MACE Housing Co-operative Ltd. The Print House, 18 Ashwin Street, London E8 3DL 020-7254 9560, fax: 020-7923 4754 Contact: Rowland Ekperi, Chief Executive Response from MACE Housing Co-operative Ltd. to the Mayor of London on (The London Plan) DRAFT Sub Regional Development Framework East London Carolyn Smith September 30, 2005 1. SRDF Question 1A First item: East London consortium, guidance MACE response: We would welcome discussion of an east London-based consortium to tackle both the long-term and immediate housing needs of single people of all ages. The marginalised short-life dweller of 2005 is the impoverished (and possibly homeless) pensioner of the future. MACE notes the pressing need of many young people to leave the family home, and a prominent demand for immediate accommodation by those suffering from family and relationship break-up. We are able to provide this facility at the moment but in the longer term this could cease due to dwindling short-life and other property supply. MACE Housing Co-operative has the long- term aim of providing permanent housing for its members. The majority of our properties (housing a total of 218 people in over eight London boroughs in north and east London) are 'short-life', that is, on finite lease from both private and social landowners. We are in danger of losing leases on much of our short-life stock without replacement, an effect of the property boom and Registered Social Landlord demolition strategy. When we attempted new-build permanent housing recently in Hackney (in partnership with Solon CHS, now Stadium, finished in March 2005), the local authority seized the space with demands for 100% nomination rights. MACE requests special action from the Mayor of London to ensure that if a housing co-operative builds dwellings for its members' long-term benefit, that they retain the right to allocate property to their existing tenants or from their own waiting lists, without intrusion from the local authority. In common with other short-life managing agents with properties in the borough of Islington, we have had demands from the council for commercial rates on new short-life leases, and market prices demanded for sale of older (existing lease) properties. We would ask the Mayor of London to lobby councils for more favourable rates to housing co-operatives in both statutory lease negotiations and market sale. 2. SRDF 5B Housing mix SRDF items 232, 233, 234 Housing size, private/social ratios, housing under the supporting people strategy and student accommodation MACE response: There has been a pronounced demographic trend toward single living evident over the last 35 years. Single people are more likely to be isolated in crisis and the least likely to be rehoused in temporary accommodation. Co-operatives such as MACE provide an interface for statutory support of vulnerable single individuals (see Appendix A). MACE welcomes concern in the development framework (SRDF 234) for those housed in relation to the London supporting people strategy, and for greater provision of student accommodation. However, many of London's poorer residents are not eligible for 'supporting people' status, being partially employed (see item 2.3, below). The low waged account for 40% of MACE tenants (as opposed to the 60% who are on benefits, September 2005). It is not clear from SRDF 232 what percentage of social housing you propose for the single person, but we note that the percentage will be much smaller than that for the private sector as you express a statistical preference for larger family homes in the social housing quota. Single households are likely to be in non-permanent housing (and therefore in perpetual danger of longer-term homelessness), and may also be formed later in life, as the result of crisis or tragedy. Young people (under 20) are statistically most likely to become homeless, here often a result of conflict with parents or domestic violence. Researchers (below) seem divided over whose need now constitutes the greatest priority. In Hackney we note also that the property boom and an institutional persecution of squatters is making squatting itself ever more precarious. MACE believes that there is a demonstrated and urgent demand in the capital for single person dwellings, both housing with open waiting lists and permanent accommodation. MACE's own waiting list is open and we experience a continuous vacancy rate, allowing flexibility. Several other co-operatives in the capital (Westminster Short Life, Georgiana Street and Phoenix Community Housing, to the author's knowledge) are also open to those needing to be housed swiftly. We urge the Mayor to accord a higher priority in social housing ratios to London's single residents, and to provide for the diverse emergencies that bring people within the reach of social housing institutions. We draw your attention to some statistics below. The number of single person households has doubled in the last 30 years. Roof (September/October 2005), the magazine of housing charity Shelter, stated that between 1971 and 2001 the number of single