. It is estimated that a total of 11,390 households are living in unsuitable housing. This represents 10.4% of all households in the City of Westminster. The figure below shows a summary of the numbers of households living in unsuitable housing (ordered by the number of households in each category). The main reason for unsuitable housing is overcrowding followed by home disrepair. All of the categories other then overcrowding are calculated directly from a response to a survey question. Overcrowding is calculated from information about household composition, accommodation size and a derived minimum bedroom requirement.


PAGE 70

Figure 7.1 Summary of unsuitable housing categories

367

478

860

1,577

1,776

2,298

2,631

2,705

0

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

Sharing kitchen, bathroom orWC

Lacking kitchen, bathroom orWC

Difficulty maintaining home

End of tenancy/ in temporaryaccommodation

Harassment

Mobility and/or healthproblems

Accommodation tooexpensive

Subject to major disrepair orunfitness

Overcrowded*

Households

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The table below shows unsuitable housing by tenure. The patterns emerging suggest that Council residents and owner-occupiers (with a mortgage) are more likely to be in unsuitable housing. Some 15.2% of Council tenants and 15.1% of owner-occupiers (with a mortgage) are estimated to be living in unsuitable housing, this compares with 5.5% of owner-occupiers (with no mortgage) and 5.8% of RSL tenants.

Table 7.1 Unsuitable housing and tenure

Unsuitable housing

Tenure In unsuitable housing

Not in unsuitable housing

Number of h’holds

in City

% of total h’holds in unsuitable housing

% of those in

unsuitable housing

Owner-occupied (no mortgage) 1,201 20,467 21,668 5.5% 10.5% Owner-occupied (with mortgage) 4,154 23,297 27,451 15.1% 36.5% Council 1,857 10,340 12,197 15.2% 16.3% RSL 724 11,753 12,477 5.8% 6.4% Private rented 3,453 31,933 35,386 9.8% 30.3% TOTAL 11,390 97,790 109,180 10.4% 100.0%



PAGE 71

The table below shows the unsuitable housing categories by tenure. The table indicates that 42.7% of overcrowded households are resident in private rented accommodation. The table also indicates that households suffering from harassment are particularly likely to be living in rented accommodation. Finally the table also shows that some 46.3% of households with mobility/health problems are owner-occupiers.

Table 7.2 Unsuitable housing categories and tenure Tenure

Unsuitable housing categories

Owner-occupied

(no mortgage)

Owner-occupied

(with mortgage)

Council RSL Private rented TOTAL

Tenancy ending/temporary accommodation

0 0 0 0 860 860

Accommodation too expensive 0 1,188 0 0 1,110 2,298 Over-crowding 93 863 508 85 1,156 2,705 Difficulty maintaining home 232 228 10 7 0 478 Spec needs/mobility etc 427 520 290 444 94 1,776 Lacking facilities 18 292 0 0 57 367 Disrepair 209 590 978 18 835 2,631 Harassment 113 121 600 257 486 1,577 * The sample of households in all of these categories of unsuitable housing is small so the results of the tenure profile should be treated with caution


The figure below shows the proportion of households living in unsuitable housing by household type and sub-area. The data shows that lone parent households are particularly likely to be in unsuitable housing. Households containing two adults and no children and households containing two adults and at least two children showed the lowest levels of unsuitable housing. By sub-area there are also some significant differences. Levels of unsuitable housing vary from 17.7% in the North to 2.1% in South Central.


PAGE 72

Figure 7.2 Unsuitable housing and household characteristics

13.0%

9.9%

6.2%

52.0%

17.3%

6.7%

17.7%

10.9%

2.1%

6.8%

13.3%

11.2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Single pensioner


Single non-pensioner

2 or more adults - nochildren

Lone parent

2 or more adults & 1child

2 or more adults & 2 ormore children

North West

North

Central Strip

South Central

South

% in unsuitable housing

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 In addition to the above analysis it is possible to compare survey figures with the Housing Register. Survey responses indicated that there were 7,707 existing households on the Housing Register at the time of the survey (there will be additional potential households and those living outside the City). Of these it was estimated that 18.1% (1,392 households) were in unsuitable housing. This compares with 9.8% of those who were not registered. The data did however suggest that 87.8% of those in unsuitable housing were not registered. These results suggest that whilst those registered are more likely to have housing problems than other households there are a significant number of households who are registered but not (under the definitions used here) in unsuitable housing and also a significant number in unsuitable housing who are not registered. This highlights the difficulties in using Housing Registers as an indicator of overall needs.


PAGE 73

7.3 Migration and ‘in-situ’ solutions The survey has highlighted that 11,390 households are in unsuitable housing. However it is most probable that some of the unsuitability can be resolved in the households’ current accommodation and also that some households would prefer to move from the City in order to resolve their housing problems. The extent to which ‘in-situ’ solutions might be appropriate is assessed in the Housing Needs Assessment by asking respondents whether they thought they needed to move now. Any household that replied that it did need to move now was assumed not to have an in situ solution.

ODPM Guide

‘The extent to which in situ solutions could be feasible can be examined by a survey…[using]…a judgement on whether the unsuitably housed main household intends to move. Where this is the case, it may be taken to indicate that an in situ solution is not appropriate’. [Section 4.3 (page 56)]

The survey data estimates that of the 11,390 households in unsuitable housing, 1,876 (or 16.5%) would need to move now to resolve their housing problems. Of the 1,876 households who need to move now, those that stated that they would be likely to move out of the City were excluded from further analysis. These amounted to 62 leaving a total of 1,814 who need to move within the City.

7.4 Affordability Using the affordability methodology set out in Chapter Six it is estimated that there are 1,488 existing households that cannot afford market housing and are living in unsuitable housing (and require a move to different accommodation within the City). This represents 1.4% of all existing households in the City. The results reveal that 82.0% of households living in unsuitable housing (and needing to move now within the City) cannot afford market housing (1,488/1,876). The table below shows the tenure of the 1,488 households currently estimated to be in housing need. The results show that Council and RSL tenants are most likely to be in housing need (3.7% and 3.6% respectively). Of all households in need, 60.6% currently live in social rented accommodation.


PAGE 74

Table 7.3 Housing need and tenure

Housing need

Tenure In need

Not in need

Number of h’holds

in City

% of total h’holds in

need

% of those in

need Owner-occupied (no mortgage) 0 21,668 21,668 0.0% 0.0% Owner-occupied (with mortgage) 0 27,451 27,451 0.0% 0.0% Council 451 11,745 12,197 3.7% 30.4% RSL 450 12,027 12,477 3.6% 30.2% Private rented 587 34,800 35,387 1.7% 39.4% TOTAL 1,488 107,692 109,180 1.4% 100.0%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 7.5 Housing need and the need for affordable housing

There is a further issue relating to existing households in need. For households in social rented accommodation it is likely that a move will release a social rented home for re-letting and therefore there will be no requirement for additional affordable housing to be provided. It has been decided to remove all households in need currently living in social rented accommodation from the estimates of additional requirement. This reduces the backlog figure by 901 households to 587. This follows from advice in the ODPM Guide:

ODPM Guide

‘Where existing households are living in unsuitable housing, it is important to try to assess which of these could find solutions in situ or by moving within their current tenure’. [Section 4, Agenda for Action (page 68)]

The draft Housing Needs Assessment guidance published by the ODPM in 2005 goes further than this and adds a stage to the Basic Needs Assessment Model ‘minus current occupiers of affordable housing in need’. It is clear therefore that the removal of the 902 households in social rented accommodation is justified by current and future guidance.

7.6 Homeless households (backlog households) The Housing Needs Assessment is a ‘snapshot’ survey that assesses housing need at a particular point in time. There will, in addition to the existing households in need, be some homeless households who were in need at the time of the survey and should also be included within any assessment of backlog need. To assess these numbers we have used information contained in the Council’s P1(E) Homeless returns.


PAGE 75

The main source of information used is Section E6: Homeless households accommodated by your authority at the end of the quarter. The important point about this information is the note underneath. “This should be a ‘snapshot’ of the numbers in accommodation on the last day of the quarter, not the numbers taking up accommodation during the quarter.” This is important given the snapshot nature of the survey. Data compiled from the December 2005 P1(E) form is shown in the table below.

Table 7.4 Homeless households accommodated by authority at December 2005 (Section E6, P1(E) form)

Category Quarter ending 30/12/05

In Westminster Elsewhere TOTAL

Bed and breakfast* 376 376 Other nightly paid* 30 30 Hostel* 27 27 Private sector accommodation leased by authority 910 528 1,438 Private sector accommodation leased by RSLs 809 153 962 Directly with a private sector landlord 178 27 205 Within Council’s own stock 0 0 0 RSL stock on assured shorthold tenancies 77 0 77 Other 0 0 0 TOTAL 2,407 708 3,115

*Location not confirmed Source: Westminster Borough Council P1 (E) December 2005

Not all of the categories in the above table are added to our assessment of existing and potential households in need. This is because, in theory, they will be part of our sample for the Housing Needs Assessment. For example, households housed in private sector accommodation should already be included as part of the housing need – such household addresses should appear on the Council Tax file from which the sample was drawn. It is important to note, however, that as Westminster is a uniquely pressured area homeless households are often moved into accommodation outside the City. These households would not be included in the council tax register used to draw the survey sample. It is therefore appropriate to include homeless households that have been placed in private sector housing outside Westminster. After considering the various categories, we have decided there are six which should be included as part of the homeless element. These have been underlined in the table above. Therefore, of the 3,115 homeless households in temporary accommodation, 1,141 will be counted as homeless for the purpose of the Housing Needs Assessment.


PAGE 76

7.7 Total backlog need Having been through a number of detailed stages in order to assess the backlog of need in the City of Westminster we shall now bring together all pieces of data to complete the ‘B: BACKLOG OF EXISTING NEED’ element of the Basic Needs Assessment model encouraged by the ODPM. This is shown in the following section. The table below summarises the first stage of the overall assessment of housing need as set out by the ODPM. The data shows that there is an estimated backlog of 1,728 households in need (see stage 5). The final stage is to include a quota to progressively reduce this backlog. A reduction in the backlog of need of 20% per year has been assumed in the City of Westminster. The table therefore shows that the annual need to reduce backlog is 346 dwellings per annum.

ODPM Guide

‘It is also unrealistic to expect to meet all of any backlog in the planning period. It is recommended that all authorities apply a standard factor of 20% here for comparability (this implies eliminating the backlog over a 5 year strategy period). LA’s may then make policy judgements to determine the practical rate at which this backlog can be reduced’. [Section 2.4 (page 25)]

Table 7.5 Basic Needs Assessment Model – Stages 1 to 7

B: BACKLOG OF EXISTING NEED Element Notes Final number 1. Backlog need existing

households Number of households currently living in unsuitable housing

11,390

2. minus cases where in-situ solution most appropriate

In situ (or outside the City) solution most appropriate for 9,576 households

Leaves 1,814

3. times proportion unable to afford to buy or rent in market

82.0% = 1,488 – also remove 901 social renting tenants

587

4. plus Backlog (non-households) Homeless = 1,141 1,141 5. equals total Backlog need 1,728 6. times quota to progressively

reduce backlog Suggest 20% as in ODPM report 20%

7. equals annual need to reduce Backlog

346

NB Elimination of the backlog over a five-year period is recommended in the Guide. However, the Council can make a policy decision to do so over a longer period.



PAGE 77

7.8 Summary This chapter reported on the components contributing to the backlog need element of the needs assessment model. In total it is estimated that 11,390 existing households are in housing need. When looking further forward to the additional affordable housing requirements of these households we remove households currently living in social rented housing to produce a final figure of 587. The final element of backlog need considered the needs arising from homeless households. This element made for 1,141 additional households in need. Bringing together all the factors of the backlog of housing need (as defined by the ODPM and followed by Fordham Research) it is estimated that there is an overall backlog of need of 1,728 affordable homes. Annualised, assuming a 20% reduction per year suggests an annual need of 346 dwellings to reduce the backlog need in the City of Westminster.


PAGE 78

8 . N ew l y a r i s in g n e ed

PAGE 79

8. Newly arising need

8.1 Introduction In addition to the Backlog of existing needs discussed so far in this report there will be newly arising need. This is split, as per ODPM guidance, into three main categories (there is a fourth ‘ex-institutional’ population – results for this group have been included in the figures for new household formation). These are as follows:

1. New households formation (× proportion unable to buy or rent in market) 2. Existing households falling into need 3. In-migrant households unable to afford market housing

The guidance also suggests that each of these should be calculated on an annual basis. The following sections deal with each of these points in detail.

8.2 New household formation The estimate of the number of newly forming households in need of affordable housing is based on an assessment of households that have formed over the past two years. Such an approach is preferred to studying households stating likely future intentions as it provides more detailed information on the characteristics of these households contributing to this element of newly arising need. This method is also consistent with comments in ODPM Guidance:

ODPM Guide

‘A… reliable approach to this issue is to base the profile of new households on the characteristics of identified newly forming households in the recent past’.

‘Stage 9 in the basic needs assessment model… involves estimating the proportion of newly forming households who will be unable to afford to access housing in the private market’.

‘It is recommended that the primary basis for assessing the income and household type profile of new households is the profile of actual new households formed over the period preceding the survey’. [Section 4.4 (pages 61 & 62)]

The table below shows details of the derivation of new household formation. The table begins by establishing the number of newly forming households over the past two years (from within the City). The data excludes households moving to owner-occupation because these households at the time of the move (which is when we are interested in) could afford market housing. Households in tied accommodation have also been excluded. An affordability test is then applied to the remaining households.


PAGE 80

Table 8.1 Derivation of newly arising need from new household formation

Aspect of calculation Number Sub-total Number of households moving in past two years 22,126 Minus moves from outside City -13,103 9,023 Minus households NOT forming in previous move -8,677 346 Minus households moving to owner-occupation -280 66 Minus households moving to tied accommodation -0 66 TOTAL APPLICABLE MOVES 66 Times proportion unable to afford 100.0% ESTIMATE OF NEWLY ARISING NEED 66 ANNUAL ESTIMATE OF NEWLY ARISING NEED 33

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The table above shows that an estimated 66 households are newly formed (previously lived with parents, relatives or friends) within the City over the past two years (33 per annum). Of these it is estimated that all 66 (per annum) are unable to afford market housing without some form of subsidy (as with the main analysis of existing households in need the affordability test is based on the size requirements and financial situation of those households having made a ‘potentially in need’ move over the past two years). The annual estimate of the number of newly forming households falling into need is therefore 33. The figure is low as the majority of households that formed in the City over the last two years moved from outside the City and are not therefore included in this segment of newly arising need. It also reflects that many newly-forming households are aware that the City of Westminster is a particularly pressurised housing market so do not attempt to get a home there.

8.3 Ex-institutional population moving into the community The analysis of the ex-institutional population moving into the community is an assessment of the number of households moving from ‘institutional’ or temporary accommodation. Information from Westminster Council suggests that each year the council must find homes for 52 persons moving on from institutions within the City.


PAGE 81

8.4 Existing households falling into need This is an estimate of the number of existing households currently living in the City of Westminster who will fall into housing need over the next two years (and then annualised). The basic information for this is households who have moved home within the City in the last two years and affordability. A household will fall into need if it has to move home and is unable to afford to do this within the private sector (examples of such a move will be because of the end of a tenancy agreement). A household unable to afford market rent prices but moving to private rented accommodation may have to either claim housing benefit or spend more than a quarter of their gross income on housing, which is considered unaffordable (or indeed a combination of both).

ODPM Guide

‘The basic needs model also identifies two other ways [the second is the next section] in which new needs may arise in a locality. The first of these refers to existing households, previously satisfactorily housed, who fall into need during the period (per year, conventionally)’. [Section 4.4 (page 63)]

Households previously living with parents, relatives or friends are excluded as these will double-count with the newly forming households already considered in the previous table. The data also excludes moves between social rented properties. Households falling into need in the social rented sector have their needs met through a transfer to another social rented property, hence releasing a social rented property for someone else in need. The number of households falling into need in the social rented sector should therefore, over a period of time, roughly equal the supply of ‘transfers’ and so the additional needs arising from within the social rented stock will be net zero. The data again excludes households moving to owner-occupation because these households at the time of the move (which is when we are interested in) could afford market housing whilst households moving to tied accommodation are also excluded.

Table 8.2 Derivation of Newly Arising Need from households currently living in the City

Aspect of calculation Number Sub-total Number of households moving in past two years 22,126 Minus moves from outside City -13,103 9,023 Minus households forming in previous move -346 8,677 Minus households transferring within affordable housing -134 8,543 Minus households moving to owner-occupation -2,931 5,612 Minus households moving to tied accommodation -50 5,562 TOTAL APPLICABLE MOVES 5,562 Times proportion unable to afford 72.4% TOTAL IN NEED (2 years) 4,025 ANNUAL ESTIMATE OF NEWLY ARISING NEED 2,013



PAGE 82

The table above shows that a total of 5,562 household moves are considered as potentially in need. Using the standard affordability test for existing households it is estimated that 72.4% of these households cannot afford market housing (as with the main analysis of existing households in need the affordability test is based on the size requirements and financial situation of those households having made a ‘potentially in need’ move over the past two years). Therefore our estimate of the number of households falling into need within the City excluding transfers is 4,025 households (5,562 × 0.724) over the two-year period. Annualised this is 2,013 households per annum.

8.5 In-migrant households unable to afford market housing This is the final element of newly arising need. Households falling into need in this group are households currently living outside the City of Westminster who are expected to move into the City but cannot afford suitable private sector housing. The basic information for this is similar to the above section except that it deals with households who are expected to move home to the City in the next two years (based on past move information) and these households’ affordability. This data does not exclude transfers as none of these households could have transferred within affordable housing stock in the City at the time of the move. Household formation is not an issue as none of these households could be double-counted because they do not currently live within the City. Household moving to owner-occupation and tied accommodation are again excluded from the analysis.

ODPM Guide

‘Households moving into the City and requiring affordable housing can be identified by HN surveys, again using data on recent movers’. [Section 4.4 (page 63)]

The table below shows the derivation of the in-migrant element of newly arising need.

Table 8.3 Derivation of Newly Arising Need from households currently living outside the City

Aspect of calculation Number Sub-total Number of households moving in past two years 22,126 Minus moves from within City 9,023 13,103 Minus households moving to owner-occupation 1,602 11,501 Minus households moving to tied accommodation 384 11,117 TOTAL APPLICABLE MOVES 11,117 Times proportion unable to afford 71.1% TOTAL IN NEED (2 years) 7,902 ANNUAL ESTIMATE OF NEWLY ARISING NEED 3,951



PAGE 83

In total the table above shows that 11,117 ‘potentially in need’ moves took place in the past two years from outside the City. The survey data also shows us that 71.1% of these households cannot afford market housing (as with the main analysis of existing households in need the affordability test is based on the size requirements and financial situation of those households having made a ‘potentially in need’ move over the past two years). Therefore our estimate of the number of households falling into need from outside the City is 7,902 households (11,117 × 0.711) over the two-year period. Annualised this is 3,951 households per annum. Although the level of need from in-migrants may seem relatively high, it is not an unusual level. It should also be remembered that requirements from those households falling into need but moving out of the City of Westminster will not have been included. This figure is high because Westminster has a highly transient population, including a significant number that reside in the City for a very short period of time. It is likely that many of the households that move into the City will be prepared to pay more than is recommended for their housing costs to reside in the area.

8.6 Summary The data from each of the above sources can now be put into the Basic Needs Assessment Model as is shown in the table below. It indicates that additional need will arise from a total of 6,049 households per annum.


N: NEWLY ARISING NEED Element Notes Final number 8. New household formation (gross, p.a.) 33 9. Times proportion unable to buy or rent

in market 100.0% cannot afford market housing

Leaves 33

10. plus ex-institutional population moving into community

52

11. plus existing households falling into need

2,013

12. plus in-migrant households unable to afford market housing

3,951

13. equals Newly arising need 9+10+11+12 6,049 Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006


PAGE 84

9 . Sup p l y o f a f f o rda b l e h ou s in g

PAGE 85

9. Supply of affordable housing

9.1 Introduction This chapter looks at current supply of affordable housing from both the Council and RSLs in the City. We shall begin by highlighting the general patterns of supply in the social rented stock over the past three years before making a judgement about which supply figures should feature as part of the needs assessment model.

ODPM Guide

‘The most important source of supply is typically relets of existing social housing. A basic projection should assume continuance of the same rate of net relets as in the last year or an average over the last 3 years’. [Section 2.4 (page 26)]

9.2 The Social Rented stock

We have studied information from the Council’s Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix (HSSA) for three years (from 2003 to 2005 inclusive). The figure below shows the changing levels of stock for both the Council and RSLs within the City.

Figure 9.1 Council and RSL stock numbers (2003-2005)

12,963 12,624 12,40713,082 12,925 12,679

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

2003 2004 2005

CouncilRSL


The above table shows that there has been a decrease in the number of RSL properties and also a decrease in the number of Council rented properties. The reductions recorded in Council stock numbers between 2003 and 2005 are largely due to Right-to-Buy sales. Overall, there has been a net decrease of 959 properties from the City of Westminster social housing stock (480 per annum).


PAGE 86

9.3 The supply of affordable housing (i) Council stock The table below shows an estimate of the supply of lettings from Council-owned stock over the past three years. The data shows that the number of lettings has slightly increased between 2002/03 and 2004/05. The average number of lettings over the three-year period was 563 per annum.

Table 9.1 Analysis of past housing supply (council rented sector)

Source of supply 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 AverageLA lettings through mobility arrangements 6 1 1 3 LA lettings to new secure tenants 120 124 18 87 LA lettings to new tenants on an introductory tenancy 411 448 553 471 LA lettings to new tenants on other tenancies 9 3 9 7

(Exclude transfers from RSL) (8) (7) (0) (5) LA TOTAL EXCLUDING TRANSFERS 538 569 581 563

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 (ii) RSL stock For the RSL stock we can again look at HSSA information. Additionally, CORE data provides an indication of the number of lettings in the RSL sector. The table below shows the number of lettings (excluding RSL to RSL transfers) from each of these sources over the past three years.

Table 9.2 Analysis of past housing supply – (RSL sector)

2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 Average HSSA data 628 547 388 521 CORE data 456 442 388 429 AVERAGE 542 495 388 475

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The data in this table suggests that the supply of RSL lettings has decreased over the three-year period. The average for the three-year period from both sources together is 475 per annum. It should be noted that for the period 2003 to 2005 HSSA data shows that an average of 99 households transfer from Council to RSL dwellings within the City of Westminster per annum.


PAGE 87

(iii) Estimate of lettings The figures for RSL lettings show some variation over time. This makes it difficult to estimate future supply with any certainty. For the purposes of estimating future supply we have therefore used the average number of lettings over the three year period studied (the use of data for a three year period is consistent with Government guidance).

ODPM Guide

‘The most important source of supply is typically relets of existing social housing. A basic projection should assume continuance of the same rate of net relets as in the last year or an average over the last 3 years’. [Section 2.4 (page 26)]

Therefore our estimated future supply of lettings from the social rented sector overall will be 939 (563+475-99).

9.4 New dwellings From the estimated supply of affordable housing we also need to deduct lettings made to new dwellings. As one of the main purposes of the survey is to estimate any surplus or shortfall of affordable housing, it is important to avoid double-counting by not including likely future supply through additions to the stock from RSLs and the Local Authority (although these new properties will themselves in time produce some relets). This is also a view taken in ODPM guidance.

ODPM Guide

‘…it may be more helpful to combine committed and shortfall figures [shortfall including committed new provision] to obtain an overall affordable need estimate, which can then be related to overall planned housing requirements and provision’. [Section 2.4 (page 26)]

Table 9.3 Analysis of past provision of new affordable rented housing

– Average for three years New affordable housing 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 Average Additional LA dwellings (HSSA) 0 0 0 0 Additional RSL dwellings (HSSA) 243 206 165 205 Additional RSL dwellings (CORE) 141 135 103 126

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The table above summarises information contained in the HSSA return for 2003-2005 (Section N) and CORE data for the same period. The data indicates that there has been an annual average of 166 new affordable housing completions between 2002-03 and 2004-05. These are taken away from our estimate of lettings to provide a relet figure of 773 dwellings per annum (939-166). The figure of 773 represents a turnover of around 3.1% (based on the number of relets and the estimated number of social rented dwellings (i.e. 773/25,086).


PAGE 88

9.5 Shared ownership supply In most local authorities the amount of shared ownership available in the stock is fairly limited (as is the case in the City of Westminster). However, it is still important to consider to what extent the current supply may be able to help those in need of affordable housing. Therefore we include an estimate of the number of shared ownership units that become available each year. Information from the Housing Corporation suggests that there are around 494 shared ownership units in the City; the Census estimated the figure to be 659, Council information suggests 715, whilst the housing needs assessment data estimates 172. The average of these four figures is 510. For the purposes of this analysis it is assumed that the turnover of shared ownership accommodation is roughly the same as found in the social rented sector. This is estimated at 3.1%. Hence we estimate that each year an average of 16 units of shared ownership tenure will become available to meet housing needs (3.1% × 510). Therefore, the estimate of supply becomes 789 per annum (773+16).

9.6 Vacant dwellings As of April 2005, there were 412 vacant dwellings in the social rented stock, representing around 1.6% of all social rented stock in the City. This is considered to be an average vacancy rate and hence no adjustment needs to be made to the figures to take account of this.

ODPM Guide

‘The change in vacancies is a key factor in the net stock approach. The general principle is that there should be a target vacancy rate to allow normal movement in the housing stock. Typical recommended allowances would be 4 per cent for the private sector with 2 per cent being more appropriate for the social sector’. [Section 2.5 (page 28)]

9.7 Changes in the supply of affordable housing

This covers stages 15 and 16 of the ‘Basic Needs Assessment Model’. Stage 15 is ‘minus increased vacancies & units taken out of management’; Stage 16 is ‘plus committed units of new affordable supply’. In the case of Stage 15, it would not be sensible to remove from the supply equation the number of properties taken out of management. It is much more sensible to estimate the likely reduction in relets as a result of such losses.


PAGE 89

In the case of Stage 16 it seems more logical to exclude committed units as the purpose of the analysis is to show a surplus or shortfall of affordable housing. Including committed units might in some cases show a surplus of affordable housing where in fact the new housing is required to prevent a shortfall. However, we must remember that new affordable housing will in time produce additional relets (in the same way as relet opportunities are lost when dwellings are ‘taken out of management’). Data contained in HSSA returns suggests that from April 2003 to April 2005 there has been a net decrease of 959 properties from the City of Westminster’s social housing stock (480 per annum). Given an average turnover of around 3.1% this would equate to a net decrease of around 15 letting opportunities per annum. Hence, on the basis of this information it is estimated that average future supply of affordable housing will be 774 units per annum (789-15).

9.8 Summary The table below details the stages in arriving at an estimate of the 774 relets from the current stock of affordable housing per annum. Analysis of HSSA and CORE data (excluding transfers within the social rented stock) for 2004/2005 indicates an average supply of lettings of 939 per year. Taking account of lettings made to new dwellings the supply estimate is reduced by 166 units per annum. It is assumed that there would be no additional lettings from the vacant stock, whilst units taken out of management and committed units of new affordable supply will lead to a net decrease of 15 dwellings per annum. Finally, we have included 16 ‘relets’ from shared ownership dwellings, which increases supply to a total of 774. The second table shows how this fits into the Basic Needs Assessment model.

Table 9.4 Estimated future supply of affordable housing (per annum)

Element of supply Number of units Average lettings per annum (excluding transfers) 939 Lettings in new housing -166 ‘Relets’ of shared ownership +16 Additional lettings in vacant stock +0 Letting opportunities lost through units taken out of management (Stage 15) Letting opportunities gained through additional stock (Stage 16)

-15

ESTIMATED SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING (PER ANNUM) 774 Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006


PAGE 90


S: SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE UNITS Element Notes Final number

14. Supply of social relets p.a.

Excludes transfers within social rented stock and includes ‘relets’ of shared ownership

789

15. minus increased vacancies & units taken out of management

Letting opportunities lost

16. plus committed units of new affordable supply p.a.

Letting opportunities gained

-15

17. equals affordable supply 14-15+16 774 Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006

1 0 . Ba s i c ne e ds a s s es s m en t m o de l

PAGE 91

10. Basic needs assessment model

10.1 Introduction The table on the following page shows the final figures in the ‘Basic Needs Assessment Model’. This brings together the three key elements that have been calculated in the preceding chapters, namely; the Backlog of Existing Need, Newly Arising Need and the Supply of Affordable Units. The overall output from these three analytical stages represents the estimated net affordable housing requirement across the City of Westminster.

10.2 Total housing need The backlog of existing need suggests a requirement for 346 units per year and the newly arising need a requirement for 6,049 units per annum. These two figures together total 6,395 units per annum. The total estimated supply to meet this need is 774 units per year. This therefore leaves a shortfall of 5,621 units per year.


PAGE 92

Table 10.1 Basic Needs Assessment Model

B: BACKLOG OF EXISTING NEED Element Notes Final number 1. Backlog need existing

households Number of households currently living in unsuitable housing

11,390

2. minus cases where in-situ solution most appropriate

In situ (or outside the City) solution most appropriate for 9,576 households

Leaves 1,814

3. times proportion unable to afford to buy or rent in market

82.0% = 1,488 – also remove 901 social renting tenants

587

4. plus Backlog (non-households) Homeless = 1,141 1,141 5. equals total Backlog need 1,728 6. times quota to progressively

reduce backlog Suggest 20% as in ODPM report 20%

7. equals annual need to reduce Backlog

346

N: NEWLY ARISING NEED 8. New household formation

(gross, p.a.) 33

9. times proportion unable to buy or rent in market

100.0% cannot afford market housing Leaves 33

10. plus ex-institutional population moving into community

52

11. plus existing households falling into need

2,013

12. plus in-migrant households unable to afford market housing

3,951

13. equals Newly arising need 9+10+11+12 6,049 S: SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE UNITS

14. Supply of social relets p.a. Excludes transfers within social rented stock and includes ‘relets’ of shared ownership

789

15. minus increased vacancies & units taken out of management

Letting opportunities lost

16. plus committed units of new affordable supply p.a.

Letting opportunities gained -15

17. equals affordable supply 14-15+16 774 18. Overall shortfall/surplus 396+5,874-774 (per annum) 5,621

NB Elimination of the backlog over a five-year period is recommended in the Guide. However, the Council can make a policy decision to do so over a longer period.



PAGE 93

10.3 The City of Westminster situation in context As Fordham Research has carried out about a hundred borough-wide housing needs assessments since the ODPM Guide was published in 2000, it is possible to provide reasonable indicative levels for the typical levels of affordable housing or shortage found across Britain. In order to ‘standardise’ the levels of need/shortage for local authorities of widely varying scale, the shortfall/surplus of affordable housing has been divided by the numbers of thousands of households in the Council area. The value for the City of Westminster is a shortfall of 51 per 1,000 (calculated as (5,621/109,180) ×1,000). As can be seen, this figure is well above the national average of a shortage of 16 and the average for the Inner London of a shortage of 32.

Figure 10.1 Typical levels of need for new affordable housing

899

12161617

2732

51

4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

East Midlands

North

West Midlands

Scotland & Wales

East

United Kingdom

South East

South West

Outer London

Inner London

Westminster

Affordable housing requiremement/000 households


10.4 Size requirements and sub-areas Overall the survey suggests a shortfall of affordable housing in the City. However, it is also important to look at what type of shortfalls exists within the current stock of affordable housing. This is recognised in the ODPM guidance.


PAGE 94

ODPM Guide

‘Housing needs estimates and projections expressed as global figures for an entire local authority area are important, but they are far from being the whole story… it is important that local authorities consider the extent to which such outputs should be disaggregated by property size/type and also by sub-area.

If this is not done, there is a danger that global figures will mask the true situation – for example, a surplus of smaller properties could act to offset a shortage of larger homes. In reality, of course, this offsetting could not occur, since the availability of smaller homes would be of no value to those needing family-size accommodation’. [Section 4.7 (pages 66-67)]

Hence this section looks at any mismatches between the need for affordable housing and the supply for different sizes of accommodation and at a sub-area level. (i) Size requirement Having estimated the net need for affordable housing in the City, it is useful to make suggestions about required property sizes. This is done through looking at past patterns. The number of bedrooms required by households in need is balanced against the number of bedrooms secured by those who have recently moved into affordable accommodation. The number of bedrooms required is a sustainable measure that reflects the number of people in a household and ensures the accommodation is suitable for the household over a period of time. This analysis is shown in the table below, which indicates that there are shortfalls for all sizes of accommodation. The largest shortfall is for two bedroom units, however, the shortage relative to supply is greatest for three bedroom properties where it is estimated that only 4.2% of the need can be met. It should be noted that the size profile of the supply of affordable housing is obtained by considering the distribution of dwellings let to new Council and RSL tenants (i.e. not including households transferring within the social rented sector) over the past three years based on information supplied by the Council. The proportions are then applied pro-rata to match the total supply figure.

Table 10.2 Net need for affordable housing by size () indicates a surplus

Size required Need Supply TOTAL Supply as % of need

1 bedroom 2,127 535 1,592 25.2% 2 bedroom 2,429 160 2,269 6.6% 3 bedroom 1,645 69 1,576 4.2% 4+ bedroom 194 9 185 4.7% TOTAL 6,395 774 5,621 12.1%



PAGE 95

(ii) Sub-area level analysis The table below provides the same style of analysis as above (by sub-area). The table again shows the need, supply and overall requirement for affordable housing. The table shows that all five of the sub-areas display an overall shortage of affordable housing; this is most apparent in the Central Strip where the largest shortfalls are experienced. The shortage relative to supply is also greatest for the Central Strip where only 4.0% of the need can be met. As above, the geographical location of the supply is found by considering the location of dwellings let to new social rented tenants (i.e. not including households transferring within the social rented sector) over the past three years based on information supplied by the Council and pro-rating the breakdown to the total supply of 774 per annum.

Table 10.3 Net need for affordable housing by sub-area () indicates a surplus

Sub-area Need Supply TOTAL Supply as % of need

North West 892 304 588 34.1% North 1,169 98 1,070 8.4% Central Strip 3,127 125 3,002 4.0% South Central 197 26 171 13.1% South 1,010 221 789 21.9% Total 6,395 774 5,621 12.1%


10.5 Implications for affordable housing policy Appendix A1 details the key features of current ODPM Affordable Housing policy. This has changed only slightly with the draft affordable housing sections of PPS3 (published in December 2005). The main implications for affordable housing policy are the choice of an appropriate percentage target, the site size threshold at which the eventual affordable housing policy will apply and the types of affordable housing best suited to meeting the need. Each is discussed below.


PAGE 96

(i) Percentage target The Guide to Housing Needs Assessments has its own proposals on how targets should be calculated (contained within Table 8.1 of the Guide). It is therefore worth pursuing the suggested ODPM method to show the expected result. The table below shows an estimate of the likely suggested percentage target from following the ODPM method.

Table 10.4 Calculation of affordable housing target: following ODPM methodology

Element Dwellings (per annum) Affordable housing requirement 5,621 Minus affordable supply from non S106 sites (estd)* -0 EQUALS 5,621 Projected building rate † 680 Minus sites below threshold (assumed) -0 Minus affordable supply from non S106 sites (estd)* -0 EQUALS 680 Therefore Target is 5,621/680 EQUALS 827%

* Information obtained from the Council’s 2004/5 HSSA return (average number of dwellings built without section 106 between 2004/05 and 2006/07) † Annual build rate required 1997-2016 as documented in the London Plan


10.6 Intermediate housing Having considered the level of housing need in the City it is interesting to study what types of affordable housing might be most appropriate to meet this need. In principle there are two broad categories of housing which can be considered (intermediate housing and social rented). Intermediate housing can be defined as housing (irrespective of tenure) priced between social rents and the market. Existing intermediate housing options suggest that this form of accommodation is usually only marginally cheaper than market housing. However for the purpose of this section of the report intermediate housing is defined as that costing above social rents but below the cost of market housing. The table below shows our estimates of the minimum cost of market housing in the City, and estimated new social rent levels. The estimated cost of intermediate housing is also presented. The outgoings for private rented housing have been used for all sizes for the minimum price of market housing as these are cheaper than those for owner-occupation (in terms of outgoings).


PAGE 97

Table 10.5 Basic information required for assessment of types of affordable housing required

Size requirement Social rent (£/week)*

Intermediate housing

Minimum priced second-hand market housing (£/week)**

1 bedroom £75 £76-£204 £205 2 bedrooms £93 £94-£297 £298 3 bedrooms £102 £103-£411 £412 4+ bedrooms £115 £116-£555 £556 *CORE Data (2005)

**Survey of Estate and Letting Agents in City of Westminster 2006 Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006

It can be seen from the table above that for all dwelling sizes, the cost of social rented housing is significantly below that of market housing. Therefore it is clear that intermediate housing will be suitable for some households in need. The table below shows the estimated breakdown of additional affordable housing requirements by size and type of housing per annum. The figures are for gross need.

Table 10.6 Amount of annual requirement for each type of affordable housing (all tenures)

Type of housing Dwelling size Intermediate

housing Social rented TOTAL

1 bedroom 689 1,438 2,127 2 bedrooms 462 1,967 2,429 3 bedrooms 648 998 1,645 4+ bedrooms 145 49 194 TOTAL 1,944 4,451 6,395

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The table shows that in total 30.4% of the gross requirement could be intermediate housing priced above the cost of social rents, the remainder should be social rented housing. However, from these figures it is important to deduct the supply of affordable housing. As with the previous analysis this has been split by social rented and intermediate housing.


PAGE 98

Table 10.7 Annual supply for each type of affordable housing



1 bedroom 2 533 535 2 bedrooms 9 151 160 3 bedrooms 5 64 69 4+ bedrooms 0 9 9 TOTAL 16 758 774

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The following table therefore estimates the net requirements for each type of affordable housing by size. Overall, the table shows that 34.3% of the net requirement is for intermediate housing. This varies according to dwelling size. It’s estimated that over three-quarters (78.4%) of the need for four bedroom properties could be met through intermediate housing, whereas 20.0% of the need for two bedroom properties could be met in this way. The large net requirement for four bedroom intermediate housing reflects that accommodation of this size has the largest intermediate housing band (the largest gap between social rent and market entry).

Table 10.8 Net annual need for affordable housing for each type of affordable housing (surplus)



1 bedroom 687 904 1,591 2 bedrooms 453 1,815 2,269 3 bedrooms 643 933 1,576 4+ bedrooms 145 40 185 TOTAL 1,928 3,693 5,621

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 It is possible to expand on this analysis by looking at affordability within the intermediate housing category. To do this the wider intermediate band has been split into four equal bands as is presented in the table below.


PAGE 99

Table 10.9 Basic information required for assessment of types of affordable housing required

Size requirement Social rent (£/week)*

Lower intermediate

(£/week)

Mid-lower intermediate

(£/week)

Mid-upper intermediate

(£/week)

Upper intermediate

(£/week)

Minimum priced

second-hand market housing

(£/week)** 1 bedroom £0-75 £76-108 £109-140 £141-173 £174-204 £205+ 2 bedrooms £0-93 £94-144 £145-196 £196-247 £248-297 £298+ 3 bedrooms £0-102 £103-180 £181-257 £258-335 £336-411 £412+ 4+ bedrooms £0-115 £116-225 £226-336 £337-446 £446-555 £556+

*CORE Data (2005) **Survey of Estate and Letting Agents in City of Westminster 2006

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 As per the previous analysis we can estimate the number of households in need who fall into each of the bands described in table 10.9. This is shown in the table below. The figures are for gross need.

Table 10.10 Affordability of different types of affordable housing

Size requirement Social rent Lower

intermediate Mid-lower

intermediate Mid-upper

intermediate Upper

intermediate Total

1 bedroom 1,438 521 113 0 55 2,127 2 bedrooms 1,967 186 218 0 57 2,428 3 bedrooms 998 234 190 69 155 1,645 4+ bedrooms 49 136 0 0 9 194 TOTAL 4,452 1,077 521 69 277 6,395

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 It is clear that the vast majority of those in the ‘intermediate’ category have income/affordability levels at the bottom of the scale. For example, the data suggests that 82.2% of those who could theoretically afford intermediate housing could afford nothing costing more than a half of the difference between social rented and market prices. There are few households with income levels close to the market (14.2% of the intermediate group fall into the ‘most expensive’ category). The table also indicates that the vast majority of households requiring a four bedroom intermediate home could only afford housing in the lowest band. Of the 145 households in gross need suitable for a four bedroom intermediate home, some 93.8% can afford nothing more than £225 per week. The overwhelming majority of four bedroom intermediate housing in the City of Westminster should therefore cost £225 or less per week.


PAGE 100

The survey asked households whether they were aware of a number of different intermediate housing products. The table below indicates the response that was obtained from households in need. The table shows that some 72.1% of households in need were not aware of any of the intermediate housing options listed. Awareness of shared ownership amongst households in need was the greatest, with 20.6% of households familiar with it, some 17.2% of households in need were aware of key worker living schemes and only 8.3% aware of discounted market sale.

Table 10.11 Number of households in need aware of intermediate housing products

Product Households in

need % of households

in need Shared Ownership 1,318 20.6% Key Worker living schemes 1,102 17.2% Discounted Market Sale 529 8.3% Not aware of any 4,611 72.1%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 10.7 A longer term view of the housing requirement

The main assessment of the requirement for additional affordable housing has been based on a five year time period (as required by ODPM guidance, Section 2.4 (page 25)). It is however possible to extend this period further into the future. We have considered below what the requirement for additional affordable housing would be over a ten year period following the same approach as set out in the preceding chapters. The annual estimates of newly arising need and supply are unchanged but the backlog of need has been divided by ten (rather than five as suggested in the Guide) to spread it over the ten year period. The table below summarises the results up to 2016 and indicates a shortfall of around 5,448 affordable homes per year. Assuming the level of supply remains the same over this period, the total requirement to 2016 would be around 54,480 additional affordable homes (i.e. 5,448 per year for the 10 years to 2016). These figures are however less robust than the estimated requirement over five years.


PAGE 101

Table 10.12 Summary of Basic Needs Assessment Model (annual requirement to 2016)

Element Number of households B. BACKLOG OF EXISTING NEED Annual need to reduce backlog 173 N. NEWLY ARISING NEED Newly Arising Need 6,049 S. SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE UNITS Affordable supply 774 Overall shortfall/Surplus 5,448

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 10.8 Summary

The Housing Needs Assessment in the City of Westminster followed guidance from The ODPM in ‘Local Housing Needs Assessment: A Guide to Good Practice’. This involved estimates of the ‘Backlog of existing need’, ‘Newly arising need’ and future supply to estimate the current surplus or shortfall of affordable housing in the City of Westminster. Using this model it is estimated that for the next five years there will be a shortfall of 5,621 affordable housing units per annum in the City. The survey indicates that a third of this need could be met by intermediate housing, although further analysis indicates that intermediate housing would have to be priced at the lower end of the intermediate housing band for its potential to be maximised.


PAGE 102

S E C T I ON D : B R O A D E R H O U S I N G M A RKE T & F U T U R E C H A N G E S

PAGE 103

SECTION D: BROADER HOUSING MARKET & FUTURE CHANGES The previous section focused exclusively on housing need and the requirement for affordable housing. However, in order to fully develop informed housing policies, Local Authorities are also interested in housing demand across all tenures. This section thus considers the broader housing market in City of Westminster. First household characteristics are examined across all tenures; following on from that we consider the question of how far the housing market is ‘balanced’. The ODPM Guide definition of housing demand is given below.

ODPM Guide

‘Housing demand refers to the quantity and type/quality of housing which households wish to buy or rent and are able to afford. In other words, it takes account of both preferences and ability to pay. [Section A2.2 (page 116)]

It is important to note that in this section that deals with the broader housing market, student households have been included in the analysis.


PAGE 104

1 1 . M ar k e t h o u s in g

PAGE 105

11. Market housing

11.1 Introduction Emphasis on analysis of the whole market as part of a Housing Needs Assessment has been a theme of Government policy at least since the publication of PPG3 (2000).

PPG3 (2000) para 13 ‘Assessments of housing need which underpin local housing strategies and local plan policies are matters for local authorities to undertake in the light of their local circumstances. Local planning authorities should work jointly with housing departments to assess the range of needs for different types and sizes of housing across all tenures in their area’.

This chapter considers some general issues surrounding supply and household characteristics within private sector tenures in the City of Westminster.

11.2 Owner-occupied sector It is useful for the Council to have information concerning supply and turnover of market housing in order to inform planning control. In particular, councils will want to ensure that new developments meet demand with regard to dwelling size and type. Data suggests that 43.7% of households in the City are owner-occupiers and that 55.9% of these have a mortgage. As was shown in Chapter 6, households in owner-occupied accommodation without a mortgage have lower average incomes than those with a mortgage, although it should be remembered that the former group contains many older people who are likely to be retired. The table below shows the size profile of the owner-occupied stock in the City of Westminster. The data suggests that over half of households have three or more bedrooms. Only 13.0% have one bedroom accommodation.

Table 11.1 Size of dwellings (number of bedrooms) in the owner-occupied stock

Number of bedrooms Households % of households 1 bedroom 6,405 13.0% 2 bedrooms 13,936 28.4% 3 bedrooms 20,714 42.2% 4+ bedrooms 8,064 16.4% TOTAL 49,119 100.0%



PAGE 106

The table below builds on this by looking at the turnover of owner-occupied stock within each size category over the last two years.

Table 11.2 Turnover of dwellings in the owner-occupied stock by size of dwelling (number of bedrooms)

Number of bedrooms

Number moving in past

two years


Estimated annual

turnover rate 1 bedroom 508 6,405 4.0% 2 bedrooms 463 13,936 1.7% 3 bedrooms 634 20,714 1.5% 4+ bedrooms 80 8,064 0.5% TOTAL 1,685 49,119 1.7%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The recent mover data points to an overall turnover rate of 1.7%, although this will be a slight underestimation of total turnover for the dwellings concerned (given that there may have been multiple moves in the two-year period). Turnover of one bedroom dwellings is greater than for the other property size categories. Finally, we can consider households claiming financial assistance with their housing costs (for mortgage interest payments). The data suggests that around 1.6% of households with a mortgage receive income support towards their mortgage payments (445 households). This figure represents 0.9% of all owners. Additionally, it is estimated that 28.8% of owner-occupiers with a mortgage are paying more for housing than is recommended, based on the affordability test described in Chapter 6.

11.3 The private rented sector The private rented sector is an important part of the housing spectrum in an area. In British conditions it is not often a long-term choice but is an important transitional tenure. In many cases the private rented sector is a stage in the progress of a household moving into owner-occupation, but can also be a stage in the move of a household into social rented housing. In more detail, and as a market sector, the private rented sector plays an important role. It meets the needs of:

i) Business people who have short term reasons for staying in a place (e.g. for six months or a year, when it would not be worth the time and transactional cost of buying property)


PAGE 107

ii) Those planning entry to the owner-occupied market but who have not had time either to find suitable property or accumulated a sufficient deposit to do so

iii) The needs of those who cannot obtain suitable affordable housing, and cannot afford

market prices to rent or buy. With the aid of Housing Benefit they may obtain short term housing in the private rented sector.

Data suggests that the City of Westminster has a larger than average private rented sector (34.3% of households compared with around 10% nationally). The two tables below show the size of dwellings in the private rented sector and the relative turnover of stock. It is clear that the number of one and two bedroom properties is proportionately much larger in the private rented sector – 76.9% of all private rented stock is one or two bedroom, which compares with only 41.4% of the owner-occupied stock. Overall, the data shows that turnover of stock is much higher in the private rented sector, which would be expected given the transitory nature of the tenure. The estimated annual turnover rate in the private rented sector is 35.1% compared to 1.7% in the owner-occupied sector.

Table 11.3 Size of dwellings (number of bedrooms) in the private rented stock

Number of bedrooms Households % of households 1 bedroom 16,082 41.7% 2 bedrooms 13,606 35.2% 3 bedrooms 7,629 19.8% 4+ bedrooms 1,284 3.3% TOTAL 38,602 100.0%


Table 11.4 Turnover of dwellings in the private rented stock by size of dwelling (number of bedrooms)

Number of bedrooms


two years


Estimated annual

turnover rate 1 bedroom 12,821 16,082 39.9% 2 bedrooms 10,397 13,606 38.2% 3 bedrooms 3,269 7,629 21.4% 4+ bedrooms 621 1,284 24.2% TOTAL 27,108 38,602 35.1%



PAGE 108

Additionally, survey data suggests that 9.2% of households (3,533 households) in the private rented sector are in receipt of housing benefit, this compares with 0.9% of all owners. It is also estimated that an additional 65.5% of private renters are paying more for housing than is recommended, based on the affordability test described in Chapter 6.

11.4 The social rented sector It is of interest to briefly provide the same information as above for the social rented sector. The tables below show stock profile and turnover rates for all social rented housing in the City. The data shows that the social rented sector has relatively few four or more bedroom properties whilst 72.8% are one or two bedroom. The turnover rate in the social rented stock is around 7.2% per annum, with the highest turnover for properties with one bedroom.

Table 11.5 Size of dwellings (number of bedrooms) in the social rented stock

Number of bedrooms Households % of households 1 bedroom 12,510 50.7% 2 bedrooms 5,446 22.1% 3 bedrooms 5,814 23.6% 4+ bedrooms 904 3.7% TOTAL 24,674 100.0%


Table 11.6 Turnover of dwellings in the social rented stock by size of dwelling (number of bedrooms)

Number of bedrooms


two years


Estimated annual

turnover rate 1 bedroom 2,542 12,510 10.2% 2 bedrooms 440 5,446 4.0% 3 bedrooms 538 5,814 4.6% 4+ bedrooms 10 904 0.6% TOTAL 3,530 24,674 7.2%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 Survey data also suggests that 43.9% of households in the social rented sector are in receipt of housing benefit.


PAGE 109

11.5 Data comparisons For ease of comparison it is useful to bring together the information from the above analysis. The figure below compares the profile of stock (by size) in each of the three main sectors. The figure makes it clear that there are large differences between the stock profiles in the different sectors. The social and private rented sectors are heavily biased towards smaller properties whilst the opposite is true in the owner-occupied sector.

Figure 11.1 Profile of housing stock (by size and tenure)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Social rented

Private rented

Owner-occupied

1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4+ bedrooms

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The table below summarises the position with regard to turnover of stock and the proportion of households claiming housing benefit (income support) towards housing costs. The table again clearly demonstrates the differences between the different tenures. The turnover of private rented stock is over twenty times that in the owner-occupied sector whilst households in the social rented sector are significantly more likely to claim assistance with their housing costs than owners or private tenants.

Table 11.7 Turnover of stock and housing benefit claims by tenure

Tenure Annual turnover of

stock (% of households)

% claiming housing benefit (income

support for owners) Owner-occupied 1.7% 0.9% Private rented 35.1% 9.2% Social rented 7.2% 43.9% TOTAL 14.4% 11.2%



PAGE 110

11.6 Summary Emphasis on examination of the whole market as part of developing local Housing Strategies has been a theme of Government policy since the publication of PPG3 (2000). This suggests that the planning and housing departments should work together to understand local housing requirements across all tenures and size requirements. Analysis of survey data suggests that the owner-occupied sector accounts for around 43.7% of the total housing stock and is dominated by three bedroom properties. Private rented properties make up 34.3% and are characterised by a larger proportion of one and two bedroom dwellings. The estimated annual turnover rate in the owner-occupied sector is around 1.7%, which compares to 35.1% in the private rented sector.

1 2 . Ba lan c in g h ou s i ng ma r ke t s

PAGE 111

12. Balancing housing markets

12.1 Introduction A ‘Balancing Housing Markets’ (BHM) assessment looks at the whole local housing market, considering the extent to which supply and demand are ‘balanced’ across tenure and property size. The notion has been brought into prominence by the work of the Audit Commission in assessing councils’ performance (Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) of Local authorities). The Audit Commission specification for assessing the balancing of housing markets (Audit Commission March 2003) sets out three broad questions for the assessment:

i) How well does the Council understand its housing market and from its understanding has the Council developed the right proposals to help balance the housing market?

ii) What are the Council’s actions and what outcomes has it achieved in helping to balance

housing markets?

iii) How well does the Council monitor its progress and impact in helping to balance housing markets and how effectively does this feed into future strategy and plans?

This chapter outlines and applies a BHM analysis, which can assist the Council in fulfilling the above objectives. Data concerning supply and demand within different tenures allows a consideration of the extent to which the local housing market in the City of Westminster is balanced. It is worth noting however that the City of Westminster is part of a wider London housing market and is not a self-contained market. The City itself also has a particular role to play as it is at the centre of a World City. Whilst one of the outputs of the BHM model is an estimate of the shortfall of affordable housing, this should not be taken as an estimate of the absolute need for such housing. As the BHM is a demand and aspiration driven model (the BNAM being mainly based on past trends) there are inevitably some households who have a demand for affordable housing but under the BNAM would not be considered as needing such housing. Additionally as the bulk of the supply in the BHM is based on expected future household moves it is often the case that this model shows a lower supply level than the trend data of the BNAM (typically drawn from HSSA).


PAGE 112

It is therefore common to find that the BHM shows a slightly higher estimate of the affordable requirement than the BNAM but this should not be taken as the survey’s base estimate of the absolute requirement for affordable housing (which is measured using the ODPM's Basic Needs Assessment Model). The BHM is however particularly useful at ascertaining what shortages exist in the private sector market and can help to guide councils in securing an appropriate mix of market housing on new housing developments. The inherent idea behind the BHM method is that it seeks to meet the requirements of the current population first with the amount of in-migration used to ‘balance’ figures to the estimated household growth of an area. Unlike the specific model followed in Section C, however there is only very general guidance provided for a BHM analysis. The next subsection summarises our approach.

12.2 Procedure in outline In overview, a BHM analysis assesses the aspirations of would-be movers in relation to total dwellings, broken down by property size and tenure. Growth is constrained by the projected future building rate for the City of Westminster from the London Plan. The steps involved are listed below:

i) Total allocation of new dwellings to the City of Westminster

ii) Numbers of households wishing/planning to move (both existing and newly forming)

iii) Distinguish those who can afford their proposed moves from those who cannot

iv) Those who cannot afford their moves are allocated to affordable housing (in principle) as they cannot afford to rent or buy at market prices

v) The total of market and non-market moves is assessed in relation to the net extra number of dwellings required

vi) This is assessed against the allowed total of new dwellings for the City. Where the net demand is greater than the total, this is noted, by tenure group

vii) Where the total net demand is less than the allowed total new build, then the difference is assumed to be net in-migration, often of market purchasers

viii) All figures are calculated on an annual basis from figures over a two year period


PAGE 113

12.3 Why gross flows cannot predict tenure The ODPM Guide suggests a Gross Flow approach, which bases forecasts on past patterns, in order to carry out a BHM. However, given that market dynamics and socio-economic factors are always changing, past patterns are actually fairly limited as a predictor. Past (or even projected future) changes in the proportions of dwelling types and tenure groups are not indicative of what should happen in order to best meet housing requirements in the future. In the jargon, such data has no ‘normative’ value: it contains no element of judgement. This was noted by Fordham Research as long ago as 1993:

‘future variation in proportions of owner-occupiers, private renters etc should be considered as variables on which policy is to operate in seeking to meet housing need. In this sense it is not appropriate to use them as fixed variables’ (Wycombe Housing Needs Survey, Fordham Research 1993)

Examples of why unadjusted gross flows are not a satisfactory predictor are easy to cite:

i) If in a local authority area over a period of time (say a year) nothing but four bedroom owner-occupied dwellings are built then the gross flows methodology would show that nothing but four bedroom owner-occupied homes are required in the future (even if there is a significant need for additional affordable housing).

ii) On the other hand another local authority may have needed (and been able) to build a

significant number of additional affordable units, the gross flows approach would indicate that the Local Authority still required large numbers of affordable housing units (which might not be the case).

12.4 Adapted Gross Flows (AGF)

The Fordham approach, therefore, adapts the notion of balance inherent in Gross Flows to take account of future housing aspirations and affordability as well as past trends. This revised approach has the advantage of not simply mirroring the past and also helps to avoid any ‘unbalancing’ actions which may have been at work. At the most general level:

• Demands minus the supply should give a net change (increase usually) in number of dwellings/households


PAGE 114

For the purpose of this test we have set the overall net increase in dwellings to 680. This is based on the required build rate from 1997 to 2016 as indicated in the London Plan. Full details of the analysis are presented in Appendix A3. Set out below is a summary of the results.

12.5 Summary of data The results of the analysis can be summarised as follows, prior to inputting into the final table: Growth – 680 per annum Demand New households forming within the City – 1,185 In-migration – 2,963 Households moving within the City – 4,130 Total demand = 8,278 Supply Household dissolution (through death) – 825 Out-migrant – 2,643 Households moving within the City – 4,130 Total supply = 7,598 The results of the calculations detailed in Appendix A4 are shown in the following table:

Table 12.1 Total shortfall or (surplus)



Owner-occupation (334) 179 487 73 405 Affordable housing 983 1,756 1,380 39 4,158 Private rented (1,981) (1,180) (625) (97) (3,882) TOTAL (1,332) 755 1,243 14 680



PAGE 115

A number of conclusions can be drawn from this analysis:

i) In terms of the demand for affordable housing in the City it is clear that this is on-going. The BHM methodology suggests a significant shortfall of affordable housing of all sizes of accommodation, most notably two and three bedroom homes

ii) Overall, the data shows a shortfall in the owner-occupied sector. Within this sector there

is a shortfall of all dwelling sizes with the exception of one bedroom properties which display a surplus. The main shortage is for three bedroom homes.

iii) The model indicates that there is a large surplus in the private rented sector. In this sector

all dwelling sizes show a surplus, since many households view this sector as an undesirable long term solution whilst the supply of private rented housing is likely to be large due to the temporary nature of the tenure.

12.6 Implications of analysis

Analysis using the ODPM ‘Basic Needs Assessment model’ found that there is a shortage of affordable housing in the City of Westminster. The BHM assessment, which constrains growth according to planned development and then balances demand across all tenures, also produces this conclusion. The Guide Model and the BHM analysis both find that an affordable housing target is justified in the City of Westminster. The more robust methodology of the Guide Model means that this provides a more accurate estimate of the total shortfall. There is a difference between the size profiles recorded for affordable housing in the BHM analysis with that recorded in the BNAM analysis in table 10.2e. The reason for this is that the BNAM analysis is based on the strict bedroom standard (described in the glossary) which allows for no under-occupation and records the minimum number of bedrooms a household requires, whilst the BHM analysis is based on the dwelling size preferences of households so therefore includes any desired under-occupation and allows for household growth.

12.7 Summary In addition to looking at the needs of households by closely following the ODPM’s ‘Basic Needs Assessment Model’ the survey used a ‘demand’ based methodology to estimate the future demand for housing across all tenures.


PAGE 116

Like the BNAM, the ‘demand’ based methodology suggested that there is a requirement for additional affordable housing in the City. This methodology also suggested that there will be a shortfall of owner-occupied accommodation in the future and a large surplus of private rented homes.

S E C T I ON E : TH E N E E D S O F P A R T I C U L A R G R O U P S

PAGE 117

SECTION E: THE NEEDS OF PARTICULAR GROUPS This section addresses particular client groups that may have very specific housing requirements. Although such groups do not necessarily represent households in need as defined by the ODPM Guide, it is important for the Council to have detailed information on them in order to inform specific policies and service provision. For example, the frail elderly may not be in housing need in the sense of not being able to afford market housing, but many of them are liable to require extra care in the future, whether directly, or via aids and adaptations in the home. This section covers the following groups:

• Households with support needs • Older person households • Key worker households • Black and Minority Ethnic households • Overcrowding and under-occupation

The section finishes with a short chapter looking at the incidence of overcrowding and under-occupation amongst different groups of households in the City. It is important to note that in this section student households have been included in the analysis unless stated.


PAGE 118


PAGE 119

13. Households with support needs

13.1 Introduction There are groups that may, because of their condition or vulnerability, have requirements for specialised forms of housing provision, or else require support services in order to continue living an independent life in their existing home. The survey asked respondents to identify whether themselves or any other household members had an attribute that may require additional support. This chapter documents the situation of these households and any implications this has for the Council.

13.2 Data coverage The survey collected information on the presence within the household of any people within the following broad categories:

• Frail elderly • Persons with a physical disability • A learning disability • A mental health problem • Severe sensory disability • Others

Each person with a support need could respond to as many of the above categories as is applicable. This means that we can differentiate between households that have more than one person with a support need and those that have people with multiple support needs.

13.3 Households with support needs: overview Overall there are an estimated 12,971 households in the City of Westminster with one or more members in an identified support needs group. This represents 11.5% of all households, which is just below the average Fordham Research has found nationally (13-14%). Westminster City Council commissions a wide range of specialist housing related support services that meet the diverse needs that are presented in Westminster. In particular this includes over 700 units of hostel provision for rough sleepers, over 200 bedspaces services for young homeless people and over 500 specialist units for people with mental health problems.


PAGE 120

The table below shows the numbers of households with different types of support needs. The numbers of households in each category exceed the total number of support needs households because people can have more than one category of support need. 'Physically disabled' is the predominant group. There are 7,451 households with a physically disabled household member. The next largest group is ‘frail elderly’, with 5,042 households having a member in this category. These two categories represent 57.4% and 38.9% of all support needs households respectively.

Table 13.1 Support needs categories


% of all households

% of support needs

households Frail elderly* 5,042 4.5% 38.9% Physical disability 7,451 6.6% 57.4% Learning disability** 59 0.1% 0.5% Mental health problem*** 2,782 2.5% 21.5% Severe sensory disability 256 0.2% 2.0% Other 570 0.5% 4.4%

* Note- elderly people who have become frail & who may find it difficult to cope in ordinary housing ** The survey has identified 59 households with at least one member with a learning disability; however the City of Westminster records suggest that there are 530 individuals with a learning disability within the City. *** Additional City of Westminster information also suggests that 2,693 new individual referrals were made to the Mental Health Trust in 2005/2006.


In addition to the above information we are able to look at the number of people in each household with a support need and also households containing persons with multiple support needs. The results for these are shown below.

Table 13.2 Number of people with support needs

Households % of households No people with support needs 99,424 88.5% One person with support needs 11,910 10.6% Two persons with support needs 1,061 0.9% Three or more persons with support needs 0 0.0% TOTAL 112,395 100.0%



PAGE 121

Table 13.3 Households with support needs

Households % of households No people with support needs 99,424 88.5% Single support need only 10,219 9.1% Multiple support needs 2,752 2.4% TOTAL 112,395 100.0%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The two tables above show that the majority of support needs households (91.8%) only contain one person with a support need and that the majority of households with a support needs member do not have multiple support needs (78.8%). However, some 1,061 households in the City of Westminster are estimated to have two or more people with a support need whilst an estimated 2,752 households contain someone with multiple needs.

13.4 Characteristics of support needs households The survey indicates that 1,276 support needs households (9.8%) currently reside in sheltered accommodation with the remainder living in normal residential accommodation. The tables below show the characteristics of support needs households in terms of household size, age, tenure, sub-area and unsuitable housing.

Table 13.4 Size of support needs households

Support needs households Number of persons in household Support needs

No support needs

Number of h’holds

% of total h’holds with

support needs

% of those with a support need

One 8,432 46,514 54,946 15.3% 65.0% Two 2,478 29,088 31,566 7.9% 19.1% Three 1,400 11,184 12,584 11.1% 10.8% Four 536 7,664 8,200 6.5% 4.1% Five 32 3,367 3,399 0.9% 0.2% Six or more 93 1,607 1,700 5.5% 0.7% TOTAL 12,971 99,424 112,395 11.5% 100.0%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The table above shows that a household with support needs members is more likely to be small. Almost two-thirds of support needs households contain only one person. Support needs households are also more likely to contain older persons.


PAGE 122

Table 13.5 Support needs households with and without older people

Support needs households

Age group Support needs

No support needs

Number of h’holds


support needs

% of those with a

support need

No older people 4,272 82,684 86,956 4.9% 32.9% Both older & non older people 2,719 2,867 5,586 48.7% 21.0% Older people only 5,979 13,872 19,851 30.1% 46.1% TOTAL 12,970 99,423 112,393 11.5% 100.0%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 As the table below shows, support needs households are more likely to be living in social rented housing. Some 39.6% of Council and 25.1% of RSL tenants contain a member with support needs, compared to 3.4% of owner-occupiers (with mortgage) and 1.7% of private rented tenants.

Table 13.6 Support needs households and tenure


Tenure Support needs

No support needs

Number of h’holds

% of total h’holds

with support needs

% of those with a

support need

Owner-occupied (no mortgage) 3,426 18,242 21,668 15.8% 26.4% Owner-occupied (with mortgage) 939 26,512 27,451 3.4% 7.2% Council 4,830 7,367 12,197 39.6% 37.2% RSL 3,134 9,343 12,477 25.1% 24.2% Private rented 642 37,960 38,602 1.7% 4.9% TOTAL 12,971 99,424 112,395 11.5% 100.0%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The table below shows the geographical distribution of support needs households. The data shows that households in the North West are most likely to have a support need, whilst the lowest levels are shown in the South Central area.


PAGE 123

Table 13.7 Support needs households and sub-area


Sub-area Support needs

No support needs

Number of h’holds


support needs

% of those with a

support need

North West 5,133 18,945 24,078 21.3% 39.6% North 2,559 15,101 17,660 14.5% 19.7% Central Strip 2,767 31,033 33,800 8.2% 21.3% South Central 373 18,082 18,455 2.0% 2.9% South 2,139 16,263 18,402 11.6% 16.5% TOTAL 12,971 99,424 112,395 11.5% 100.0%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The table below indicates that support needs households are more likely to be living in unsuitable housing than non-support needs households. Some 13.9% of all support needs households are living in unsuitable housing, which compares with 10.2% of all households and 9.7% of all non-support needs households.

Table 13.8 Support needs households and unsuitable housing

Unsuitable housing

Support needs In unsuitable housing


Number of h’holds


% of those in unsuitable housing

Support needs 1,804 11,168 12,972 13.9% 15.7% No support needs 9,662 89,762 99,424 9.7% 84.3% TOTAL 11,466 100,930 112,396 10.2% 100.0%


13.5 Requirements of support needs households Those households with a member with support needs were asked to indicate if there was a need for improvements to their current accommodation and/or services. The responses are detailed in the figure below.


PAGE 124

Figure 13.1 Support needs households: improvements to accommodation & services

21

307

320

406

422

491

605

765

913

1,118

1,186

1,276

1,349

2,303

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

Downstairs WC

Car parking space near to front door of home

Need to move to alternative housing with specialist adaptations

Single-level accommodation

More support services to your present home

Low level light switches or raised power points

Wheelchair access

Handrails / extra handrails

Emergency alarm

Low level kitchen units (including sink) or lever taps

Need to move to alternative housing with specialist care

Other alterations / adaptations

Level access shower unit

Lift / stair lift

Households

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The results show requirements for a wide range of adaptations and improvements across the support needs households. The most commonly-sought improvements needed were:

• Lift/stair lift (2,303 households – 17.8% of all support needs households) • Level access shower unit (1,349 households – 10.4% of all support needs households) • Other adaptations (1,276 households – 9.8% of all support needs households)

13.6 Accommodation preferences

Some 21.2% of support needs households expressed a need or expectation to move within the next 5 years (compared to 30.1% of all households), equating to 2,753 households. The table below presents the type of property preferred by these support needs households that are likely/need to move in the next five years alongside the type of property they expect to move to.


PAGE 125

Table 13.9 Dwelling type aspirations and expectations for support needs households

Property type Like Expect Detached 10.9% 10.1% Semi-detached 11.5% 0.0% Terraced house 13.9% 5.2% Flat/ maisonette 63.7% 84.7% Total 100.0% 100.0%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The table indicates that more support needs households would like to live in a house than would expect to. The table below presents the type of accommodation preferred by these support needs households alongside the type of accommodation they expect to move to. The data indicates that no support needs households would like to move to a residential care home but 10.1% of these households expect to. A greater proportion of support needs households would like extra care housing than expect it. In terms of ordinary residential accommodation slightly more households would expect this type of accommodation than would like it.

Table 13.10 Accommodation type aspirations and expectations for support needs households

Accommodation type Like Expect

Sheltered housing 17.0% 17.0% Supported housing 10.6% 10.6% Extra Care Scheme 13.2% 3.1% Residential Care Home 0.0% 10.1% A bungalow 0.8% 0.0% Ordinary residential accommodation 58.4% 59.1% Total 100.0% 100.0%



PAGE 126

13.7 Care & repair and staying put schemes This section studies support needs households who have stated experiencing difficulty in maintaining their home. There is already a care and repair scheme in Westminster designed to enable households with support needs to live comfortably within their own home, having access to the support services they need. The results are shown in the table below and are split between owner-occupiers and tenants. The table clearly shows that support needs households are more likely than other households in the City to have problems maintaining their homes. Of all households with a problem or serious problem, a total of 64.4% have support needs. A vast majority of these are tenants.

Table 13.11 Support needs households and difficulty maintaining home

No problem A problem/ serious

problem TOTAL

Household group Number % Number % Number %

Support needs – owner-occupied 4,244 99.3% 31 0.7% 4,275 100.0% Support needs – tenants 5,505 63.3% 3,191 36.7% 8,696 100.0% All support needs households 9,749 75.2% 3,222 24.8% 12,971 100.0% All households 107,392 95.5% 5,003 4.5% 112,395 100.0%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The evidence of the tables above is that there is certainly justification for the ‘staying put’ or ‘care and repair’ scheme in the City. A total of 5,003 households state a problem with maintaining their homes – of these 3,222 are support needs households with an estimated 3,191 living in rented accommodation.

13.8 Support needs households and the basic needs assessment model In addition to the above it is possible to study how support needs households fit into the Basic Needs Assessment Model. The table below gives an estimate of how much of the housing need will be from support needs households and also an estimate of the likely supply to these households. The table shows there is an estimated net supply of 291 dwellings per annum from support needs households.


PAGE 127

Table 13.12 Basic Needs Assessment Model and size requirement (support needs households)

Household group Need Supply TOTAL Support needs households 158 448 (291) Non-support needs households 6,237 326 5,912 TOTAL 6,395 774 5,621

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 13.9 Summary

Some 11.5% of all the City’s households (12,971) contain support needs members. ‘Physically disabled’ is the largest category with support needs. There are 7,451 households containing a ‘physically disabled’ person and a further 5,042 with household members who are ‘frail elderly’. Support needs households in the City of Westminster are generally smaller than average for the City and are disproportionately made up of older persons only. Support needs households are more likely than households overall to be in unsuitable housing. Support needs households in general stated a requirement for a wide range of adaptations and improvements to the home. A lift/stair lift and level access shower units were most commonly required. Finally, the survey suggested there is justification for furthering the ‘care & repair’ and ‘staying put’ scheme currently in Westminster.


PAGE 128

1 4 . O lder p e r so n ho us eh o lds

PAGE 129

14. Older person households

14.1 Introduction Data was collected in the survey with regard to the characteristics of households with older persons. This chapter looks at the general characteristics of older person households and details some additional survey findings about such households. Older people are defined as those over the state pension eligibility age (currently 65 for men, 60 for women). For the purpose of this chapter, households have been divided into three categories:

• Households without older persons • Households with both older and non-older persons • Households with only older persons

14.2 The older person population

Just below 18% of all households in the City of Westminster contain only older persons and a further 5.0% contain both older and non-older persons. The table below shows the number and percentage of households in each group.

Table 14.1 Older person households

Categories Number of households

% of all households

Households without older persons 86,957 77.4% Households with both older and non-older persons 5,587 5.0% Households with older persons only 19,852 17.7% TOTAL 112,395 100.0%


14.3 Characteristics of older person households The number of occupants in older person households is shown in the table below. The data suggests that all households containing older persons only are comprised of one or two persons only. Just under a third of all single person households are older person households.


PAGE 130

Table 14.2 Size of older person only households

Age group Number of persons in household

Older persons

only

Other h’holds

Number of h’holds

% of total h’holds

with older persons

% of those with older persons

One 15,914 39,032 54,946 29.0% 80.2% Two 3,938 27,628 31,566 12.5% 19.8% Three 0 12,583 12,583 0.0% 0.0% Four 0 8,200 8,200 0.0% 0.0% Five 0 3,399 3,399 0.0% 0.0% Six or more 0 1,700 1,700 0.0% 0.0% TOTAL 19,852 92,543 112,395 17.7% 100.0%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The table below shows the housing tenures of households with older persons. Over half of older person only households are owner-occupiers. The overwhelming majority of these do not have a mortgage. This finding suggests that the potential for equity release schemes in the City of Westminster is quite high. Another significant finding is the relatively high proportion of social rented accommodation containing older people only (24.2%). This may have implications for future supply of specialised social rented accommodation.

Table 14.3 Older person only households and tenure

Age group

Tenure Older persons

only

Other house-holds

Total hhs

% with older

persons

% of older

person hhs

Owner-occupied (no mortgage) 10,998 10,670 21,668 50.8% 55.4% Owner-occupied (with mortgage) 840 26,611 27,451 3.1% 4.2% Council 3,162 9,035 12,197 25.9% 15.9% RSL 2,739 9,738 12,477 22.0% 13.8% Private rented 2,112 36,490 38,602 5.5% 10.6% TOTAL 19,852 92,543 112,395 17.7% 100.0%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The table below shows the geographical distribution of older person only households. The North West and the North have the highest proportions of pensioner only households whilst the Central Strip has the lowest proportion.


PAGE 131

Table 14.4 Older person only households and sub-area

Age group

Sub-area Older persons

only

Other house-holds

Total hhs % with older

persons

% of older person hhs

North West 5,280 18,798 24,078 21.9% 26.6% North 3,846 13,814 17,660 21.8% 19.4% Central Strip 4,598 29,202 33,800 13.6% 23.2% South Central 3,456 14,998 18,454 18.7% 17.4% South 2,670 15,731 18,401 14.5% 13.4% TOTAL 19,852 92,543 112,395 17.7% 100.0%


14.4 Dwelling characteristics The table below shows the type of accommodation that older person only households reside in. The data indicates that older person only households are more likely than non-older person households in the City of Westminster to be living in purpose built flats and less likely to be living in other types of flats.

Table 14.5 Type of accommodation by older person only households

Accommodation type % of older person

households % of non-older person

households Detached house/bungalow* 0.3% 0.8% Semi-detached house/bungalow 5.5% 1.8% Terraced house/bungalow 2.3% 9.4% Purpose-built flat/maisonette 75.2% 57.4% Other flat/maisonette** 16.7% 30.5% TOTAL 100.0% 100.0%

* Includes mobile homes **Other flat/maisonette includes flats that are part of a converted or shared house and flats in a commercial building

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The table below shows that older person only households are less likely than non-older person households in the City of Westminster to be living in four bedroom dwellings but are more likely to live in three bedroom properties. A three-bedroom home is the most common property size for older person only households. Given that previous information has shown that most older person only households are comprised of only one or two persons, this finding suggests that there could be potential scope to free up larger units for younger families if the older households chose to move into suitable smaller units.


PAGE 132

Table 14.6 Size of dwellings (number of bedrooms) for older person only households

Number of bedrooms % of older person

households % of non-older

person households 1 bedroom 31.4% 31.1% 2 bedrooms 30.5% 29.1% 3 bedrooms 37.6% 28.8% 4+ bedrooms 0.4% 11.0% TOTAL 100.0% 100.0%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 This information can be further broken down by tenure (for older person households) and this is shown in the table below. The table indicates that whilst the majority of large (3+ bedroom) properties are in the owner-occupied sector there are also a significant number in the social rented sector and may therefore present some opportunity to reduce under-occupation.

Table 14.7 Older person only households size of accommodation and tenure

Size of accommodation Tenure

1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4+ bed TOTAL Owner-occupied (no mortgage) 829 3,337 6,742 89 10,997 Owner-occupied (with mortgage) 0 548 292 0 840 Council 2,435 509 217 0 3,161 RSL 2,094 559 86 0 2,739 Private rented 884 1,096 133 0 2,113 TOTAL 6,242 6,049 7,470 89 19,850


14.5 Accommodation preferences Although just 2,539 older person only households (12.8%) expressed a need or expectation to move within the next 5 years it is of value to look at the type of accommodation preferred by these households. It is important to note that as so few older person only households anticipate moving in the next five years, the sample size is significantly reduced and the results of this section should be treated with caution. The table below presents the type of property preferred by these older person only households that are likely/need to move in the next five years alongside the type of property they expect to move to. The table indicates that a greater number of older person only households would like to live in a semi-detached house than would expect to, with the reverse true for a flat/maisonette. A flat/maisonette is however the dwelling type most commonly preferred.


PAGE 133

Table 14.8 Dwelling type aspirations and expectations for older person only households

Property type Like Expect Detached 11.0% 11.0% Semi-detached 14.9% 0.0% Terraced house 1.5% 3.4% Flat/ maisonette 72.6% 85.6% Total 100.0% 100.0%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The table below presents the type of accommodation preferred by these older person only households alongside the type of accommodation they expect to move to. The data indicates that older person only households have similar expectations to what they would like. However, the data does show that a greater proportion of older person only households would expect a residential care home than would like to move to it. Ordinary residential accommodation is the preferred accommodation for over half of older person only households.

Table 14.9 Accommodation type aspirations and expectations for older person only households

Accommodation type Like Expect

Sheltered housing 13.6% 13.6% Supported housing 11.5% 11.5% Extra Care Housing 14.3% 3.4% Residential Care Home 0.0% 11.0% A bungalow 0.0% 0.0% Ordinary residential accommodation 60.6% 60.6% Total 100.0% 100.0%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 14.6 Older person households and the basic needs assessment model

Some 11.6% of all older person only households (2,301 households) in the City of Westminster live in unsuitable housing. This figure is above the figure of 10.2% for all households. In addition we can look at older persons needs using the basic needs assessment model. Following this method suggests that there is an annual need to provide accommodation for 215 older person households. Data from the Council on recent lettings in the social rented stock in Westminster indicate that there was a supply of 101 dwellings per year over the last two years from older persons accommodation. Therefore the BNAM suggests a shortfall of affordable housing for older persons of 114 units per annum.


PAGE 134

It is important to note that there is a need for all forms of social rented housing and not just specialist older persons’ accommodation, particularly as older person households have indicated a preference for remaining in their own home if they require care rather than moving to specialist housing.

14.7 Summary Some 17.7% of households in the City of Westminster contain older persons only, and a further 5.0% contain a mix of both older and non-older persons. Older person only households are largely comprised of one or two persons, providing implications for future caring patterns. Although the majority of older person only households live in the private sector, it is interesting to note that a relatively high proportion of social rented accommodation houses older people only (24.2%). Older person households contribute to the overall net need for additional affordable housing.

1 5 . K ey wor k er ho us eh o lds

PAGE 135

15. Key worker households

15.1 Introduction The term intermediate housing is often used with reference to specific groups of households such as key workers. The survey therefore analysed such households. For the purposes of analysis key workers were defined according to government guidelines as people working in any one of 6 categories. These were: • Health (NHS) • Education • Social workers

• Prison and probation staff • Emergency services • Local authority planners

The nature of this study means that the key workers identified within the survey are those that are resident in the City. The data, therefore, includes key workers resident in the City who work outside its boundaries and excludes key workers who work in the City of Westminster but live outside. The analysis of key workers concentrates on their current housing situation, future demands for housing and affordability.

15.2 Number of key workers In total it is estimated that there are 12,109 key workers living in the City of Westminster. The table below shows the categories of key workers within the City. The main categories of key worker are education, health (NHS) and social workers. It is important to note that the employment categories used in the survey are broader than the key worker definitions used by government to determine eligibility for key worker schemes, but they are reflective of the broader public sector workforce.

Table 15.1 Key worker categories

Category Number of persons % of key workers Education 4,557 37.6% Health (NHS) 3,727 30.8% Social workers 2,827 23.3% Emergency services 825 6.8% Prison and probation service 143 1.2% Local Authority planners 31 0.3% TOTAL 12,109 100.0%



PAGE 136

In total it is estimated that 6,972 households are headed by a key worker (head of household taken as survey respondent). These households are subject to further analysis in the sections below.

15.3 Housing characteristics of key worker households The table below shows various household and housing characteristics of key worker households. The results indicate that a large proportion of key worker households are currently living in owner-occupied accommodation and are more likely at 56.1% to be owner-occupiers (with mortgage) than non-key workers (42.9%). Key worker households are more likely than non-key worker households to be living in the social rented sector and are much less likely to live in private rented accommodation. In terms of household composition key worker households are more likely than non-key workers to live in households with two or more adults with or without children. As a result key worker households have a greater requirement for properties with three or more bedrooms than non-key worker households, and a lower requirement for one bedroom dwellings. In terms of the geographical location of key worker households the data reveals that such households are particularly likely to be living in the Central Strip. In terms of age, key worker household heads are much more likely to be in the 40 to 49 age bracket, with 42.1% being in this range, compared to 19.5% of non-key workers household heads. Non-key worker household heads are more likely than key worker household heads to be over 60; which is not surprising given the group will contain a large proportion of retirees that will not be present in the key workers households.


PAGE 137

Table 15.2 Key worker households and housing/household characteristics

Key worker household Not key worker household Characteristic Number of

households % of

households Number of households

% of households

Tenure Owner-occupied (no mortgage) 462 6.6% 21,206 20.1% Owner-occupied (with mortgage) 3,449 49.5% 24,002 22.8% Council 750 10.8% 11,447 10.9% RSL 1,010 14.5% 11,467 10.9% Private rented 1,301 18.7% 37,301 35.4% Household composition Single pensioners 0 0.0% 15,914 15.1% 2 or more pensioners 39 0.6% 3,898 3.7% Single non-pensioners 1,095 15.7% 37,937 36.0% 2 or more adults – no children 2,392 34.3% 32,937 31.2% Lone parent 211 3.0% 2,685 2.5% 2+ adults 1 child 1,390 19.9% 6,092 5.8% 2+ adults 2+ children 1,844 26.5% 5,960 5.7% Sub-area North West 2,204 31.6% 21,874 20.7% North 89 1.3% 17,571 16.7% Central Strip 2,256 32.4% 31,544 29.9% South Central 1,068 15.3% 17,387 16.5% South 1,354 19.4% 17,047 16.2% Size requirement 1 bedroom 2,332 33.5% 76,283 72.4% 2 bedrooms 2,320 33.3% 20,135 19.1% 3 bedrooms 1,924 27.6% 7,647 7.3% 4+ bedrooms 395 5.7% 1,358 1.3% Age of household head 0 to 19 0 0.0% 1,817 1.7% 20 to 29 492 7.1% 18,171 17.2% 30 to 39 1,694 24.3% 24,588 23.3% 40 to 49 2,935 42.1% 20,545 19.5% 50 to 59 1,699 24.4% 15,142 14.4% 60 and over 152 2.2% 25,160 23.9% TOTAL 6,972 100.0% 105,423 100.0%


15.4 Previous household moves of key worker households The table below indicates when key worker and non-key worker households moved to their current accommodation. The results show that 28.3% of all key worker households had moved to their current accommodation within the last five years compared with 39.6% of non-key workers.


PAGE 138

Table 15.3 Key worker households and past moves

Key worker household Not key worker household When moved to present home Number of

households % of


% of households

Within the last year 25 0.4% 16,849 16.0% 1 to 2 years ago 688 9.9% 7,779 7.4% 2 to 5 years ago 1,257 18.0% 17,051 16.2% 5 to 10 years ago 1,364 19.6% 10,411 9.9% Over 10 years ago 3,426 49.1% 47,386 44.9% Always lived here 212 3.0% 5,946 5.6% TOTAL 6,972 100.0% 105,422 100.0%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 Previous tenure and location information for households moving in the last five years is presented in the table below. The results show that almost half of key worker households moving in the last five years were private renting households, a proportion below that of non-key worker households. Some 49 of the 931 key worker households that were previously private renting were living in tied accommodation. Key worker households were more likely to have moved from social rented and owner-occupied accommodation, whilst a smaller proportion of non-key worker households were newly forming. In terms of location, the data suggests that key worker households are more likely to have moved from within the City of Westminster than non-key workers.

Table 15.4 Previous tenure and location of households moving in last five years

Characteristic Key worker household Not key worker household


% of households


% of households

Tenure of previous home Owner-occupied 348 17.7% 4,421 10.6% Social rented 594 30.1% 4,806 11.5% Private rented 931 47.2% 27,189 65.2% Newly forming household 98 5.0% 5,263 12.6% Location of previous home In the City of Westminster 927 47.0% 18,403 44.2% Elsewhere in London 924 46.9% 12,392 29.7% Elsewhere in the South East 10 0.5% 904 2.2% Elsewhere in the United Kingdom 0 0.0% 3,408 8.2% Abroad 110 5.6% 6,571 15.8% TOTAL 1,970 100.0% 41,679 100.0%



PAGE 139

15.5 Housing aspirations of key worker households The survey also collected information on the future aspirations of households seeking to move within the next five years. The table below indicates that of the 6,972 key worker households, a total of 21.2% need or are likely to move over the next five years. This figure is well below the 30.7% of non-key worker households who need/are likely to move in the next five years.

Table 15.5 Key worker households and future moves

Key worker household Not key worker household When need/likely to move Number of

households % of


% of households

Now 62 0.9% 8,095 7.7% Within a year 317 4.5% 10,142 9.6% 1 to 2 years 619 8.9% 8,203 7.8% 2 to 5 years 484 6.9% 5,941 5.6% No need/not likely to move 5,490 78.8% 73,042 69.3% TOTAL 6,972 100.0% 105,423 100.0%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The table indicates that 1,482 key worker households stated they were likely or would need to move within the next five years. Their housing preferences (in terms of tenure, location and size) are presented in the table below and are compared with results for all non-key worker households wanting to move within the next five years.


PAGE 140

Table 15.6 Housing preferences of households seeking to move in the next five years

Key worker household Not key worker household Housing preferences Number of

households % of


% of households

Tenure Buy own home 1,188 80.2% 17,496 54.0% Rent from the Council 67 4.5% 4,877 15.1% Rent from a Housing Association 0 0.0% 1,433 4.4% Rent from a private landlord 227 15.3% 7,031 21.7% Tied accommodation 0 0.0% 1,544 4.8% Shared Ownership 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Location In the City of Westminster 912 61.5% 19,530 60.3% Elsewhere in London 385 26.0% 6,470 20.0% Elsewhere in the South East 51 3.4% 632 2.0% Elsewhere in the United Kingdom 134 9.0% 687 2.1% Abroad 0 0.0% 5,060 15.6% Stated size preference 1 bedroom 86 5.8% 9,482 29.3% 2 bedrooms 555 37.4% 16,502 51.0% 3 bedrooms 491 33.1% 4,671 14.4% 4+ bedrooms 351 23.7% 1,725 5.3% TOTAL 1,483 100.1% 32,380 100.0%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The table indicates that owner-occupation is the preference for 80.2% of key worker households compared to 54.0% of non-key worker households. Key worker households are less likely than non-key worker households to want social rented accommodation. In terms of location it appears as if key worker households are more likely to want to move within the City. In terms of stated size preferences, key worker households are more likely to want larger three or four bedroom properties than non-key worker households.

15.6 Income and affordability of key worker households The table below shows a comparison of income and savings levels for key worker and non-key worker households. The figure for non-key worker households has been split depending on whether or not the head of household is in employment or not. Figures shown are for annual gross income (including non-housing benefits).


PAGE 141

The table suggests that generally key worker households have slightly higher income levels than non-key worker households (those in employment). The table also indicates that the range of key worker households’ incomes is smaller than that of non-key worker households. The lower quartile income of £28,500 for key worker households would not enable them to purchase a home within Westminster, but this is true of the lower quartile income of non-key worker households in employment. Key worker households however have a lower level of savings than non-key worker households. In comparison with all households, income levels for both key worker and non-key worker households are above the City average although, for key worker households, savings levels are below.

Table 15.7 Income and savings levels of key worker households

Gross household income (including non-housing benefits)

Category Lower

Quartile Median Mean

Upper Quartile

Mean household

savings

All key worker household £28,500 £46,878 £61,660 £62,500 £8,113 All non-key worker (in employment)

£23,750 £43,512 £60,453 £73,000 £22,765

All other households (no-one working)*

£5,750 £9,546 £18,391 £17,750 £15,205

All households* £10,250 £26,902 £45,587 £62,500 £19,144

* These do not include student households Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006

It is possible to consider the ability of key worker households to afford both minimum market prices and intermediate forms of housing and this is presented in the table below for all key worker households and those key worker households that need/are likely to move in the next five years. This assessment includes key worker households that are currently owner-occupiers. The equity available to owner-occupiers is included in the assessment of their ability to afford.


PAGE 142

Table 15.8 Key worker households and ability to afford housing

All key worker households

Key workers moving in next five years


% of households


% of households

Market housing 3,657 52.5% 1,032 69.6% Upper intermediate housing 185 2.7% 124 8.4% Mid-upper intermediate housing 605 8.7% 61 4.1% Mid-lower intermediate housing 1,114 16.0% 61 4.1% Lower intermediate housing 1,017 14.6% 181 12.2% Social rent only 393 5.6% 24 1.6% Total 6,972 100.0% 1,483 100.0%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The table indicates that 52.5% of all key worker households are able to afford entry-level prices in the market. It is interesting to note that of the 3,315 households unable to afford minimum market prices, 11.9% can only afford social rented housing, whilst 88.1% can afford intermediate housing. The profile of those key worker households who need/are likely to move in the next five years is slightly different. A larger proportion of these households are able to afford entry-level prices, however of those unable to afford the market, a lower proportion are only able to afford social rented housing (5.3%). This subset of key worker households is more likely to be able to afford market housing than all key worker households principally because they are less likely to contain children and therefore require a smaller property. Further analysis reveals that all key worker households able to afford market housing are also able to afford owner-occupation. The questionnaire asked households whether they were aware of a range of intermediate housing products, including key worker living schemes. The survey indicates that 79.9% of key worker households were aware of key worker living schemes, which is higher then the awareness of this product amongst non-key worker households (39.4%).

15.7 Key workers and the basic needs assessment model In addition to the above it is possible to study how key worker households fit into the Basic Needs Assessment Model. The table below gives an estimate of how much of the housing will be from key workers and also an estimate of the likely supply to these households. The table shows there is an estimated net need for 45 dwellings per annum for key worker households. This figure represents 0.8% of the total affordable requirement in the City.


PAGE 143

Table 15.9 Basic Needs Assessment Model and (key worker households)

Household category Need Supply TOTAL Key workers 45 0 45 Not key worker 6,350 774 5,576 TOTAL 6,395 774 5,621


15.8 Summary The term intermediate housing is often used with reference to specific groups of households such as key workers. The survey therefore analysed such households (the definition being based on categories of employment and notably including public sector workers). Analysis of survey data indicates that there are an estimated 12,109 people in key worker occupations and 6,972 households are headed by a key worker. These households are more likely to be living in the owner-occupied accommodation than non-key workers; they are also less likely to live in private rented accommodation. The main findings from further analysis of these groups of households can be summarised as follows:

• Around 15% of key worker households had moved in the last five years, below that of non-key workers; they were more likely to have moved from social rented accommodation than non-key workers

• Key worker households are more likely to want to move within the City and are more likely to want to buy their own home

• Key worker households have slightly higher incomes than non-key worker households (in employment)

• Some 52.5% of key worker households can afford market housing in the City. Of those that cannot afford, 88.1% can afford intermediate housing options

• In terms of the need for affordable housing the study suggests that around 0.8% of the net affordable housing requirement comes from key worker households.


PAGE 144

1 6 . B l a ck and M i no r i t y E thn i c h ous e ho ld s

PAGE 145

16. Black and Minority Ethnic households

16.1 Introduction Information was gathered in the survey to find out the ethnic origin of the head of household (and partner if applicable) for each sample household in the survey. The categories used on the survey forms were consistent with those used in the 2001 Census. Due to the small sample size of some of the groups, some of the categories have been re-grouped, resulting in nine different ethnic groups. The table below shows estimates of the number of households in each of the nine ethnic groups and the number of survey responses. For the analysis in this chapter, the ethnic group of the survey respondent is taken to represent the head of household.

Table 16.1 Number of households in each ethnic group

Ethnic group Total number of households

% of households

Number of returns

% of returns

White - British 65,921 58.7% 593 47.0% White - Irish 4,914 4.4% 58 4.6% White - Other 17,195 15.3% 107 8.5% Mixed 3,021 2.7% 98 7.8% Asian or Asian British 7,213 6.4% 103 8.2% Black or Black British - African 5,604 5.0% 116 9.2% Black or Black British - Other 2,173 1.9% 50 4.0% Arab 4,439 3.9% 97 7.7% Any other ethnic group 1,914 1.7% 39 3.1% Total 112,395 100.0% 1,261 100.0%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The above table shows that overall, White households were slightly under-represented amongst survey respondents whereas Black households were slightly over-represented. The survey estimates that just under 80% of households in the City are headed by a White person, 6.9% are headed by a Black person, 6.4% by an Asian person, 2.7% by a person of mixed race, 3.9% by an Arab person and 1.7% by a person that classified themselves as an other ethnic group. In total around 20% of households are headed by someone who describes themselves as non-white, although a further 19.7% of households are headed by a White non-British person.

16.2 Household size The number of persons in each household disaggregated by ethnic origin is shown in the table below.


PAGE 146

Table 16.2 Household size and ethnicity

Number of persons in household Ethnic group

1 2 3 4 5 6 or more Total Average HH size

White - British 37,403 16,059 6,879 3,988 858 734 65,921 1.74 White - Irish 2,656 996 332 863 66 0 4,914 1.92 White - Other 7,650 6,803 1,649 721 88 284 17,195 2.03 Mixed 615 582 355 231 1,146 92 3,021 3.33 Asian or Asian British 2,429 2,159 1,533 536 156 401 7,213 2.32 Black or Black British - African 754 1,578 1,166 1,359 653 94 5,604 2.99 Black or Black British - Other 730 695 199 198 351 0 2,173 2.42 Arab 1,902 1,773 368 264 73 59 4,439 1.89 Any other ethnic group 806 921 102 41 9 36 1,914 1.76 Total 54,945 31,566 12,583 8,201 3,400 1,700 112,395 1.96

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 It can be observed that Mixed households have the highest average household size with an estimated 3.33 persons per household. In contrast White - British households have the lowest average household size at 1.74 persons per household. These figures compare with a City of Westminster average of 1.96 persons per household.

16.3 Tenure The table and figure below show ethnic group and tenure. The data shows that White – Irish and Black or Black British households are more likely than other groups to be living in social rented housing. White – Other, Asian or Asian British, Arab and Other ethnic group households are particularly likely to live in the private rented sector. White - British and Mixed households are most likely to be owner-occupiers.


PAGE 147

Table 16.3 Tenure and ethnicity

Tenure

Ethnic group Owner-

occupied (no

mortgage)

Owner-occupied

(with mortgage)

Council RSL Private rented

Total

White - British 17,866 19,540 8,017 7,839 12,659 65,921 White - Irish 870 747 1,386 1,291 621 4,914 White - Other 1,008 1,361 460 629 13,737 17,195 Mixed 249 1,658 294 256 565 3,021 Asian or Asian British 751 1,453 442 233 4,335 7,213 Black or Black British - African 318 1,634 507 1,080 2,065 5,604 Black or Black British - Other 210 551 391 621 400 2,173 Arab 244 360 622 382 2,831 4,439 Any other ethnic group 152 148 79 147 1,389 1,914 Total 21,668 27,452 12,198 12,478 38,602 112,395


Figure 16.1 Tenure and ethnicity

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

White - British

White - Irish

White - Other

Mixed

Asian or Asian British

Black or Black British - African

Black or Black British - Other

Arab

Any other ethnic group

Owner-occupied (no mortgage) Owner-occupied (with mortgage) Council RSL Private rented



PAGE 148

16.4 Household type and support needs The table below shows ethnic group and household type. The results show that White - Irish and White - British households are most likely to be pensioner households. Mixed and Black or Black British households are the group most likely to contain children.

Table 16.4 Household type and ethnicity

Household Type

Ethnic Group

Sing

le Pe

nsion

er

2 or m

ore

pens

ioner

s

Sing

le no

n-pe

nsion

er

2 or m

ore

adult

s, no

ch

ildre

n

Lone

pare

nt

2+ ad

ults,

1 or

more

child

ren

2+ ad

ults,

2+

child

ren

Total

White - British 12,340 3,283 25,064 17,412 985 3,726 3,112 65,921 White - Irish 1,903 225 753 779 179 312 763 4,914 White - Other 682 65 6,968 7,014 1,277 749 440 17,195 Mixed 140 112 475 559 39 313 1,385 3,021 Asian or Asian British 51 48 2,377 3,223 25 940 549 7,213 Black or Black British - African 126 28 628 2,849 222 721 1,031 5,604 Black or Black British - Other 414 0 316 675 53 515 199 2,173 Arab 258 40 1,645 1,926 117 159 294 4,439 Any other ethnic group 0 138 806 890 0 48 32 1,914 Total 15,914 3,939 39,032 35,327 2,897 7,483 7,805 112,395


Figure 16.2 Household type by ethnic group

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

White - British

White - Irish

White - Other

Mixed

Asian or Asian British

Black or Black British - African

Black or Black British - Other

Arab

Any other ethnic group

Single pensioner 2 or more pensioners Single non-pensioner2 or more adults, no children Lone parent 2+ adults, 1 child2+ adults, 2+ children



PAGE 149

The table below shows ethnic group by support needs. The results show that White-Irish households were the most likely to have support needs (nearly 25%). Households headed by White –Other person were the least likely to contain a person with support needs. Overall, over two-thirds of support needs households are headed by a White British person.

Table 16.5 Support needs households and ethnic group


Ethnic group Support needs

No support needs

Number of h’holds


support needs

% of those with a

support need

White - British 9,053 56,868 65,921 13.7% 69.8% White - Irish 1,143 3,771 4,914 23.3% 8.8% White - Other 472 16,724 17,195 2.7% 3.6% Mixed 177 2,845 3,021 5.9% 1.4% Asian or Asian British 273 6,940 7,213 3.8% 2.1% Black or Black British - African 1,220 4,383 5,604 21.8% 9.4% Black or Black British - Other 164 2,009 2,173 7.5% 1.3% Arab 321 4,118 4,439 7.2% 2.5% Any other ethnic group 149 1,766 1,914 7.8% 1.1% Total 12,972 99,424 112,395 11.5% 100.0%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 16.5 Geographical location The table below shows the geographical distribution of ethnic minority households. The data shows a number of trends in terms of the predominance of certain groups in particular areas. For example, White - Irish households are particularly likely to live in the North West, as are Black or Black British households. Arab and Other ethnic group households are particularly likely to live in the Central Strip. Overall the Central Strip and the North West sub-areas appear to be the most ethnically diverse.


PAGE 150

Table 16.6 Ethnic group and sub-area

Sub area

Ethnic group North West

North Central

Strip South

Central South Total

White - British 11,801 12,530 16,304 12,778 12,508 65,921 White - Irish 2,170 410 1,547 443 343 4,914 White - Other 2,595 2,943 6,365 2,887 2,405 17,195 Mixed 1,610 0 944 268 199 3,021 Asian or Asian British 1,690 835 2,549 694 1,445 7,213 Black or Black British - African

2,664 132 1,508 438 862 5,604

Black or Black British - Other 1,139 10 517 229 278 2,173 Arab 338 619 2,582 596 303 4,439 Any other ethnic group 70 181 1,485 121 57 1,914 Total 24,077 17,660 33,801 18,454 18,400 112,395


Figure 16.3 Sub-area and ethnicity

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

North West

North

Central Strip

South Central

South

White - British White - IrishWhite - Other MixedAsian or Asian British Black or Black British - AfricanBlack or Black British - Other ArabAny other ethnic group



PAGE 151

16.6 Income and savings levels The table below shows income levels for each ethnic category (excluding student-only households). The average income of all households in the City was estimated at £45,587. The table shows that there are noticeable differences between income levels of different ethnic groups with the Arab households recording the highest average income and White – Other households the lowest. Savings levels also differ with White - Other households recording average savings of £25,896 and Black or Black British - Other households recording £5,617.

Table 16.7 Income and savings levels of ethnic minority households

Ethnic group Annual gross household income (including non-

housing benefits)

Average household savings

White - British £44,290 £19,940 White - Irish £38,196 £21,993 White - Other £27,828 £25,896 Mixed £55,319 £14,078 Asian or Asian British £73,633 £19,259 Black or Black British - African £46,481 £5,898 Black or Black British - Other £32,064 £5,617 Arab £96,225 £12,575 Any other ethnic group £31,436 £6,631 All households £45,587 £19,144

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 Asian or Asian British households have the second highest incomes in the City. Breaking this group down further it can be seen that household heads that classified themselves as Asian or Asian British- Other have the highest incomes at £99,425, whilst the lowest incomes were for Asian or Asian British- Bangladeshi at £35,184. However, these results are based on a small sample size and so should be treated with caution.

16.7 Unsuitable housing The table below shows how the incidence of unsuitable housing varies by ethnic group. The table shows that White Other households are most likely to be in unsuitable housing (at 16.1%), where as the Black Other group are the least likely - only 2.4% of households. These figures compare to a City average (including students) of 10.2%.


PAGE 152

Table 16.8 Unsuitable housing and ethnic group

Unsuitable housing

Ethnic group In

unsuitable housing


Number of h’holds

in City


% of those in

unsuitable housing

White - British 6,229 59,692 65,921 9.4% 54.3% White - Irish 621 4,293 4,914 12.6% 5.4% White - Other 2,769 14,426 17,195 16.1% 24.2% Mixed 120 2,902 3,022 4.0% 1.0% Asian or Asian British 791 6,423 7,214 11.0% 6.9% Black or Black British - African 316 5,287 5,603 5.6% 2.8% Black or Black British - Other 53 2,120 2,173 2.4% 0.5% Arab 511 3,927 4,438 11.5% 4.5% Any other ethnic group 55 1,859 1,914 2.9% 0.5% Total 11,465 100,929 112,394 10.2% 100.0%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The table below shows reasons for unsuitable housing by ethnic group. It shows that overcrowding is the most common reason for being in unsuitable housing for five of the nine ethnic groups. White British households are most likely to be in unsuitable housing because their housing is too expensive and Mixed households are most likely to be in unsuitable housing because of experiencing harassment.

Table 16.9 Categories of unsuitable housing and ethnic group

Ethnic group

Tenancy ending

Accommodation too expensive

Overcrowding

Home too large

Sharing facilities

support needs

Lack facilities

Repairs

Harassment

White - British 266 1,519 330 460 0 1,259 343 1,148 908 White - Irish 0 0 41 0 0 254 0 488 41 White - Other 352 590 1,427 0 0 65 0 908 199 Mixed 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 10 120 Asian or Asian British 23 115 371 0 0 125 0 54 303 Black or Black British - African 0 70 298 7 0 0 0 0 0 Black or Black British - Other 0 12 33 0 0 11 0 18 0 Arab 219 29 215 0 0 63 25 5 6 Any other ethnic group 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 860 2,335 2,780 477 0 1,777 368 2,631 1,577



PAGE 153

16.8 BME households and the basic needs assessment model It is possible to consider the ethnicity of households identified as being in need in the Basic Needs Assessment Model. The table below gives an estimate of how much of the gross housing need will be from each ethnic group. An estimated 41.9% of the gross affordable housing requirement is for households headed by a White - Other person, although there is a gross need for affordable housing from each ethnic group. All groups other than White British, White Irish and Mixed households are more likely than average to be in housing need.

Table 16.10 Basic Needs Assessment Model and ethnicity of households

Ethnic group Gross Need % of gross

need

% of household population

White - British 1,099 17.2% 58.7% White - Irish 9 0.1% 4.4% White - Other 2,681 41.9% 15.3% Mixed 59 0.9% 2.7% Asian or Asian British 776 12.1% 6.4% Black or Black British - African 522 8.2% 5.0% Black or Black British - Other 139 2.2% 1.9% Arab 832 13.0% 3.9% Any other ethnic group 279 4.4% 1.7% TOTAL 6,395 100.0% 100.0%


16.9 Country of birth All of the Household respondents that took part in the survey were asked to identify their country of birth. Eighty different answers were given in response to this question, meaning it is necessary to group the responses together to present the information. The table below indicates the place of birth of the heads of household in the City of Westminster. The results show that 63.1% of household heads were born in the UK, 15.3% were born elsewhere in Europe and 9.3% were born in Africa and the Middle East.


PAGE 154

Table 16.11 Place of birth of the heads of household

Place of birth Number of households

% of all households

United Kingdom 70,870 63.1% Other Europe 17,160 15.3% Africa & Middle East 10,488 9.3% Asia 7,333 6.5% Americas 5,415 4.8% Australasia 1,129 1.0% Total 112,395 100.0%


16.10 Summary The survey estimates that just under 80% of households in the City are headed by a White person, 6.9% are headed by a Black person, 6.4% by an Asian person, 2.7% by a person of mixed race, 3.9% by an Arab person and 1.7% by a person that classified themselves as an other ethnic group. The sample size was sufficient for results to be presented for nine different ethnic groups. The survey indicates that Mixed households have the highest average household size with an estimated 3.33 persons per household. In contrast White - British households have the lowest average household size at 1.74 persons per household. White Irish, Black and Black British households are more likely than other groups to be living in social rented housing. White – Other, Asian or Asian British, Arab and Other ethnic group households are particularly likely to live in the private rented sector. The survey showed considerable difference in both income and savings levels between the different groups. An estimated 41.9% of the gross affordable housing requirement is for households headed by a White-Other person, although there is a gross need for affordable housing from each ethnic group.

1 7 . Over c r owd ing and und er -o ccu pa t ion

PAGE 155

17. Overcrowding and under-occupation

17.1 Introduction This chapter briefly studies the extent of overcrowding and under-occupation of households living in each individual tenure group. The standards used to check for overcrowding/under-occupation were as follows: • Overcrowding: each household was assessed as to the number of bedrooms required. Any

household without enough bedrooms was deemed to be over-crowded. • Under-occupation: households with more than one spare bedroom are deemed to be under-

occupied.

17.2 Overcrowding and under-occupation The table below shows a comparison between the numbers of bedrooms in each home against the number of bedrooms required for all households.

Table 17.1 Overcrowding and under-occupation

Number of bedrooms in home Number of bedrooms required 1 2 3 4+ TOTAL 1 bedroom 33,477 24,462 18,101 2,575 78,615 2 bedrooms 1,496 7,937 10,258 2,765 22,456 3 bedrooms 13 553 5,285 3,721 9,572 4+ bedrooms 11 36 515 1,191 1,753 TOTAL 34,997 32,988 34,159 10,252 112,395

KEY: Overcrowded households Under-occupied households

Note: The bottom two cells of the 4+ bedroom column contain some households that are either overcrowded or under-occupied – for example they may require three bedrooms but live in a five bedroom property or may require a five bedroom property but are currently occupying a four bedroom property.

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The estimated number of overcrowded and under-occupied households is as follows: • Overcrowded: 2.7% of households = 3,051 households • Under-occupied: 20.9% of households = 23,441 households


PAGE 156

17.3 Household characteristics

The figures below show levels of overcrowding and under-occupation by various household characteristics. The figure shows some clear differences between different household groups. In terms of tenure, the figure shows that owner-occupiers are most likely to be under-occupying dwellings and less likely to be overcrowded; this is particularly true for those with no mortgage. It should also be noted that there are very few overcrowded households in RSL accommodation. Council households are the least likely to be under-occupied (7.6%); and are most likely to be overcrowded (4.7% of households). Household type analysis suggests that households containing adults with children are the most likely to be overcrowded, particularly lone parent households where 43.4% were overcrowded. These households are also least likely to under-occupy. Households containing two or more pensioners are most likely to be under-occupying. There was little difference between households with and without support needs, though the latter were slightly more likely to be overcrowded and slightly more likely to under-occupy their home. The age distribution shows that households containing only older people are not likely to be overcrowded and more likely to be under-occupied than other households. Looking at differences between sub-areas, households in the North West are the most likely to be overcrowded (6.7% of households); households in South Central were the most likely to be under-occupied. The North was the least likely sub-area to contain under-occupying households (4.5%).


PAGE 157

Figure 17.1 Household characteristics and overcrowding/under-occupation

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%



Council

RSL

Private rented

Single pensioners


Single non-pensioners

2 or more adults - no children

Lone parent

2+ adults 1 child

2+ adults 2+children

Support needs

No support needs

No older persons

Both older and non-older persons

Older persons only

North West

North

Central Strip

South Central

South

Overcrowded OK Under-occupied



PAGE 158

In addition to the above figures it is of use to consider the household types and tenure of those households under-occupying. This will give some indication of the scope for measures to reduce under-occupancy (particularly in the social rented sector). The table below shows this analysis.

Table 17.2 Under-occupation by household type and tenure

Tenure

Household type Owner-

occupied (no

mortgage)

Owner-occupied

(with mortgage)

Council RSL Private rented

TOTAL

Single pensioner 4,584 0 41 86 109 4,820 2 or more pensioners 2,099 0 152 0 24 2,275 Single non-pensioner 1,479 1,217 86 501 1,000 4,283 2 or more adults, no children 2,898 4,141 494 510 2,400 10,443 Lone parent 0 0 0 0 0 0 2+ adults, 1 child 0 466 92 7 35 600 2+ adults, 2+ children 501 209 67 223 17 1,017 TOTAL 11,561 6,033 932 1,327 3,585 23,441

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The table shows that there are a significant number of pensioner households under-occupying in the owner-occupied (no mortgage) sector, where as around two-thirds of under occupied private rented sector stock was occupied by 2 or more adults with no children. No lone parent households were under-occupying their properties.

17.4 Income levels The figure below shows the income levels of households who are overcrowded or under-occupied (excluding student households). The data shows that under-occupied households have the highest average household income (at £49,496 per annum) and overcrowded households the lowest (at £27,799 per annum). If these figures are adjusted depending on the number of persons in the households this trend is exacerbated. Overcrowded households have an average income per person of only £5,582; this figure rises to £27,904 for households who are under-occupying.


PAGE 159

Table 17.3 Overcrowding/under-occupancy and income

Overcrowded/under-occupied Average

gross annual income

Average number of persons in households

Average income per

person

Overcrowded £27,799 4.98 £5,582 Neither overcrowded nor under-occupied £45,120 1.92 £23,490 Under-occupied £49,496 1.77 £27,904 TOTAL £45,587 1.97 £23,110


17.5 Moving intentions of under-occupying households Finally this section looks at any moving intentions of overcrowded and under-occupied households. The table below shows the number and proportion of households in each group who need or expect to move home within the next two years. The analysis suggests that overcrowded households are most likely to need/expect to move. In total an estimated 59.5% of overcrowded households need or expect to move within the next two years, this compares with only 7.3% of households who currently under-occupy their dwelling.

Table 17.4 Moving intentions of overcrowded and under-occupying households

Overcrowded/under-occupied Number

need/expect to move

Total h’holds % needing/ expecting to

move Overcrowded 1,815 3,052 59.5% Neither overcrowded nor under-occupied 23,921 85,903 27.8% Under-occupied 1,702 23,441 7.3% TOTAL 27,438 112,395 24.4%


17.6 Summary This brief chapter looked at overcrowding and under-occupation. The results suggest that 2.7% of all households are overcrowded and 20.9% under-occupy their dwelling. The owner-occupied (no mortgage) sector shows the highest levels of under-occupation; the Council rented sector has the highest level of overcrowding. Overcrowded households tend to have low incomes (per person) and are far more likely to state that they need or expect to move than other households.


PAGE 160

G L O S S A RY

PAGE 161

GLOSSARY Affordability A measure of whether households can access and sustain the cost of private sector housing. There are two main types of affordability measure: mortgage and rental. Mortgage affordability assesses whether households would be eligible for a mortgage; rental affordability measures whether a household can afford private rental. Mortgage affordability is based on conditions set by mortgage lenders – using standard lending multipliers (2.9 times joint income or 3.5 times single income (whichever the higher)). Rental affordability is defined as the rent being less than a proportion of a household’s gross income (in this case 25% of gross income). Affordable housing Housing of an adequate standard which is cheaper than that which is generally available in the local housing market. In theory this can comprise a combination of subsidised rented housing and subsidised low-cost home ownership (LCHO) including shared ownership. Annual need The combination of new needs arising per year plus an allowance to deal progressively with part of the backlog of need. Average The term ‘average’ when used in this report is taken to be a mean value unless otherwise stated. Backlog of need Households whose current housing circumstances at a point in time fall below accepted minimum standards. This would include households living in overcrowded conditions, in unfit or seriously defective housing, families sharing, and homeless people living in temporary accommodation or sharing with others. Disaggregation Breaking a numerical assessment of housing need and supply down, either in terms of size and/or type of housing unit, or in terms of geographical sub-areas within the City.


PAGE 162

Grossing-up Converting the numbers of actual responses in a social survey to an estimate of the number for the whole population. This normally involves dividing the expected number in a group by the number of responses in the survey. Household One person living alone or a group of people who have the address as their only or main residence and who either share one meal a day or share a living room. Household formation The process whereby individuals in the population form separate households. ‘Gross’ or ‘new’ household formation refers to households which form over a period of time, conventionally one year. This is equal to the number of households existing at the end of the year which did not exist as separate households at the beginning of the year (not counting ‘successor’ households, when the former head of household dies or departs). Housing market area The geographical area in which a substantial majority of the employed population both live and work, and where most of those changing home without changing employment choose to stay. Housing need The situation in which households lack their own housing or are living in housing which is inadequate or unsuitable and who are unlikely to be able to meet their needs in the housing market without some assistance. Housing Register A database of all individuals or households who have applied to a LA or RSL for a social tenancy or access to some other form of affordable housing. Housing Registers, often called Waiting Lists, may include not only people with general needs but people with support needs or requiring access because of special circumstances, including homelessness.

G L O S S A RY

PAGE 163

Intermediate Housing Housing provided for households in work who are able to pay a social rent without relying on housing benefit, but unable to afford to buy at the lowest decile point of local house prices. This can typically be shared equity where a proportion of the property is bought and the other proportion in rented, normally from an RSL. Migration The movement of people between geographical areas, primarily defined in this context as local authority areas. The rate of migration is usually measured as an annual number of households, living in the City at a point in time, who are not resident in that City one year earlier. Net annual need The difference between annual need and the expected annual supply of available affordable housing units (e.g. from the re-letting of existing social rented dwellings). Newly arising need New households which are expected to form over a period of time and are likely to require some form of assistance to gain suitable housing, together with other existing households whose circumstances change over the period so as to place them in a situation of need (e.g. households losing accommodation because of loss of income, relationship breakdown, eviction, or some other emergency). Overcrowding An overcrowded dwelling is one which is below the bedroom standard. (See 'Bedroom Standard' above). Potential households Adult individuals, couples or lone parent families living as part of other households of which they are neither the head nor the partner of the head and who need to live in their own separate accommodation, and/or are intending to move to separate accommodation, rather than continuing to live with their ‘host’ household.


PAGE 164

Random sample A sample in which each member of the population has an equal chance of selection. Relets Social rented housing units which are vacated during a period and become potentially available for letting to new tenants. Sample survey Collects information from a known proportion of a population, normally selected at random, in order to estimate the characteristics of the population as a whole. Sampling frame The complete list of addresses or other population units within the survey area which are the subject of the survey. Social rented housing Housing of an adequate standard which is provided to rent at below market cost for households in need by Local Authorities or Registered Social Landlords (RSLs). Stratified sample A sample where the population or area is divided into a number of separate sub-sectors (‘strata’) according to known characteristics, based for example on sub-areas and applying a different sampling fraction to each sub-sector. Under-occupation An under-occupied dwelling is one which exceeds the bedroom standard by two or more bedrooms. Unsuitably housed households All circumstances where households are living in housing which is in some way unsuitable, whether because of its size, type, design, location, condition or cost.

A p p end i x A1 Fu r th er p r op er t y p r i c e in fo r ma t ion

PAGE 165

Appendix A1 Further property price information

A1.1 Introduction This Chapter provides further detail in support of the housing market analysis set out in Chapter 5. It contains information on prices obtained from the analysis of Land Registry property price data, and explains the methodology and approach used in our survey of local estate agents. The estate agent survey is a key step in assessing minimum and average property prices in Westminster but only provides limited information concerning price difference within the City, and doesn’t shed light on the prices relative to other Local Authorities in the region. We can look at the wider context of prices in the surrounding areas, and also the differences between areas within Westminster, using information available from the Land Registry. This data is valuable in giving further background to the local housing market, although it does not displace the need for the estate agent information.

A1.2 Reasons for housing market study The level of market prices and rents is a key factor in this study for two main reasons:

(i) Market prices and rents indicate the cost of market housing in Westminster. A major reason for government interest in prices is to address the needs of households that cannot afford this cost. Hence the existence of social rented housing and low-cost home ownership options. Thus it is important to establish the entry levels to both home ownership and private renting.

(ii) The price/rent information indicates the contours of the housing market in Westminster.

This is important for the Council when considering not only the level of subsidy required to produce new social rented and other non-market priced housing, but also the degree to which it should attempt to manage the new-build market in accordance with government guidance.

This chapter is devoted to identifying the first of the above elements: the cost of housing.


PAGE 166

A1.3 Background to housing market analysis As a preliminary to the present phase of the work it is desirable to draw attention to some key features of housing markets:

(i) Housing markets are quite complex. Housing markets can be defined, at the larger scale, by such features as journey to work areas. In the case of free-standing market towns these may appear as fairly neat circular areas. In most of Britain, however, the high density of population means that housing market areas overlap.

In the extreme case of London, its market area extends for some purposes as far away as

York, Milton Keynes, Bristol and the South Coast. At the same time there are well defined market areas within London (east v west; north v south of the river).

(ii) Property prices vary within market areas. Depending on the attractiveness of the area,

property prices may vary considerably within a few miles or even, in large cities, within a few hundred yards. This is due to the history of the area and the nature of the housing stock. These variations are important from the point of view of housing cost analysis, which underpins the study of subsidised forms of housing. It is important to know what the entry level costs of housing are. These can only be established by close study of detailed local price variations.

(iii) New build is only a small fraction of the market. In almost all parts of Britain, new build

is a small fraction of the total housing market. The majority of all sales and lettings are second-hand. The important point to note in this is that second-hand housing is normally much cheaper than new build. Only at the luxury end of the market is this not true. Thus entry level housing will normally be second-hand.

Although Government guidance refers to some forms of new build as ‘affordable’ very little new build is anything like as affordable as existing second-hand housing.

These features of the housing market are worth bearing in mind when considering the detailed evidence produced in the following subsections of this chapter.

A1.4 Government guidance on the study of housing markets The Guide makes several references to market studies:


PAGE 167

ODPM Guide

‘The relevance of data on private sector housing costs stems primarily from the role of such data in facilitating analyses of affordability, which are central to most local housing needs assessment models. The essential feature of such models is that they measure the extent to which a given group of households can afford to meet their housing needs through the private market. Generally, most attention is focused on the price of properties for sale. However, some models also take account of private sector rent levels’. [Section 7.3 (page 94)]

‘Typically, local authorities can draw on two or three sources of house price information. These include; direct contacts with local estate agents; county-wide monitoring by county councils; local or regional data available in published or unpublished form from the major national mortgage lenders (particularly Halifax and Nationwide); and data from the Land Registry’. [Section 7.3 (page 95)]

‘An alternative approach to defining current threshold prices is to derive appropriate figures in consultation with local estate agents. Although it appears more subjective, this latter approach has a number of advantages. Firstly, it enables properties in poor condition to be screened out. Secondly, it is better able to reflect the whole market rather than being limited to the market share of the mortgage lender concerned. Lastly and most importantly, the properties can be specified in terms of size and type, matched to particular household types’. [Section 4.3 (page 58)]

These extracts say, in summary:

(i) Housing market information is essential to the assessment of affordability.

(ii) There are various secondary and primary sources for such information.

(iii) There are some advantages to the primary data route: obtaining information directly from estate agents, since that reflects the true entry cost of housing, and is not particular to one mortgage source.

The best route to meeting these requirements is a combination of secondary data (the Land Registry, which covers all transactions) and estate agents survey. In keeping with comments above, we concentrate upon price variations rather than the study of the whole market. This is because in terms of affordability of local housing, the important factor is its price, not its location relative to wider housing markets.

A1.5 The need for primary data

There are four main reasons why Land Registry data cannot be used to calculate prices for use in the affordability model. These are:


PAGE 168

i) The information can only usefully give a guide to average prices. For a Housing Needs Survey we take the view that it is necessary to estimate the minimum price for which dwellings in satisfactory condition are available.

ii) No information is available about the condition of the dwellings whose price is being

obtained. Clearly a property which needs major repairs is unlikely to be suitable for a first-time buyer with a limited budget, even if the initial price is relatively low.

iii) A more serious limitation of this source is that records are kept by property type (i.e.

detached, semi-detached, terraced, flat) and not in terms of the numbers of bedrooms. This information is, in our view, essential to provide an accurate assessment of need.

iv) The Land Registry data cannot produce information about rental levels, which again ought

really to be considered in carrying out a satisfactory analysis of affordability. There may be a small, but significant, number of households who cannot afford to buy market housing but who could afford suitable private rented housing. The affordability of such households cannot be adequately considered using only sale price information.

Despite these drawbacks the information available is certainly of interest to give some feel to the local context of property prices, and more specifically to provide comparison between prices in different areas.

A1.6 Estate agents survey: Methodology The methodology employed to find purchase and rental prices takes the following steps:

i) We establish the names and telephone numbers of local estate agents. This includes well known national estate agents as well as those operating specifically in the local area (allowing for good comparative measures of smaller and larger agencies). The estate agents selected are intended to be those dealing primarily with housing at the lower end of the market (e.g. not specialist agencies dealing with up-market properties)

ii) These are then contacted by telephone and asked to give a brief overview of the housing

market in the City - including highlighting areas of more and less expensive housing

iii) The questioning takes a very simple form (this tends to improve efficiency without jeopardising results - people often lose interest when asked a series of detailed questions and quality of response is diminished). All agents are asked ‘in their opinion’


PAGE 169

‘What is the minimum and average price for a one bedroom dwelling in good condition (i.e. not needing any major repair) and with a reasonable supply (not one off properties occasionally coming onto the market)?’

iv) This process is repeated for 2, 3 & 4 bedroom dwellings v) The same questions are then asked about private rented accommodation vi) Once several estate and letting agencies have been contacted, the results are tabulated and

averages calculated to give an accurate estimation of minimum and average purchase and rental prices in the City. Any outlying values are removed from calculations.

vii) The estimated purchase and rental prices are then inserted into the analysis to estimate the

numbers able to afford a dwelling depending on the minimum number of bedrooms that the household requires.

A1.7 Land Registry data

The Land Registry compiles information on all residential land transactions. Analysis of this data is made available for recent quarterly periods, for geographical areas including Council areas, and more highly disaggregated data postcode areas, and by four main dwelling types. This data is thus very versatile, and can potentially provide a valuable picture of housing market behaviour in quite specific detail. However, an eye needs to be kept on the size of sample when using disaggregated data for smaller areas and/or periods. We used the data to provide several useful views of the housing market in and around Westminster. These are considered below.

A1.8 Comparing prices in neighbouring areas The Land Registry data can be used to show how prices in Westminster compared to those in nearby and adjoining local authority areas. The table below shows average sale prices for the Local Authorities adjoining Westminster (from the most recent quarter available from the Land Registry).


PAGE 170

Table A1.1 Average property prices by Local Authority (4th quarter 2005) (number of sales in brackets)

Property type

Westminster

K & C

Wandsworth

Camden

Lambeth

Brent

City

Southwark

England & Wales

£1,761,000 - £1,386,533 - £543,166 £491,499 - £667,272 £293,248 Detached

(5) - (15) - (24) (29) - (11) (5,425)

£2,281,363 £2,471,000 £599,143 £1,309,241 £395,015 £338,054 - £416,907 £174,744 Semi–detached (11) (10) (94) (30) (61) (187) - (67) (7,315)

£1,085,436 £1,678,263 £440,577 £718,403 £356,178 £313,463 - £306,568 £149,906 Terraced

(92) (121) (459) (93) (307) (183) - (238) (8,453)

£516,384 £528,120 £257,845 £344,182 £230,961 £202,114 £328,241 £248,255 £173,915 Flat/ maisonette (942) (575) (1,059) (669) (874) (391) (54) (669) (4,684)

£590,661 £752,760 £339,521 £424,680 £275,149 £270,709 £328,241 £278,496 £191,324 Overall average (1,050) (706) (1,627) (792) (1,266) (790) (54) (985) (25,876)

Source: HM Land Registry, property price data, 2006 The overall average price figures for each Borough (e.g. Westminster at £590,661) show that in most Boroughs the property prices are notably more expensive than the England and Wales average of £191,324. There is a degree of variation amongst the prices in the area. Brent has the lowest (£270,709) and Kensington & Chelsea has the highest (£752,760) average price.

A1.9 Historical results for Westminster We will now examine in more detail information from the Land Registry for Westminster. The table below shows data for sales over the last five years. The data for each case is the 4th quarter of the year.


PAGE 171

Table A1.2 Average property prices in Westminster – 2000 to 2005 (4th quarters) (Number of sales in brackets)

Property type 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 £1,455,718 £1,140,399 £1,452,335 - £1,859,600 £1,761,000

Detached (8) (14) (16) - (5) (5)

£897,416 £587,839 £1,193,271 £1,321,228 £2,338,333 £2,281,363 Semi-detached

(12) (19) (10) (7) (6) (11) £918,697 £866,065 £802,800 £1,005,484 £1,074,716 £1,085,436

Terraced (110) (130) (139) (146) (86) (92)

£358,047 £357,847 £392,588 £411,229 £433,245 £516,384 Flat/maisonette

(1448) (1222) (1391) (1401) (960) (942) £406,796 £416,615 £445,276 £471,159 £502,998 £590,661

OVERALL (1,578) (1,385) (1,556) (1,554) (1,057) (1,050) Source: HM Land Registry, property price data, 2006

The overall average sale price was roughly £81,000 higher in the 4th quarter of 2005 than the 4th quarter of 2004. Over the five year period prices have risen by an average of £183,865. The number of sales was at its highest in 2000-2003, but has fallen by around 500 over the last 2 years.

A1.10 Differences within Westminster (i) General methodology The general methodology is quite straightforward. We have drawn up a list of the main postcode sectors within the City, and mapped where these postcodes are. The table below gives a brief description of which postcodes apply to which areas of Westminster. It should be noted that the local authority boundaries are not always coterminous with postcodes. Therefore some properties in a postcode may be outside the area; in addition it is possible that some parts of the City are in a postcode zone that is predominantly located outside the Local Authority area, and are therefore excluded from analysis. This means that the data by sub-area is only a guide to actual variations within Westminster. Due to the sheer amount of postcodes in the council area this table shows approximations of postcode sectors.


PAGE 172

Table A1.3 Approximate sub-areas and postcodes

Area description Postcode(s) North W9, W10, W2, NW1, NW 8 Centre-West W1J, W1K, SW7, SW1X Central W1B, W1F, W1H, W1U, W1G, W1W, W1T,

W1D, WC2H, WC2E, WC2R, WC2B, WC2D, SW1Y, SW1A,

South SW1W, SW1E, SW1P, SW1V, SW1H Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006

Figure A1.1 Approximate sub-areas


The table above shows 28 different postcode sectors in four different sub-areas, but across the whole Westminster area there are over 70 separate postcode sector areas. This gives us the opportunity to compare prices across the Westminster area.


PAGE 173

(ii) Results by sub-area In the table below, average property prices are shown for each type of property for each sub-area. It is necessary to bear in mind that in some areas the number of sales in some cells of the table are quite small and the average price shown may be less reliable as a consequence. Where the cells have no values, this is due to no properties of this type selling in the time-period, and therefore no average price can be ascertained.

Table A1.4 Average property prices by sub-area (4th quarter 2005) (Number of sales in brackets)

Property type Centre-West North Central South - - - -

Detached - - - - - £2,260,000 - -

Semi-detached - (7) - -

£1,309,285 £847,291 - £828,836 Terraced

(7) (31) - (20) £1,910,114 £365,560 £518,410 £1,354,562

Flat/maisonette (66) (458) (74) (60)

£1,852,500 £422,404 £518,410 £1,223,130 Average

(73) (496) (74) (80) Source: HM Land Registry, property price data, 2006

The table demonstrates that highest property prices are to be found in the Centre-West and the lowest prices to be found in the North area. In all areas flats/maisonettes had the largest proportion of sales, with the Central area only recording sales of this property type. In Westminster as a whole semi-detached properties were only sold in the North in this time period, and no detached properties were sold. This price distribution is consistent with primary data obtained from local agents presented in Chapter 5 of the report.

A1.11 List of Estate Agents

These Estate Agents were contacted during our Survey of Estate Agents:

• Dauntons, 8 Denbigh Street, Pimlico, SW1V 2ER • Oakleys, 243 Baker St, NW1 6XE • Hathaways,12 Greycoat Place, SW1P 1SB • George Weston, 51 Maida Vale, W9 1SD • Venice Property, 412 Edgware Rd, W2 1ED • Foundation Real Estate, 374 Harrow Rd, W9 2HU


PAGE 174

• Winkworth, 16 Spring St, Paddington, W2 3RA • Kinleigh, Folkard & Hayward, 23 Leinster Terrace, Bayswater, W2 3ET • Castlereagh Properties, 87 York St, Marylebone, W1H 4QB • Stylish Home Co, Hyde Park Mansions, Cabbell St, NW1 5AZ • Alexanders, 35 Ivor Place, NW1 6EA.

A p p end i x A2 Su ppo r t i ng in fo r m a t i on

PAGE 175

Appendix A2 Supporting information

A2.1 Non-response and missing data Missing data is a feature of all housing surveys: mainly due to a respondent’s refusal to answer a particular question (e.g. income). For all missing data in the survey imputation procedures were applied. In general, throughout the survey the level of missing data was minimal. The main exception to this was in relation to financial information, where there was an appreciable (although typical) level of non-response. Non-response can cause a number of problems: • The sample size is effectively reduced so that applying the calculated weight will not give

estimates for the whole population • Variables which are derived from the combination of a number of responses each of which may

be affected by item non-response (e.g. collecting both respondent and their partners income separately) may exhibit high levels of non-response

• If the amount of non-response substantially varies across sub-groups of the population this may

lead to a bias of the results To overcome these problems missing data was ‘imputed’. Imputation involves substituting for the missing value, a value given by a suitably defined ‘similar’ household, where the definition of similar varies depending on the actual item being imputed. The specific method used was to divide the sample into sub-groups based on relevant characteristics and then ‘Probability Match’ where a value selected from those with a similar predicted value was imputed. The main sub-groups used were tenure, household size and age of respondent.


PAGE 176

A2.2 Weighting data The survey data was weighted to estimated profiles of households based on various secondary sources of information. The tables below show the final estimates of the number of households in each group (for 7 different variables) along with the number of actual survey responses. Although in some cases it is clear that the proportion of survey responses is close to the ‘expected’ situation (according to 2001 Census/HSSA data/Council tax register) there are others where it is clear that the weighting of data was necessary to ensure that the results as presented are reflective of the household population of the City of Westminster.

Table A2.1 Number of households in each tenure group

Tenure Total

number of households

% of households

Number of returns

% of returns

Owner-occupied (no mortgage) 21,668 19.3% 245 20.1% Owner-occupied (with mortgage) 27,451 24.4% 263 21.6% Council 12,197 10.9% 265 21.8% RSL 12,477 11.1% 152 12.5% Private rented 38,602 34.3% 293 24.1% TOTAL 112,395 100.0% 1,218 100.0%


Table A2.2 Accommodation type profile

Accommodation type Estimated

households % of

households Number of

returns % of returns

House 12,452 11.1% 161 12.8% Purpose built flats 68,089 60.6% 1,001 79.4% Other 31,854 28.3% 99 7.9% TOTAL 112,395 100.0% 1,261 100.0%


Table A2.3 Car ownership

Cars owned Estimated

households % of households

Number of returns

% of returns

None 62,375 55.5% 503 39.9% One 40,309 35.9% 481 38.1% Two 8,016 7.1% 272 21.6% Three or more 1,694 1.5% 5 0.4% TOTAL 112,395 100.0% 1,261 100.0%


A p p end i x A2 Su ppo r t i ng in fo r m a t i on

PAGE 177

Table A2.4 Household type profile

Household type Estimated

households % of



Single pensioner 15,914 14.2% 138 10.9% 2 or more pensioners 3,938 3.5% 87 6.9% Single non-pensioner 39,032 34.7% 163 12.9% Other households 53,511 47.6% 873 69.2% TOTAL 112,395 100.0% 1,261 100.0%


Table A2.5 Ward profile

Ward Estimated

households % of



Abbey Road 6,218 5.5% 49 3.9% Bayswater 5,749 5.1% 125 9.9% Bryanston & Dorset Square 7,200 6.4% 23 1.8% Church Street 4,054 3.6% 110 8.7% Churchill 3,772 3.4% 37 2.9% Harrow Road 5,587 5.0% 50 4.0% Hyde Park 7,689 6.8% 139 11.0% Knightsbridge & Belgravia 5,426 4.8% 131 10.4% Lancaster Gate 6,902 6.1% 53 4.2% Little Venice 4,850 4.3% 50 4.0% Maida Vale 4,416 3.9% 48 3.8% Marylebone High Street 6,260 5.6% 66 5.2% Queen's Park 4,106 3.7% 33 2.6% Regent's Park 7,027 6.3% 45 3.6% St James's 5,901 5.3% 71 5.6% Tachbrook 5,336 4.7% 81 6.4% Vincent Square 4,760 4.2% 21 1.7% Warwick 4,533 4.0% 31 2.5% West End 7,127 6.3% 29 2.3% Westbourne 5,482 4.9% 69 5.5% TOTAL 112,395 100.0% 1,261 100.0%



PAGE 178

Table A2.6 Household size

Number of people in household

Estimated households

% of households

Number of returns

% of returns

One 54,946 48.9% 301 23.9% Two 31,566 28.1% 439 34.8% Three 12,583 11.2% 220 17.4% Four 8,200 7.3% 191 15.1% Five 3,399 3.0% 82 6.5% Six or more 1,700 1.5% 28 2.2% TOTAL 112,395 100.0% 1,261 100.0%


Table A2.7 Ethnicity profile

Ethnicity of household head Estimated

households % of



White 88,030 78.3% 758 60.1% Mixed 3,021 2.7% 98 7.8% Asian 7,213 6.4% 103 8.2% Black 7,777 6.9% 166 13.2% Chinese or Other 6,353 5.7% 136 10.8% TOTAL 112,395 100.0% 1,261 100.0%


A p p end i x A3 Ba la n c i ng h ous in g mar k e t a na l y s i s

PAGE 179

Appendix A3 Balancing housing market analysis

A3.1 Introduction The following tables show the detailed analysis for the six components contributing to the Balancing Housing Market Analysis presented in Chapter 12 of this report.

A3.2 Analysis of City of Westminster data The first table shows an estimate of the housing requirements of potential households. The table is based on the number of potential households who need or expect to form over the next five years within the City along with estimates about affordability and stated size requirement. Any potential households who would both like and expect to move from the City are excluded from this analysis. Figures are annualised.

Table A3.1 Demand I: Household formation by tenure and size required



Owner-occupation 29 188 0 0 217 Affordable housing 596 330 9 0 936 Private rented 10 23 0 0 33 TOTAL 635 541 9 0 1,185

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The table below shows the estimated demand from in-migrant households. This is based on the profile of households who have moved into the City over the past two years (in terms of affordability and size/type of accommodation secured). The data is constrained so as to provide the ‘balance’ in the model (i.e. to keep the estimated household growth to 680 dwellings/households per annum). Figures are again annualised.

Table A3.2 Demand II: Demand from in-migrants by tenure and size required Size requirement

Tenure 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4+ bedrooms

TOTAL

Owner-occupation 0 115 434 49 597 Affordable housing 402 579 806 10 1,797 Private rented 345 107 107 10 569 TOTAL 746 800 1,347 69 2,963



PAGE 180

The table below shows estimated future demand from existing households. The figures are based on what tenure and size of accommodation households would like or expect to move to in the future (next two years) along with considerations of affordability. Figures are again annualised.

Table A3.3 Demand III: Demand from existing households by tenure and size required



Owner-occupation 95 570 719 144 1,528 Affordable housing 520 1,191 643 52 2,407 Private rented 0 191 4 0 195 TOTAL 615 1,952 1,366 196 4,130

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The table below is an overall summary of the demand situation and is calculated as the sum of the three previous tables.

Table A3.4 Demand IV: Total demand by tenure and size required



Owner-occupation 124 873 1,153 193 2,342 Affordable housing 1,518 2,100 1,459 63 5,139 Private rented 355 321 111 10 797 TOTAL 1,996 3,294 2,723 266 8,278

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The table below provides an estimate of the likely future supply of accommodation (by tenure and size) from household dissolutions (i.e. death). The table is based on applying age specific national mortality statistics (2001) to the local population to estimate the proportion of households who are likely to wholly dissolve each year.

Table A3.5 Supply I: Supply from household dissolution

Size released Tenure


Owner-occupation 57 148 204 2 411 Affordable housing 270 52 7 0 329 Private rented 35 46 4 0 85 TOTAL 362 246 215 2 825


A p p end i x A3 Ba la n c i ng h ous in g mar k e t a na l y s i s

PAGE 181

The table below shows an estimate of the supply of housing that would be released when households who would like and expect to move from the City do so. For example a household out-migrating from a four bedroom owner-occupied dwelling is assumed to free-up a four bedroom owner-occupied dwelling for use by another household. The data is annualised and based on moves over the next two years.

Table A3.6 Supply II: Supply from out-migrant households



Owner-occupation 81 70 238 94 483 Affordable housing 4 92 8 11 115 Private rented 723 864 364 94 2,045 TOTAL 808 1,025 611 199 2,643

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The table below shows estimated future supply from existing households. As with the above data the figures are based on the type and size of accommodation that would become available if a household moved to alternative accommodation. Figures are annualised from data for two years.

Table A3.7 Supply III: Supply from existing households



Owner-occupation 320 476 223 24 1,043 Affordable housing 261 199 63 14 538 Private rented 1,577 591 368 13 2,549 TOTAL 2,158 1,267 654 51 4,130

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The table below is the sum of the three previous tables and shows the overall estimated annual supply for each tenure and size group.

Table A3.8 Supply IV: Total supply



Owner-occupation 458 694 666 120 1,937 Affordable housing 535 343 79 24 981 Private rented 2,335 1,501 736 107 4,679 TOTAL 3,328 2,538 1,480 251 7,598



PAGE 182

A p p end i x A4 H e a l th a nd h ou s ing

PAGE 183

Appendix A4 Health and housing

A4.1 Introduction The survey estimates that there are 4,839 households in which the health of a household member is suffering because of the condition of the home. This appendix briefly examines the characteristics of these households in an attempt to identify any factors that are particularly prevalent.

A4.2 Tenure

The table below shows the housing tenures of households in which the health of a household member is suffering because of the condition of the home, in comparison to the tenure profile of other households in the City. The table indicates that ‘ill health’ households are much more likely to be living in social rented accommodation and are less likely to be living in private rented accommodation. Only 10.4% of ‘ill health’ households live in private rented accommodation compared to 35.4% of other households in City of Westminster. ‘Ill health’ households are over twice as likely as other households to be resident in the social rented sector.

Table A4.1 Tenure of households whose home condition is causing ill health

Households suffering from ill health

Remaining households in City of Westminster

Tenure Number of households

% of households


% of households

Owner-occupied (no mortgage) 878 18.1% 20,789 19.3% Owner-occupied (with mortgage) 1,128 23.3% 26,323 24.5% Council 823 17.0% 11,374 10.6% RSL 1,505 31.1% 10,972 10.2% Private rented 504 10.4% 38,098 35.4% TOTAL 4,839 100.0% 107,556 100.0%


A4.3 Dwelling characteristics The table below shows the type of accommodation inhabited by households in which the health of a household member is suffering because of the condition of the home.


PAGE 184

The data indicates that ‘ill health’ households are much more likely than other households in the City to be living in flats and are less likely to live in houses. ‘Ill health’ households are particularly likely to be living in other flats/maisonettes.

Table A4.2 Dwelling type of households whose home condition is causing ill health



Dwelling type Number of households

% of households


% of households

Detached house/bungalow* 51 1.1% 697 0.6% Semi-detached house/bungalow 27 0.6% 2,777 2.6% Terraced house/bungalow 102 2.1% 9,064 8.4% Purpose-built flat/maisonette 2,856 59.0% 65,233 60.7% Other flat/maisonette** 1,804 37.3% 29,785 27.7% TOTAL 4,839 100.0% 107,556 100.0%

* Includes mobile homes *Other flat/maisonette includes flats that are part of a converted or shared house and flats in a commercial building


A4.4 Geographical location The table below shows the geographical distribution of households in which the health of a household member is suffering because of the condition of the home. The table indicates that ‘ill health’ households are particularly likely to live in the North and South sub-areas.

Table A4.3 Location of households whose home condition is causing ill health



Sub-area Number of households

% of households


% of households

North West 1,270 26.2% 22,808 21.2% North 1,463 30.2% 16,197 15.1% Central strip 604 12.5% 33,197 30.9% South Central 329 6.8% 18,125 16.9% South 1,172 24.2% 17,229 16.0% TOTAL 4,839 100.0% 107,556 100.0%



PAGE 185

A4.5 Household composition The table below indicates the size of households in which the health of a household member is suffering because of the condition of the home. The data shows that these households are less likely to contain one person and are more likely to contain three or more people than other households in the City of Westminster.

Table A4.4 Size of households whose home condition is causing ill health



Number of persons in household Number of households

% of households


% of households

One 1,671 34.5% 53,275 49.5% Two 1,895 39.2% 29,671 27.6% Three 735 15.2% 11,849 11.0% Four 403 8.3% 7,797 7.2% Five 78 1.6% 3,321 3.1% Six or more 57 1.2% 1,643 1.5% TOTAL 4,839 100.0% 107,556 100.0%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The table below shows the type of households in which the health of a household member is suffering because of the condition of the home. The results clearly indicate that ‘ill health’ households are more likely to contain pensioners than other households. Overall some 10.5% of ‘ill health’ households are lone parent households compared to 2.2% of other households in the City.

Table A4.5 Type of households whose home condition is causing ill health



Household type Number of households

% of households


% of households

Single Pensioner 1,138 23.5% 14,776 13.7% 2 or more pensioners 570 11.8% 3,368 3.1% Single non-pensioner 532 11.0% 38,500 35.8% 2 or more adults, no children 1,784 36.9% 33,544 31.2% Lone parent 509 10.5% 2,387 2.2% 2+ adults, 1 or more children 178 3.7% 7,305 6.8% 2+ adults, 2+ children 128 2.6% 7,677 7.1% TOTAL 4,839 100.0% 107,556 100.0%



PAGE 186

A4.6 Support needs and ethnicity The table below shows the presence of support needs members in households in which the health of a household member is suffering because of the condition of the home. The results indicate that ‘ill health’ households are far more likely to contain a member with support needs than other households in the City.

Table A4.6 Households whose home condition is causing ill health and support needs



Support needs households Number of households

% of households


% of households

Support needs 1,623 33.5% 11,348 10.6% No support needs 3,216 66.5% 96,208 89.5% TOTAL 4,839 100.0% 107,556 100.0%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The table below shows the ethnicity of households in which the health of a household member is suffering because of the condition of the home. The results clearly indicate that ‘ill health’ households are less likely to be White than other households and are particularly likely to be Asian or Black.

Table A4.7 Ethnicity of households whose home condition is causing ill health



Ethnic group Number of households

% of households


% of households

White - British 2,653 54.8% 63,268 58.8% White - Irish 163 3.4% 4,751 4.4% White - Other 536 11.1% 16,659 15.5% Mixed 26 0.5% 2,995 2.8% Asian or Asian British 598 12.4% 6,615 6.2% Black or Black British - African 297 6.1% 5,307 4.9% Black or Black British - Other 311 6.4% 1,862 1.7% Arab 233 4.8% 4,206 3.9% Any other ethnic group 22 0.5% 1,892 1.8% TOTAL 4,839 100.0% 107,556 100.0%



PAGE 187

A4.7 Overcrowding/under-occupation The table below shows the incidence of overcrowding and under-occupation in households in which the health of a household member is suffering because of the condition of the home. The results show that ‘ill health’ households are over four times more likely to be overcrowded than other City of Westminster households. They are also much less likely to be under-occupied.

Table A4.8 Overcrowding/under-occupancy and households whose home condition is causing ill health



Overcrowding/under-occupation Number of households

% of households


% of households

Overcrowded 485 10.0% 2,566 2.4% Neither overcrowded nor under-occupied 3,858 79.7% 82,045 76.3% Under-occupied 496 10.3% 22,945 21.3% TOTAL 4,839 100.0% 107,556 100.0%


A4.8 Summary The survey estimates that there are 4,839 households in which the health of a household member is suffering because of the condition of the home. This appendix briefly examined the characteristics of these households and found that these households are likely to:

• reside in the social rented sector • inhabit a non-purpose built flat • live in the North and South sub-areas • be large (contain three or more people) • be lone parent households • contain a support needs member • be headed by a non-White person • be overcrowded.


PAGE 188

A p p en d i x A5 A t t i t u d e s to t h e l o ca l a r ea

PAGE 189

Appendix A5 Attitudes to the local area

A5.1 Introduction The survey collected information that assessed how satisfied households were with a range of aspects of their local area. This appendix will briefly present these results.

A5.2 Overall satisfaction

The figure below shows the overall satisfaction rating recorded for each aspect the household was asked to consider. The data indicates that the majority of responses were positive. Households were most likely to record being dissatisfied with their sense of personal safety and security, but even for this aspect over 70% of respondents indicated they were satisfied.

Figure A5.1 Overall satisfaction levels

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Local shopping facilities

Post Office/local bank facilities

Health facilities

Schools/educational or training facilities

Leisure facilities

Parks and children s play areas

Public transport

Sense of personal safety and security

General area in which you live

Your home in general

Very satisfied Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied


A5.3 Geographical variations The following figures show how the satisfaction levels for each aspect measured varies by sub-area.


PAGE 190

Figure A5.2 Geographical variation in satisfaction with local shopping facilities

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

South

South Central

Central strip

North

North West




PAGE 191

Figure A5.3 Geographical variation in satisfaction with Post Office/local bank facilities

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

South

South Central

Central strip

North

North West



Figure A5.4 Geographical variation in satisfaction with health facilities

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

South

South Central

Central strip

North

North West




PAGE 192

Figure A5.5 Geographical variation in satisfaction with schools/educational or training facilities

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

South

South Central

Central strip

North

North West



Figure A5.6 Geographical variation in satisfaction with leisure facilities

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

South

South Central

Central strip

North

North West




PAGE 193

Figure A5.7 Geographical variation in satisfaction with parks and children s play areas

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

South

South Central

Central strip

North

North West



Figure A5.8 Geographical variation in satisfaction with public transport

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

South

South Central

Central strip

North

North West




PAGE 194

Figure A5.9 Geographical variation in satisfaction with sense of personal safety and security

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

South

South Central

Central strip

North

North West



Figure A5.10 Geographical variation in satisfaction with general area in which you live

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

South

South Central

Central strip

North

North West




PAGE 195

Figure A5.11 Geographical variation in satisfaction with your home in general

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

South

South Central

Central strip

North

North West




PAGE 196

A p p end i x A6 C o mp ar i s on s b e tw e en We s tm i n s t e r , Har i ng e y a nd Ba rn e t

PAGE 197

Appendix A6 Comparisons between Westminster, Haringey and Barnet A6.1 Introduction

As the surveys for Westminster, Haringey and Barnet were commissioned and undertaken at the same time by Fordham Research it is possible to compare the housing markets in the three areas. Of the three local authorities being studied by Fordham Research, all three are in the North London sub-region. Westminster is located in the heart of central London, Barnet to the north (but not adjoining) and Haringey is located directly to the east of Barnet. Differences and similarities that exist between the household population and housing market of the three areas will be presented below.

A6.2 Household composition Initially it is worth comparing the household profile in the three local authority areas. The table below presents data on household size and household type. It indicates that Westminster contains a greater proportion of one person households and a smaller proportion of large (four or more person households) than the other two boroughs. Barnet has the largest proportion of four people or more households. The data also shows that Westminster contains a larger proportion of single non-pensioner households (34.7% compared to 25.0% in Haringey and 17.1% in Barnet). Haringey has a greater proportion of lone parents than the other two boroughs put together.


PAGE 198

Table A6.1 Comparison of the household composition Westminster Haringey Barnet Number of persons in household One 48.9% 35.5% 30.9% Two 28.1% 28.7% 29.5% Three 11.2% 15.6% 16.3% Four 7.3% 11.7% 14.2% Five 3.0% 5.7% 6.4% Six or more 1.5% 2.8% 2.6% Household type Single pensioner 14.2% 10.5% 13.8% 2 or more pensioners 3.5% 3.9% 7.6% Single non-pensioner 34.7% 25.0% 17.1% 2 or more adults, no children 31.4% 32.9% 33.6% Lone parent 2.6% 7.6% 4.1% 2+ adults, 1 child 6.7% 8.9% 11.7% 2+ adults, 2+ children 6.9% 11.2% 12.1%

Source: Westminster, Haringey & Barnet Housing Needs Survey 2006

A6.3 Financial information The table below compares the mean income, savings and equity for households in the three areas. The data clearly indicates that households in Westminster have considerably larger incomes than the other boroughs. Barnet has the highest average savings and equity levels

Table A6.2 Comparison of financial information Westminster Haringey Barnet Average annual gross household income (including non-housing benefits)

£45,587 £33,301 £33,752

Average savings £19,144 £18,855 £26,021 Average equity (owner-occupiers only) £266,282 £243,699 £310,960


A6.4 Housing stock comparisons The table below displays a profile of the occupied accommodation in Westminster, Haringey and Barnet, by accommodation type, tenure and dwelling size. The data indicates that accommodation profile reflects the geography of the local authorities. Westminster, which is more densely populated, has a larger proportion of flats, whilst detached and semi-detached houses are far more common in Barnet.


PAGE 199

The data indicates that Barnet has a significantly higher proportion of owner-occupied dwellings, at 70.8% compared to 49.1% in Haringey and 43.7% in Westminster. Haringey contains a lower proportion of owner-occupiers with no mortgage. Westminster has the highest proportion of private rented accommodation at 34.3%, compared to 15.9% in Barnet. The dwelling size profile shows that three bedroom properties are the most common in Barnet, two bedroom homes are most popular in Haringey and one bedroom accommodation is most prevalent in Westminster.

Table A6.3 Comparison of dwelling stock Westminster Haringey Barnet Accommodation type Detached house/bungalow 0.7% 2.4% 11.7% Semi-detached house/bungalow 2.5% 7.8% 31.5% Terraced house/bungalow 8.2% 34.4% 18.4% Purpose-built flat/maisonette 60.5% 25.7% 28.6% Other flat/maisonette 28.1% 29.7% 9.8% Tenure Owner-occupied (no mortgage) 19.3% 17.6% 32.0% Owner-occupied (with mortgage) 24.4% 31.5% 38.8% Council 10.9% 18.0% 8.6% RSL 11.1% 11.1% 4.7% Private rented 34.3% 21.8% 15.9% Dwelling size 1 bedroom 31.1% 28.5% 14.3% 2 bedroom 29.3% 31.2% 27.2% 3 bedroom 30.4% 26.2% 36.4% 4+ bedroom 9.1% 14.0% 22.1%


A6.5 House prices House price information is crucial to understanding the dynamics of the local housing market. Firstly we will present data on the latest house prices by house type as obtained from Land Registry. Average house price changes between the 4th quarter of 2000 and the 4th quarter of 2005 are presented in the figure below. It shows that average property prices are much higher in Westminster than the other two boroughs. Westminster had a large increase in property prices between the 4th quarter 2004 and the 4th quarter 2005, however prices rose at a much lower rate in Barnet and particularly in Haringey.


PAGE 200

Figure A6.1 Land Registry overall average price changes 2000 –2004

(4th quarters)

£0

£100,000

£200,000

£300,000

£400,000

£500,000

£600,000

£700,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005Year

Aver

age p

rice

WestminsterHaringeyBarnet


A more accurate comparison of property prices can be obtained by looking at price by property type. This is presented in the table below for the 4th quarter of 2005. The data shows that for all properties other than flats/maisonettes, Westminster is the more expensive area.

Table A6.4 Average property prices (4th quarter 2004) (number of sales in brackets)

Property type Westminster Haringey Barnet

£1,761,000 £909,333 £843,864 Detached

(5) (6) (104) £2,281,363 £437,305 £387,289

Semi–detached (11) (40) (352)

£1,085,436 £308,822 £292,017 Terraced

(92) (310) (281)

£516,384 £206,301 £205,769 Flat/maisonette

(942) (426) (538) Source: HM Land Registry, property price data, 2006


PAGE 201

A6.6 Threshold costs for market housing In both surveys housing need was measured against the size of dwelling required. This meant house prices by dwelling size had to be collected. In all three boroughs surveys interviews with estate agents were undertaken in an attempt to determine the minimum cost required to access private sector housing by bedroom size. i) Purchase prices The table below shows the minimum property prices in the three areas. The data indicates that for all dwelling sizes, it is much more expensive to buy a home in Westminster, and cheapest in Haringey.

Table A6.5 Minimum property prices

Size of property Westminster Haringey Barnet

1 bedroom £198,000 £130,000 £154,500 2 bedroom £275,000 £167,000 £184,000 3 bedroom £370,500 £217,500 £263,500 4 bedroom £482,500 £288,000 £330,500

Source: Survey of Estate and Lettings Agents (2006) ii) Entry-level private rented cost The minimum monthly cost of private renting is presented in the table below. The data shows that costs in Westminster are again higher, and Haringey is the cheapest.

Table A6.6 Minimum monthly private rental

Size of property Westminster Haringey Barnet

1 bedroom £890 £620 £690 2 bedroom £1,290 £785 £870 3 bedroom £1,785 £950 £1,145 4 bedroom £2,617 £1,165 £1,395

Source: Survey of Estate and Lettings Agents (2006) Information garnered from estate agents indicates that the private housing market is more expensive in Westminster. It is worth noting that the relative difference in the costs between the three areas is smaller for private rents.


PAGE 202

A6.7 Housing market activity It is also of value to compare the stock turnover rates for the three areas. This is presented in the table below. The table shows that the turnover rates for social rented are very similar in the three areas. Westminster displays a lower turnover rate in the owner-occupied sector than the other two boroughs. The turnover of private rented housing is much greater in all cases, but the turnover in Westminster is the highest at 35.1% compared to 31.0% and 27.5% in Barnet and Haringey respectively.

Table A6.7 Annual turnover of stock (% of households) Tenure Westminster Haringey Barnet Owner-occupied 1.7% 7.9% 5.2% Private rented 35.1% 27.5% 31.0% Social rented 7.2% 9.0% 9.5% TOTAL 14.4% 14.8% 15.2%

Source: Westminster, Haringey & Barnet Housing Needs Survey 2006 A6.8 Results of the Basic Needs Assessment Model

The results produced from the Basic Needs Assessment Model for the annual demand for, and supply of, affordable housing in each survey is presented in the table below. A comparison of the figures shows that the net need for affordable housing is highest in Westminster at 5,621 per annum and lowest in Barnet at 5,148 per annum. The overall net demand for affordable housing in the three authorities is 15,634 dwellings per year.

Table A6.8 Comparison of the affordable housing demand and supply Westminster Haringey Barnet Total Annual demand 6,395 5,884 5,871 18,150 Annual supply 774 1,019 723 2,516 Overall shortfall (surplus) 5,621 4,865 5,148 15,634

Source: Westminster, Haringey & Barnet Housing Needs Survey 2006 The dwelling size required by those in housing need, alongside the likely size of the affordable housing supplied and the net requirement for affordable housing is presented in the tables below for each local authority. The data indicates that for all areas the largest net need for affordable housing is for one bedroom properties, followed by two bedroom homes. Westminster has the lowest net demand for four bedroom properties whilst Haringey displays the greatest demand.


PAGE 203

Table A6.9 Net need for affordable housing in Westminster by size () indicates a surplus

Size required Need Supply Total 1 bedroom 4,553 535 4,018 2 bedroom 1,471 160 1,311 3 bedroom 321 69 252 4+ bedroom 49 9 40 TOTAL 6,395 774 5,621


Table A6.10 Net need for affordable housing in Haringey by size () indicates a surplus

Size required Need Supply Total 1 bedroom 2,896 465 2,431 2 bedroom 1,825 359 1,466 3 bedroom 755 155 600 4+ bedroom 408 40 368 TOTAL 5,884 1,019 4,865


Table A6.11 Net need for affordable housing in Barnet by size () indicates a surplus

Size required Need Supply Total 1 bedroom 3,125 334 2,791 2 bedroom 1,509 212 1,297 3 bedroom 893 173 720 4+ bedroom 343 4 339 TOTAL 5,871 723 5,148


A6.9 A comparison of imbalances in the whole housing market All housing needs surveys undertook a Balancing Housing Markets analysis to suggest the extent to which supply and demand are ‘balanced’ across tenure and property size. The results of this analysis for each area are presented in the tables below. The data shows that there is a shortage of social rented homes and a surplus of private rented housing for all accommodation sizes in all of the three areas. All authorities also display a shortage of certain types of homes in the owner-occupied sector. Westminster has a shortage of two or more bedroom properties, Haringey has a shortage of smaller one and two bedroom properties, and Barnet has a shortage of one and four bedroom homes.


PAGE 204

Table A6.12 Balancing housing markets - Westminster total shortfall or (surplus)


1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4+ bedrooms Total

Owner-occupation (334) 179 487 73 405 Affordable housing 983 1,756 1,380 39 4,158 Private rented (1,981) (1,180) (625) (97) (3,882) Total (1,332) 755 1,243 14 680


Table A6.13 Balancing housing markets - Haringey total shortfall or (surplus)



Owner-occupation 21 229 (138) (139) (27) Affordable housing 1,592 723 551 221 3,088 Private rented (1,108) (548) (305) (130) (2,091)

Total 504 404 109 (48) 970


Table A6.14 Balancing housing markets - Barnet total shortfall or (surplus)



Owner-occupation 155 (265) (332) 182 (260) Affordable housing 1,015 793 1,145 454 3,407 Private rented (820) (839) (402) (196) (2,257) Total 350 (311) 411 439 890


A6.10 Summary

This chapter has compared the findings of the housing needs surveys undertaken in Westminster, Haringey and Barnet. Various characteristics of household population and the housing market in each of these areas have been presented. Overall it was found that Westminster has the highest incomes but that it is also a more expensive area in which to live, and Haringey has the lowest incomes and the cheapest house prices. However, all areas displayed a high net need for affordable housing, with Westminster demonstrating the highest level of need.

A p p en d i x A7 H o u s e h o l d s w i t h c h i l d re n

PAGE 205

Appendix A7 Households with children

A7.1 Introduction The survey estimates that there are 18,183 households containing children. This appendix briefly examines the characteristics of these households.

A7.2 Tenure

The table below shows the housing tenures of households with children, in comparison to the tenure profile of other households in the City. The table indicates that households with children are much more likely to be living in owner occupied (with mortgage) accommodation and are much less likely to be living in private rented accommodation. Households with children are also slightly more likely to be resident in the social rented sector than other households.

Table A7.1 Tenure of households with children

Households with children Remaining households in

City of Westminster Tenure


% of households


% of households

Owner-occupied (no mortgage) 1,287 7.1% 20,381 21.6% Owner-occupied (with mortgage) 8,888 48.9% 18,563 19.7% Council 2,677 14.7% 9,520 10.1% RSL 1,747 9.6% 10,730 11.4% Private rented 3,585 19.7% 35,017 37.2% TOTAL 18,183 100.0% 94,212 100.0%


A7.3 Dwelling characteristics The table below shows the type of accommodation inhabited by households with children. The data indicates that these households are much more likely than other households in the City to be living in purpose built flats.


PAGE 206

Table A7.2 Dwelling type of households with children


City of Westminster Dwelling type


% of households


% of households

Detached house/bungalow* 87 0.5% 661 0.7% Semi-detached house/bungalow 723 4.0% 2,081 2.2% Terraced house/bungalow 1,918 10.5% 7,248 7.7% Purpose-built flat/maisonette 12,792 70.4% 55,298 58.7% Other flat/maisonette** 2,664 14.7% 28,924 30.7% TOTAL 18,183 100.0% 94,212 100.0%


Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 A7.4 Geographical location

The table below shows the geographical distribution of households with children. The table indicates that these households are particularly likely to live in the North West area, and are less likely than other households to live in all other areas.

Table A7.3 Location of households with children


City of Westminster Sub-area


% of households


% of households

North West 7,210 39.7% 16,869 17.9% North 2,154 11.8% 15,507 16.5% Central strip 4,108 22.6% 29,692 31.5% South Central 2,424 13.3% 16,031 17.0% South 2,288 12.6% 16,113 17.1% TOTAL 18,183 100.0% 94,212 100.0%


A7.5 Household composition The table below shows that households with children are more likely to contain three or more people than other households in the City of Westminster.


PAGE 207

Table A7.4 Size of households with children


City of Westminster Number of persons in household


% of households


% of households

One - - 54,946 58.3% Two 2,315 12.7% 29,251 31.0% Three 6,244 34.3% 6,340 6.7% Four 5,172 28.4% 3,029 3.2% Five 3,321 18.3% 78 0.1% Six or more 1,132 6.2% 569 0.6% TOTAL 18,183 100.0% 94,212 100.0%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The table below shows the number of children in households with children. The table shows that over half of households with children have only one child, an additional 32.1% have two children. Only 14.1% of households with children have more than two children. Overall the average household with children has 1.64 children.

Table A7.5 Number of children

Number of households % of households One 9,797 53.9% Two 5,836 32.1% Three 1,888 10.4% Four 652 3.6% Five 10 0.1% TOTAL 18,183 100.0%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 A7.6 Ethnicity

The table below shows the ethnicity of households with children. The results clearly indicate that households with children are less likely to be White British than the other households in the City. The opposite is true for all non-white households, with the exception of those classing themselves as being in the other ethnic group. Overall, 43.0% of households with children in the City of Westminster are headed by a White – British person. Mixed households have the highest average number of children at 2.36 whilst White Other have the lowest at 1.20.


PAGE 208

Table A7.6 Ethnicity of households with children


City of Westminster Ethnic group


% of households


% of households

Average number children

White - British 7,823 43.0% 58,098 61.7% 1.65 White - Irish 1,254 6.9% 3,660 3.9% 1.62

White - Other 2,466 13.6% 14,730 15.6% 1.20

Mixed 1,736 9.5% 1,285 1.4% 2.36 Asian or Asian British 1,513 8.3% 5,700 6.1% 1.43 Black or Black British - African 1,973 10.9% 3,630 3.9% 1.75 Black or Black British - Other 767 4.2% 1,406 1.5% 1.32 Arab 570 3.1% 3,869 4.1% 1.87 Any other ethnic group 81 0.4% 1,834 1.9% 1.40 TOTAL 18,183 100.0% 94,212 100.0% 1.64


A7.7 Overcrowding/under-occupation The table below shows the incidence of overcrowding and under-occupation in households with children. The results show that these households are much more likely to be overcrowded than the other households in the City and are much less likely to be under-occupied.

Table A7.7 Overcrowding/under-occupancy and household’s whose home condition is causing ill health

Household’s with children Remaining households in

City of Westminster Overcrowding/under-occupation


% of households


% of households

Overcrowded 1,936 10.6% 1,115 1.2% Neither overcrowded nor under-occupied 14,631 80.5% 71,272 75.7% Under-occupied 1,617 8.9% 21,824 23.2% TOTAL 18,183 100.0% 94,212 100.0%


A7.8 Summary The survey estimates that there are 18,183 households with children in the City of Westminster. This appendix briefly examined the characteristics of these households and found that these households are likely to:


PAGE 209

• reside in the owner-occupied (with mortgage) sector • inhabit a purpose built flat • live in the North West • have a non-White household head • be overcrowded.


PAGE 210

A p p end i x A8 Se c on d Ho m es in We s t m in s t e r

PAGE 211

Appendix A8 Second Homes in Westminster

A8.1 Introduction The survey estimates that there are 4,742 households in Westminster who own second homes. This appendix briefly examines the characteristics of these households in an attempt to identify any factors that are particularly prevalent, however it is important to remember that this is based on a sample size of 40, and therefore should be regarded with some caution. An alternative questionnaire was designed to collect information on houses that were second homes in Westminster. Unfortunately no occupied second homes were surveyed during the fieldwork period and no information was ascertained from this questionnaire.

A8.2 Household characteristics

The average length of stay for households within their second homes is 12.28 weeks per year, and the visits occur mostly at weekends and holidays. The table below shows the households with second homes are most likely to live in the owner-occupied (no mortgage) or the private rented sectors.

Table A8.1 Tenure of households with second homes

Tenure Households % households Owner-occupied (no mortgage) 2,019 42.6% Owner-occupied (with mortgage) 390 8.2% Council 0 0.0% RSL 125 2.6% Private rented 2,208 46.6% TOTAL 4,742 100.0%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The table below shows the average length of time households stay in their second homes by tenure. It shows that private rented households stay the longest in their second homes. A possible explanation for this may be that many households own a property outside London, but live in rented accommodation in the City during the week.


PAGE 212

Table A8.2 Average length of stay by tenure (weeks)

Tenure Average length of stay Owner-occupied (no mortgage) 10.92 Owner-occupied (with mortgage) 10.53 Council 0 RSL 8.00 Private rented 14.08 TOTAL 12.28

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The table below shows the type of accommodation inhabited by households with a second home. It shows that households with second homes are most likely to reside in flats.

Table A8.3 Dwelling type of households with second homes

Accommodation type Households % households Detached house/bungalow* 0 0.0% Semi-detached house/bungalow 15 0.3% Terraced house/bungalow 1,289 27.2% Purpose-built flat/maisonette 2,530 53.3% Other flat/maisonette** 909 19.2% TOTAL 4,742 100.0% * Includes mobile homes *Other flat/maisonette includes flats that are part of a converted or shared house and flats in a commercial building


The table below shows the location of households with second homes. The table indicates that households with second homes are particularly likely to live in the Central Strip.

Table A8.4 Location of households with second homes

Sub-area Households % households North West 771 16.3% North 264 5.6% Central Strip 2,776 58.5% South Central 191 4.0% South 739 15.6% TOTAL 4,742 100.0%

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 The table below shows that households with a second home are most likely to be 2 or more adults with no children.

A p p end i x A8 Se c on d Ho m es in We s t m in s t e r

PAGE 213

Table A8.5 Household type of households with second homes

Household type Households % households Single pensioners 27 0.6% 2 or more pensioners 214 4.5% Single non-pensioners 1,530 32.3% 2 or more adults - no children 2,363 49.8% 2+ adults with 1 child 33 0.7% 2+ adults 2+children 575 12.1% TOTAL 4,742 100.0%


A8.3 Summary The survey estimates that there are 4,742 households with a second home. This appendix briefly examined the characteristics of these households and found that these households are likely to:

• reside in the owner occupied (no mortgage) or private rented sector • inhabit a flat • live in the Central Strip • be consisted of two adults and no children

The findings presented in this chapter are however based on a small sample size and should therefore be treated with caution.


PAGE 214

A p p end i x A9 Th e so c ia l r en te d s ec to r

PAGE 215

Appendix A9 The social rented sector

A9.1 Introduction The survey estimates that there are 24,674 households living within the social rented sector, of which 12,197 live in council accommodation and 12,477 within RSL accommodation. This appendix briefly examines the characteristics of these households in terms of their housing circumstances and ability to afford.

A9.2 Dwelling characteristics The table below shows the types of accommodation social rented households reside in. The data indicates that in both social rented tenures households are most likely to be living in purpose built flats. Council tenants are more likely than RSL residents to be living in purpose built flats, whilst the reverse is true for other flats.

Table A9.1 Dwelling type of social rented accommodation

Council RSL Dwelling type Number of

households % of


% of households

Detached house/bungalow* 0 0.0% 30 0.2% Semi-detached house/bungalow 300 2.5% 352 2.8% Terraced house/bungalow 445 3.6% 118 0.9% Purpose-built flat/maisonette 7,111 66.3% 6,353 54.9% Other flat/maisonette** 4,341 27.6% 5,625 41.1% TOTAL 12,197 100.0% 12,477 100.0%



A9.3 Household composition The table below shows that Council rented households are more likely to contain only one person than RSL households. However, they are also more likely to contain five or more people.


PAGE 216

Table A9.2 Size of social rented households

Council RSL Number of persons in household Number of

households % of


% of households

One 7,045 57.8% 6,342 50.8% Two 2,335 19.1% 3,015 24.2% Three 1,289 10.6% 2,212 17.7% Four 942 7.7% 712 5.7% Five 349 2.9% 139 1.1% Six or more 237 1.9% 57 0.5% TOTAL 12,197 100.0% 12,477 100.0%


A9.4 Ethnicity The table below shows the ethnicity of households within social rented accommodation. The results clearly indicate that these households are most likely to be headed by someone White – British, followed by White – Irish.

Table A9.3 Ethnic origin of social rented households

Council RSL Number of persons in household Number of

households % of


% of households

White - British 8,017 65.7% 7,839 62.8% White - Irish 1,386 11.4% 1,291 10.3% White - Other 460 3.8% 629 5.0% Mixed 294 2.4% 256 2.1% Asian or Asian British 442 3.6% 233 1.9% Black or Black British - African 507 4.2% 1,080 8.7% Black or Black British - Other 391 3.2% 621 5.0% Arab 622 5.1% 382 3.1% Any other ethnic group 79 0.6% 147 1.2% TOTAL 12,197 100.0% 12,477 100.0%


A9.5 Overcrowding/under-occupation The table below shows the incidence of overcrowding and under-occupation in households within social rented accommodation. The results show that these households in Council accommodation are much more likely to be overcrowded than those in RSL accommodation.

A p p end i x A9 Th e so c ia l r en te d s ec to r

PAGE 217

Table A9.4 Overcrowding/under-occupancy within the social rented sector

Council RSL Overcrowding/under-occupation Number of

households % of


% of households

Overcrowded 568 4.7% 85 0.7% Neither overcrowded nor under-occupied 10,696 87.7% 11,064 88.7% Under-occupied 933 7.6% 1,328 10.6% TOTAL 12,197 100.0% 12,477 100.0%


A9.6 Financial information The table below shows the average annual income and savings levels by type of social rented accommodation (excluding student households). It shows that RSL tenants have greater incomes and savings levels than those living in Council rented accommodation.

Table A9.5 Incomes and savings levels

Tenure Average income Average savings Council Rented £13,656 £1,128 RSL £23,528 £4,721 TOTAL £18,648 £2,945

Source: City of Westminster Housing Needs Survey 2006 A9.7 Social rented households and affordability

This section looks at the affordability of social rented households. The table below shows the proportion of households able to afford market priced accommodation in the City of Westminster (if they were to move now). The table shows that households living in RSL accommodation are slightly more able to afford accommodation than Council households.

Table A9.6 Affordability and tenure

Affordability Tenure Unable to afford

market housing Number of

h’holds % of h’holds

unable to afford Council 11,950 12,197 98.0% RSL 10,931 12,477 87.6% TOTAL 22,881 24,674 92.7%



PAGE 218

It is important to note that in Section C of the Basic Needs Assessment Model households currently living in social rented accommodation were excluded from analysis. This is because since they are currently living in social rented accommodation their needs are already being met. However it is possible to look again at those households living in social rented accommodation that can afford intermediate housing. The table below shows that households in social rented housing are slightly more able to afford intermediate housing than market housing. However, still 62.2% are unable to afford intermediate housing options.

Table A9.7 Tenure and intermediate housing

Affordability

Tenure Unable to afford intermediate

housing

Number of h’holds

% of h’holds unable to afford

Council 8,528 12,197 69.9% RSL 6,816 12,477 54.6% TOTAL 15,344 24,674 62.2%


A9.8 Summary The survey estimates that there are 24,674 households within the social rented sector in the City of Westminster. This appendix briefly examined the characteristics of these households and found that these households are likely to:

• inhabit a purpose built flat • live in the North West • be headed by a White person • be unable to afford market and intermediate housing, with 62.2% being unable to afford this

A p p en d i x A1 0 S u r v e y Qu es t io n n a i re

PAGE 219

Appendix A10 Survey Questionnaire

1

First Surveys Market Research 13 Darwin Court Hawking Place Blackpool Technology Park Blackpool FY2 0JN

Fordham Research: Housing Needs Survey

City of Westminster Council

RESPONDENT: INTERVIEW: Date Time Name: Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms .................................... 1st call ......... ........

.................................... 2nd call ......... ........ 3rd call ......... ........

Telephone: .................................... 4th call ......... ........ 5th call ......... ........

Total number of calls:

FINAL OUTCOME (please circle one code): Non-contact with occupant Contact with occupant

Empty 01 Successful interview 14 Derelict/being repaired 02 Confirmed second home 15 Appears to be second home 03 Uncompleted 16 GO TO SEPARATE SHEET Refused 17 Other non-contact after 1 call 04 Other non-contact after 2 calls 05 Other non-contact after 3 calls 06 Other non-contact after 4 calls 07 Other non-contact after 5 calls 08 Demolished 09 Non-residential property 10 No trace of address 11 Address not used 12 Access to dwelling denied 13

NAME OF INTERVIEWER:....................................................................................................

I DECLARE THAT I HAVE CARRIED OUT THIS INTERVIEW IN ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR INSTRUCTIONS SIGNATURE:.................................................................... DATE: .........................................

[UPPER CASE TEXT GIVES DIRECTIONS TO INTERVIEWERS, AND IS NOT TO BE READ OUT] READ OUT: We are carrying out a housing needs survey on behalf of the City of Westminster and would be grateful if you could answer these questions. The survey will produce information vital to the Council in its bid to attract financial support for housing schemes for people needing housing in the area, and will help to ensure that the Council's planning policies produce development which will meet the housing needs of the area. All the information you give us will be treated in strict confidence. We are an independent research company and the Council will not see any of your replies.

2

A YOUR HOUSEHOLD AND HOME

I am going to start by asking you some general questions about your household and home. (A household comprises either one person living alone or a group of people (not necessarily related) living at the same address sharing at least one meal a day, or sharing a living room or sitting room).

A1. What type of accommodation does your household occupy? SHOW CARD A1

A whole house or bungalow that is: Detached........................................................ 1 Semi-detached............................................... 2 Terraced (including end-terrace).................... 3 A flat, maisonette, or apartment that is: In a purpose built block .................................. 4 Part of a converted or shared house.............. 5 In a commercial building ................................ 6 Mobile or temporary structure: A caravan or other mobile or temporary structure ......................................................... 7 Other .............................................................. 8 A2. Is the accommodation sheltered housing?

Yes................................................................. 1 No................................................................... 2 A3. Is the accommodation a bungalow?

Yes................................................................. 1 No................................................................... 2 A4. Is this a shared house/bedsit? GO TO:

Yes .............................................. 1 .............A5 No ................................................ 2 .............A6 A5. How many dwellings are there in the building?

A5. How many bedrooms does your home

have?

single(s) double(s) A6. How many people (including you) are there currently living in your household?

people A7. Of these, how many married or cohabiting couples are there?

couple(s)

A8. Please enter a) the age (number) and b) sex (M or F) of the people currently living in your household. (If there are more than six household members, please give details for the six oldest members)

Person: 1 2 3 4 5 6 a) Age b) Sex a) Age b) Sex a) Age b) Sex a) Age b) Sex a) Age b) Sex a) Age b) Sex

A9. For each person, please also enter a) their working status and b) their occupation. Person: 1 2 3 4 5 6 a) b) a) b) a) b) a) b) a) b) a) b)

a) Working Status 5) Long term sick or disabled b) Occupation 1) Full time employment 6) Student 16 or over or trainee Please see separate sheet 2) Part time employment 7) Pre School/under 16 and at school 3) Retired 8) Other 4) Unemployed

A10. How many cars or vans are owned, or available for use, by one or more members of your household? None .............................................................. 1 One................................................................. 2 Two ................................................................ 3 Three or more ................................................. 4

A11. How long (in minutes) does it take for you and your partner (if applicable) to travel TO work?

self partner

3

A12. Where do you and your partner (if applicable) work? SHOW MAP 1 and SHOW MAP 2

a) b) Self Partner

Work from home ............................... 1........1 In the City of Westminster................. 1........1

SHOW MAP 1 ENTER AREA CODE ....... Elsewhere in London ........................ 2........2

SHOW MAP 2 ENTER BOROUGH CODE Elsewhere in the South East............. 3........3 Elsewhere in the United Kingdom..... 4........4 Abroad .............................................. 5........5 <Not in employment> ........................ 6........6 <No partner>................................................7

A13. Do you own a second home? (that they spend a % of time in not solely a landlord of) Yes .................................................................1 No ...................................................................2 A14. How many days/ weeks per year do you spend at your second home?

days weeks A15. When do you mostly visit? Weekdays.......................................................1 Weekends.......................................................2 Holidays..........................................................3 Live there between 1-3 months a year ...........4 Live there between 4-6 months a year ...........5

B PREVIOUS MOVES AND ACCOMMODATION B1. How long have you lived in the City? Less than a year ............................................ 1 1 to 2 years .................................................... 2 2 to 5 years .................................................... 3 5 to 10 years .................................................. 4 Over 10 years ................................................ 5 Always lived here ........................................... 6

B2. How many times have you moved in the last 2 years?

times

B3. For your last 3 homes (not including your current home) please state a) where you previously lived (SHOWMAPS 1 & 2), how long you lived there (in months) and your tenure. Please put the home you lived in most recently first. a) Where b) Length of residency c) tenure

a) Home 1............................ .................................... ....................................

b) Home 2............................ .................................... ....................................

c) Home 3............................ .................................... .................................... a) Where previously lived b) Tenure 1) In the City of Westminster (enter area code from SHOWMAP 1)

1) Owner-occupied

2) Elsewhere in London (enter area code from SHOWMAP 2) 2) Rented from the Council 3) Elsewhere in the South East 3) Rented from a housing association 4) Elsewhere in the UK 4) Rented from a private landlord 5) Abroad 5) Tied- linked to job 6) Shared ownership B4. Was your last home temporary accommodation? (PLACED BY LA)

Yes................................................................. 1 No .................................................................. 2 B5. How long have you lived at your current address? GO TO: Less than a year .............................. 1.........B6 1 to 2 years ...................................... 2.........B6 2 to 5 years ...................................... 3.........B6 5 to 10 years .................................... 4.........B6 Over 10 years .................................. 5.........C1 Always lived here ............................. 6.........C1

B6. What was your last home? SHOW CARD B6

Owner occupied (with/without mortgage) .....01 House/flat share, or lodging in private rented sector............................................................02 Living with parents, relatives or friends ........03 Rented from a Council..................................04 Rented from a Housing Association .............05 Rented from a private landlord .....................06 Tied or linked to a job ...................................07 Shared Ownership........................................08 Previously homeless or in temporary accommodation ............................................09 <Other> ........................................................10

<Please state>: _______________________

4

B7. Could your last move have been avoided if repairs or adaptations had been carried out to your last home? Yes................................................................. 1 No .................................................................. 2 <Don't know> ................................................. 3 B8. Were any of the following important factors in the decision to move? (CIRCLE AS MANY AS APPLY) SHOW CARD B8 Evicted/repossessed.................................... 01 End of tenancy agreement........................... 02 Relatives/friends unable/unwilling to accommodate .............................................. 03 To move to cheaper accommodation........... 04 Previous home was too small ...................... 05 Previous home was too big.......................... 06 Wanted to move to a larger home................ 07 Wanted to move to a smaller home ............. 08 To get on to the property ladder................... 09 Previous home was difficult to maintain....... 10 Previous home was unsuitable for a family.. 11 Previous home lacked adequate facilities.... 12 Access problems (e.g. steps, stairs) ............ 13

CONTINUED

Previous home was in poor condition...........14 You were the victim of harassment ..............15 Relationship breakdown ...............................16 To move to live with partner .........................17 To be in a school catchment area ................18 To have a garden .........................................19 To have a car parking space ........................20 To receive/give care or support ....................21 To live closer to employment or other essential facilities .........................................22 To live independently ...................................23 To move to a different neighbourhood .........24 To move to a better environment..................25 Was moved by the Local Authority ...............26 <Other> ........................................................27

<Please state>: _______________________ B9. Of the reasons you have given (IN B8 ABOVE) which was the single most important reason for moving? (ENTER CODE FROM B8:)

Main reason for moving

C HOUSING CIRCUMSTANCES

C1. I will now read out a list of situations which may describe your present housing circumstances. Please could you say whether each one is not a problem/not applicable, a problem or a serious problem for your household? Not a A A serious problem/ problem problem not applicable a) The health of someone in your household is suffering because of the condition of the home .................................................1 ................. 2...................3 b) Your home is subject to major disrepair or unfitness ..........................1 ................. 2...................3 c) You have difficulty maintaining your home..........................................1 ................. 2...................3 d) You have to share a bathroom/toilet/kitchen with another household.1 ................. 2...................3 e) You are lacking basic facilities (such as bathroom/toilet/kitchen) .......1 ................. 2...................3 f) Your accommodation is too expensive................................................1 ................. 2...................3 g) Your home is difficult to heat ...............................................................1 ................. 2...................3 h) You are under notice of eviction/re-possession, real threat of notice, or your lease is coming to an end .......................................................1 ................. 2...................3 i) Someone in your household is suffering harassment or threats of harassment from neighbours or others living in the vicinity.............1 ................. 2...................3 j) Someone in your household has difficulty using stairs and/or lifts to, or within, your home............................................................................1 ................. 2...................3 k) You need to be close to a relative/friend to give care.........................1 ................. 2...................3 l) You need to be close to a relative/friend to receive care....................1 ................. 2...................3 m) You need to be closer to employment and/or other essential facilities ..1 ................. 2...................3 C2. Please say how satisfied/dissatisfied you are with the following aspects of your local area. SHOW CARD C2 Very Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied Very Not Satisfied Satisfied nor Dissatisfied Applicable Dissatisfied a) Local shopping facilities ............................. 1............. 2..............3 .............4 ............. 5 ............. 6 b) Post Office/local bank facilities................... 1............. 2..............3 .............4 ............. 5 ............. 6 c) Health facilities ........................................... 1............. 2..............3 .............4 ............. 5 ............. 6 d) Schools/educational or training facilities .... 1............. 2..............3 .............4 ............. 5 ............. 6 e) Leisure facilities.......................................... 1............. 2..............3 .............4 ............. 5 ............. 6 f) Provision of parks and children’s play areas 1............. 2..............3 .............4 ............. 5 ............. 6 g) Public transport .......................................... 1............. 2..............3 .............4 ............. 5 ............. 6 h) Your sense of personal safety and security1............. 2..............3 .............4 ............. 5 ............. 6 i) General area in which you live ................... 1............. 2..............3 .............4 ............. 5 ............. 6 j) Your home in general ................................. 1............. 2..............3 .............4 ............. 5 ............. 6

5

D SPECIAL NEEDS D1. Do you or any of your household have any of the following special needs? SHOW CARD D1 IF ANYONE FITS INTO MORE THAN ONE SPECIAL NEED GROUP, THEN CIRCLE MORE THAN ONE NUMBER FOR THAT PERSON. IF THERE ARE MORE THAN THREE PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS PLEASE ANSWER FOR THOSE THREE WITH THE MOST SIGNIFICANT NEEDS. IF THERE ARE NO SPECIAL NEEDS MEMBERS, PLEASE TICK HERE

AND GO TO QUESTION E1.

(n.b ordinary housing is housing without aids or adaptations specific to the need) First Second Third Person Person Person

Frail elderly .................................................................................................. 1................ 1 ................1 A physical disability...................................................................................... 2................ 2 ................2 A learning disability ...................................................................................... 3................ 3 ................3 A mental health problem .............................................................................. 4................ 4 ................4 Severe sensory disability ............................................................................. 5................ 5 ................5 Other ............................................................................................................ 6................ 6 ................6 D2. How could the accommodation or services for their (your) special needs best be improved? Please also say if you already have these improvements. Need No Already Need have

a) Wheelchair access ................................................................................... 1..............2 .............3 b) Single-level accommodation .................................................................... 1..............2 .............3 c) Downstairs WC......................................................................................... 1..............2 .............3 d) Handrails/ Extra handrails ........................................................................ 1..............2 .............3 e) Low level light switches or raised power points........................................ 1..............2 .............3 f) Low level kitchen units (including sink) or lever taps................................ 1..............2 .............3 g) Level access shower unit ......................................................................... 1..............2 .............3 h) Lift/stair lift ................................................................................................ 1..............2 .............3 i) Emergency alarm ..................................................................................... 1..............2 .............3 j) Car parking space near to front door of home.......................................... 1..............2 .............3 k) Other alterations/adaptations ................................................................... 1..............2 .............3 l) More support services to your present home (eg home carer, meals on wheels) 1..............2 .............3 m) Need to move to alternative housing with specialist adaptations ............ 1..............2 n) Need to move to alternative housing with specialist care/support............ 1..............2 E TENURE AND HOUSING COSTS

E1. Is your current accommodation: SHOW CARD E1 GO TO: Owner occupied (own outright) ........................................................... 01....................................... F1 Owner occupied (with a mortgage or loan) ......................................... 02....................................... E3 Rented from the Council ..................................................................... 03....................................... E3 Rented from a Housing Association.................................................... 04....................................... E3 Rented from a private landlord or letting agency ................................ 05....................................... E2 Rented from a relative or fiend of a household member..................... 06....................................... E2 Tied or linked to a job.......................................................................... 07....................................... E3 Shared ownership*.............................................................................. 08....................................... E3 <Other> <Please state>:_________________________________________ 09....................................... F1

* Shared ownership schemes are designed to help people who wish to buy a home of their own but cannot afford it. The schemes involve buying a share in a property with a Housing Association and paying rent on the remainder. E2. Does the Council own the freehold for this property?

Yes.....................................................................................................................................................1 No ......................................................................................................................................................2 E3. Please state whether you rent from…

6

An individual................................................... 1 A company ..................................................... 2 Other .............................................................. 3 E4. Is your current home temporary accommodation?

Yes................................................................. 1 No .................................................................. 2 E5. Housing Costs: SHOW CARD E5 RENTERS: What is your current weekly or

monthly rent? (If you receive Housing Benefit, state the full rent charged by the landlord before any refunds).

OWNERS: How much do you as a household have to pay for your mortgage each month (including any endowment premiums etc.)?

Please include any service charges IF SHARED OWNERSHIP PLEASE READ BOTH QUESTIONS ABOVE AND PROVIDE THE ANSWER FOR TOTAL OUTGOINGS (I.E. RENT AND MORTGAGE COMBINED). Weekly Monthly

None ...................... None ............................01 Under £59 .............. Under £255..................02 £60 - £199.............. £256 - £515 .................03 £120 - £179............ £516 - £775 .................04 £180 - £239............ £776 - £1,035 ..............05 £240 - £299............ £1,036 - £1,295 ...........06 £300 - £359............ £1,296 - £1,555 ...........07 £360 - £419............ £1,556 - £1,815 ...........08 £420 - £479............ £1,816 - £2,075 ...........09 £480 - £539............ £2,076 - £2,335 ...........10 £540 or more.......... £2,336 or more ............11 <Don't know> ...............................................12 <Refused> ...................................................13 E6. Benefits

RENTERS: Is Housing Benefit used to help with your rent?

OWNERS: Do you receive Income Support to help with your mortgage interest payments?

IF SHARED OWNERSHIP PLEASE READ BOTH QUESTIONS ABOVE.

GO TO: Yes .............................................1 .............. E6 No ...............................................2 .............. F1 E7. Benefits: SHOW CARD E7

RENTERS: How much do you receive per week or per month in Housing Benefit?

OWNERS: How much do you receive per month in Income Support towards your mortgage payments?

IF SHARED OWNERSHIP PLEASE READ BOTH QUESTIONS ABOVE AND PROVIDE THE ANSWER FOR TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED (I.E. HOUSING BENEFIT AND INCOME SUPPORT COMBINED).

Weekly Monthly

Under £59...............Under £255 .................01 £60 - £199 ..............£256 - £515 .................02 £120 - £179 ............£516 - £775 .................03 £180 - £239 ............£776 - £1,035 ..............04 £240 - £299 ............£1,036 - £1,295 ...........05 £300 - £359 ............£1,296 - £1,555 ...........06 £360 - £419 ............£1,556 - £1,815 ...........07 £420 - £479 ............£1,816 - £2,075 ...........08 £480 - £539 ............£2,076 - £2,335 ...........09 £540 or more ..........£2,336 or more............10 <Don't know>...............................................11 <Refused> ...................................................12

F FUTURE HOUSING INTENTIONS

F1. Is your household on the Housing Register (i.e. the Council's Waiting List/Transfer List) or a Housing Association Waiting/Transfer List?

Yes................................................................. 1 No .................................................................. 2 <Don't know> ................................................. 3 F2. Are you aware of the following housing schemes? (CIRCLE AS MANY AS APPLY) Shared Ownership ......................................... 1 Key worker living schemes ............................ 2 Discounted Market Sale................................. 3

No ...................................................................4 F3. Does your household need and/or is it likely to move to a different home? GO TO: Now ............................................... 1........... F4 Within a year.................................. 2........... F4 In 1 to 2 years................................ 3........... F4 In 2 to 5 years................................ 4........... F4 No need/not likely to move ............ 5...........G1 <Don't know>................................. 6...........G1 F4. How many bedrooms would you like?

7

bedroom(s) F5. How many bedrooms would you expect?

bedroom(s) F6. What are the main reasons for moving to a different home? (CIRCLE AS MANY AS APPLY) SHOW CARD F6

Threat of eviction/repossession ................... 01 End of tenancy agreement........................... 02 Relatives/friends unable/unwilling to accommodate .............................................. 03 To move to cheaper accommodation........... 04 Current home is too small ............................ 05 Current home is too big................................ 06 Want to move to a larger home.................... 07 Want to move to a smaller home ................. 08 Want to get on the property ladder .............. 09 Current home is difficult to maintain............. 10 Current home is unsuitable for a family ....... 11 Current home lacks adequate facilities ........ 12 Access problems (e.g. steps, stairs) ............ 13 Current home is in poor condition ................ 14 You are the victim of harassment ................ 15 Relationship breakdown............................... 16 To move to live with partner......................... 17 To be in a school catchment area................ 18 To have a garden......................................... 19 To have a car parking space........................ 20 To receive/give care or support ................... 21 To live closer to employment or other essential facilities ......................................... 22 To live independently ................................... 23 To move to a better environment ................. 24 To move to a different neighbourhood ......... 25 Being moved by the Local Authority ............ 26 <Other>........................................................ 27

<Please state>:________________________ F7. Of the reasons you have given (IN F6) which is the single most important reason for moving? (ENTER CODE FROM F6:)

Main reason for moving F8. Where would you LIKE to live and where would you EXPECT to live? (ONE CODE PER COLUMN)

a) b) Like Expect

In the City of Westminster .................1 ....... 1

SHOW MAP 1 ENTER AREA CODE....... .... Elsewhere in London .........................2 ..........2

SHOW MAP 2 ENTER BOROUGH CODE .... Elsewhere in the South East .............3 ..........3 Elsewhere in the United Kingdom .....4 ..........4 Abroad ...............................................5 ..........5 F9. What type of housing would you LIKE to move to and would you EXPECT to move to? (ONE CODE PER COLUMN) SHOW CARD F9 a) b) Like Expect

Buy own home................................ 1.......... 1 Rent from a Council ........................ 2.......... 2 Rent from a Housing Association ... 3.......... 3 Rent from a private landlord or letting agency ................................. 4.......... 4 Rent from a relative or friend of a household member......................... 5.......... 5 Tied-linked to a job ......................... 6.......... 6 Shared Ownership or similar .......... 7.......... 7 House/flat share in the private rented sector................................... 8.......... 8 <Other> .......................................... 9.......... 9 F10. What type of property would you LIKE to move to and would you EXPECT to move to? (ONE CODE PER COLUMN) SHOW CARD F10 a) b) Like Expect

Detached house ............................. 1.......... 5 Semi-detached house..................... 2.......... 4 Terraced house (including end of terrace) ........................................... 3.......... 3 A flat, maisonette, or apartment ..... 4.......... 4 A caravan or other mobile or temporary structure ........................ 5.......... 5 F11. What type of accommodation would you LIKE to move to and would you EXPECT to move to? (ONE CODE PER COLUMN) SHOW CARD F11 a) b) Like Expect

Sheltered housing........................... 1.......... 5 Supported housing ......................... 2.......... 4 Extra care scheme ............................. 3.......... 3 Residential care and/or nursing home. 4.......... 4 A bungalow....................................... 5.......... 5 Ordinary residential accommodation ..... 6.......... 6

8

G REQUIREMENTS OF FUTURE HOUSEHOLDS G1. Will any of the other people in your household need and/or are they likely to move to their own separate accommodation within the next five years? (For example, a son or daughter, a parent, etc) GO TO: Yes............................................. 1.............. G2 No .............................................. 2...............H1 <Don't know> ............................. 3...............H1 G2. How many separate homes will be needed?

homes

FOR G3 FILL OUT A SEPARATE COLUMN FOR EACH PERSON/NEW HOUSEHOLD

G3. When will they need separate accommodation? HH1 HH2 HH3 Now..............................................1 ......1 ...... 1 Within a year ................................2 ......2 ...... 2 In 1 to 2 years ..............................3 ......3 ...... 3 In 2 to 5 years ..............................4 ......4 ...... 4

IF MORE THAN ONE PERSON IN THE HOUSEHOLD NEEDS AND/OR ARE LIKELY TO MOVE TO THEIR OWN ACCOMMODATION IN THE NEXT 5 YEARS, PLEASE NOW ASK ABOUT THE PERSON WHO WILL NEED THEIR OWN ACCOMMODATION/ARE LIKELY TO MOVE FIRST.

G4. What is their relationship to head of household?

Son/daughter ................................................. 1 Parent/grandparent ........................................ 2 Other relative ................................................. 3 Friend............................................................. 4 <Other>.......................................................... 5 G5. Are they...

Single adult(s) without children ...................... 1 Single adult(s) with, or expecting child(ren) ... 2 Couple without children.................................. 3 Couple with, or expecting child(ren)............... 4 <Other>.......................................................... 5 G6. How many bedrooms would they LIKE?

bedroom(s) G7. How many bedrooms would they EXPECT?

bedroom(s) G8. Will they be setting up home with anyone not currently living in your household?

Yes .................................................................1 No ...................................................................2 <Don't know>..................................................3 G9. Where would they LIKE to live and where would they EXPECT to live? (ONE CODE PER COLUMN) SHOW CARD G9 a) b) Like Expect

In the City of Westminster .................1 ....... 1

SHOW MAP 1 ENTER AREA CODE....... .... Elsewhere in London .........................2 ..........2

SHOW MAP 2 ENTER BOROUGH CODE .... Elsewhere in the South East .............3 ..........3 Elsewhere in the United Kingdom .....4 ..........4 Abroad ...............................................5 ..........5 G10. What type of housing would they LIKE to move to and would they EXPECT to move to? (ONE CODE PER COLUMN) SHOW CARD G10 a) b) Like Expect

Buy own home................................ 1.......... 1 Rent from a Council ........................ 2.......... 2 Rent from a Housing Association ... 3.......... 3 Rent from a private landlord or letting agency ................................. 4.......... 4 Rent from a relative or friend of a household member......................... 5.......... 5 Tied-linked to a job ......................... 6.......... 6 Shared Ownership or similar .......... 7.......... 7 House/ flat share in the private rented sector................................... 8.......... 8 <Other> .......................................... 9.......... 9 G11. What type of property would they LIKE to move to and would they EXPECT to move to? (ONE CODE PER COLUMN) SHOW CARD G11

9

a) b) Like Expect

Detached house..............................1 ..........1 Semi-detached house .....................2 ..........2 Terraced house (including end of terrace)............................................3 ..........3 A flat, maisonette, or apartment......4 ..........4 A caravan or other mobile or temporary structure.........................5 ..........5 G12. What type of accommodation would you LIKE to move to and would you EXPECT to move to? (ONE CODE PER COLUMN) SHOW CARD G12 a) b) Like Expect

Sheltered housing ...........................1 ..........5 Supported housing..........................2 ..........4 Extra care scheme..............................3 ..........3 Residential care and/or nursing home .4 ..........4 A bungalow .......................................5 ..........5 Ordinary residential accommodation......6 ..........6 G13. In your opinion, will they be able to afford suitable private sector housing in

the City of Westminster (this can either be rented (excluding housing benefit) or bought)?

Yes .................................................................1 No ...................................................................2 <Don't know>..................................................3 G14. Are they currently registered separately on the Housing Needs Register (i.e. the Council’s Waiting List) or a Housing Association Waiting List?

Yes .................................................................1 No ...................................................................2 <Don't know>..................................................3

H FURTHER HOUSEHOLD INFORMATION

NOTE FOR INTERVIEWERS - (NOT TO BE READ OUT)

AT THIS STAGE IT IS IMPORTANT TO STRESS THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TREATED IN THE STRICTEST CONFIDENCE AND THAT THE COUNCIL DO NOT SEE THE INDIVIDUAL REPLIES (ONLY GROUPED DISTRICT-WIDE INFORMATION).

WE REQUIRE INCOME INFORMATION TO COMPARE WITH HOUSE PRICES TO FIND OUT THE % OF HOUSEHOLDS WHO CANNOT AFFORD HOUSING IN THE DISTRICT.

WE REQUIRE SAVINGS INFORMATION TO FIND OUT THE % OF HOUSEHOLDS WHO ARE UNABLE TO AFFORD A DEPOSIT ON A SUITABLY SIZED PROPERTY IN THE DISTRICT.

H1. Please indicate the total annual gross (before tax) income of your household inclusive of income from investments and household state benefits SHOWCARD H1

Annual

Under £2,500 ...............................................01 £2,500 - £5,000............................................02 £5,001 - £6,500............................................03 £6,501 - £8,000............................................04 £8,001 - £9,500............................................05 £9,501 - £11,000..........................................06 £11,001 - £12,500........................................07 £12,501 - £14,000........................................08 £14,001 - £15,500........................................09 £15,001 - £17,000........................................10 £17,001 - £18,500........................................11 £18,501 - £20,000........................................12 £20,001 - £21,500........................................13 £21,501 - £23,000........................................14 £23,001 - £24,500........................................15 £24,501 - £26,000........................................16

£26,001 - £31,000 ........................................17 £31,001 - £36,000 ........................................18 £36,001 - £47,000 ........................................19 £47,001 - £57,000 ........................................20 £57,001 - £68,000 ........................................21 £68,001 - £78,000 ........................................22 £78,001 - £104,000 ......................................23 £104,001 - £150,000 ....................................24 £150,001 - £200,000 ....................................25 £200,001 - £250,000 ....................................26 £250,001 - £300,000 ....................................27 £300,001 - £400,000 ....................................28 £400,001 - £500,000 ....................................29 Over £500,000..............................................30 <Don’t know> .. ............................................31 <Refused>....... .............................................3

H2. Please indicate how much savings you (and your partner) have. SHOW CARD H2

Negative savings (ie. in debt)....................... 01

No savings....................................................02 Under £5,000................................................03 £5,001 - £10,000 ..........................................04

10

£10,001 - £25,000........................................ 05 £25,001 - £50,000........................................ 06 £50,001 - £75,000........................................ 07 £75,001 - £100,000...................................... 08 £101,001 - £150,000.................................... 09 £150,001 - £200,000.................................... 10 £200,001 - £300,000.................................... 11 £300,001 - £500,000.................................... 12 Over £500,000 ............................................. 13 <Don't know> ............................................... 14 <Refused> ................................................... 15

ASK QUESTION H3 FOR OWNER-OCCUPIERS (INCLUDING SHARED OWNERSHIP) ONLY (SEE QUESTION E1):

H3. For owner-occupiers, if you sold your home now, how much money do you estimate you would get, after paying off any remaining mortgages and other associated debts? SHOW CARD H3

Would be in debt (negative equity) .............. 01 £1 - £5,000................................................... 02 £5,001 - £10,000 ......................................... 03 £10,001 - £25,000........................................ 04 £25,001 - £50,000........................................ 05 £50,001 - £75,000........................................ 06 £75,001 - £100,000...................................... 07 £101,001 - £150,000.................................... 08 £150,001 - £200,000.................................... 09 £200,001 - £500,000.................................... 10 £500,001 - £700,000.................................... 11 £700,001 - £900,000.................................... 12 Over £900,000 ............................................. 13 <Don't know> ............................................... 14 <Refused> ................................................... 15 H4. How would you describe you and your partner's (if applicable) ethnic origin? SHOW CARD H4 a) Self b) Partner White

British ......................................01 ................01 Irish..........................................02 ................02 Any other White background ...03 ................03 <Please state>: _______________________

Mixed White & Black Caribbean ........04 ................04 White & Black African..............05 ................05 White & Asian..........................06 ................06 Any other mixed background...07 ................07 <Please state>: _______________________

Asian or Asian British Indian.......................................08 ................08 Pakistani..................................09 ................09 Bangladeshi.............................10 ................10 Any other Asian background ...11 ................11 <Please state>: _______________________

Black or Black British Caribbean................................12 ................12 African .....................................13 ................13 Any other Black background ...14 ................14 <Please state>: _______________________

Arab North African ...........................15 ................15 Middle Eastern ........................16 ................16 Any other Arab background.....17 ................17 <Please state>: _______________________ Chinese or Other ethnic group Chinese ...................................18 ................18 Any other .................................19 ................19 <Please state>: _______________________

<No Partner>................................................20 <Refused>...............................21 ................21 H5. What is your country of origin? ____________________________________ H6. Do you consider yourself to be a Gypsy or Traveller?

Yes .................................................................1 No...................................................................2 H7. It is possible that we may wish to carry out another survey to respond to some of the housing issues raised here. Would you be willing to be included in a follow-up survey? Yes .................................................................1 No...................................................................2 <Don’t know, would need more information> .3

Thank you very much for your time

westminster housing needs assessment final...

Documents