person households rose from 3 million to 6 million. (The total number of households rose from 16 million to 20.5 million in the same period, a ratio of 1.5625). Roof editorial put this increase down to a rising divorce rate and an ageing population. We would also include a trend in the number of people choosing to live alone (an isolation enforced by benefit poverty). Single people are more likely to be isolated when coping with crisis. Recent research by the charity Elizabeth Finn Care (reported in The Guardian September 15, 2005) found that "An estimated 3.9 million single people of working age are living in poverty, [...] More than 300,000 such people, without dependent children, have fallen below the poverty line since 1996/97". The figure is just under half (44.3%) of a total 8.8 million adults calculated to be living below the poverty line by the charity. The paper quoted Jonathan Welfare, chief executive of Elizabeth Finn Care, who said that the growing number of single households in the UK meant the number of individuals at risk of falling into poverty is on the increase. "They remain unseen because many come from backgrounds where we don't often expect poverty to exist and they don't come forward to ask for help", he said. The charity suggested that poverty was becoming more complex, with more single adults and single parents, more people living away from their families or losing contact with them. People living in poverty were more likely to be female, divorced, widowed or separated. The charity concluded: "The government's focus on child and pensioner poverty has made significant progress. We now need to give the same level of attention to the group that has not benefited, namely working-age adults without dependent children". This rise in the single vulnerable has taken place in a climate of acute housing shortage and rising unemployment. Figures quoted in Roof (September/October 2005) for the rise in homelessness are alarming: between 1979- 1988, this figure rose from 55,000 nationally to 113,000 (205%); Roof says this figure rose again in the early 1990s, and again in 1997 "as a shortage of rental accommodation hit home". In their report Single Homelessness, An Overview of Research in Britain (2000), Suzanne Fitzpatrick, Peter Kemp and Susanne Klinker argue that: "Both demand and supply within the British housing market has restructured over the past couple of decades in ways that generally operate to the disadvantage of single people on low incomes", (quoting Anderson 1994), but state that "[t]he key factors contributing to homelessness have been identified as adverse housing and labour market trends, cuts in social security benefits [affecting particularly the young], rising levels of poverty and 'family restructuring'" (p 19). These structural pressures combine with individual crisis. The report highlights council house sales, benefit restrictions by private landlords, the expense of privately-rented housing and the increase in housing association rent levels as capital subsidies have been reduced, concluding "In any case, housing associations have too few properties to compensate for the loss of other rental stock" (p 20). We also note that allocation to housing association property seems to be largely via local authority waiting lists where the single person is at a distinct disadvantage. Unemployment itself is current nationally at 853,600 (Roof, September/October 2005), a level seen as crisis 30 years ago. Out-of-work individuals are more likely to need to access social housing with open waiting lists because of private landlord intransigence over benefit. They are also more likely to experience unemployment again in the future; a long-term social housing solution (such as prioritised transfer to RSL tenancies or co- operative new-build developments) is vital to avoid emergencies at a later date. MACE is contacted by an average of 60 'non- priority' individuals every week. (Numbers and authors mentioned below are from the Fitzpatrick, Kemp and Klinker report unless stated). The Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (1988; quoted on page 14) found that 23% of all decisions concerning applications for housing assistance (under homelessness provisions, England only) were adjudicated to be "homeless but not in priority need", that is, 56,700 cases during 1997/98 across the country. The report gives no indication of any statistical reduction in homelessness since the election of a Labour government in 1997, although Labour initiatives may have increased the supply of temporary accommodation and reduced (for a while) the numbers of those sleeping rough (private conversation with an employee of the charity St. Mungo's, 2002). MACE itself has not experienced any reduction in demand for its dwelling spaces since the 1997 election. Who are the non-priority homeless? The 1994/95 Survey of English Housing (quoted on page 12) found that homelessness was most prevalent among people aged between 16 and 19 (13.7% said they had been homeless in the previous 10 years). Black people (of African or Caribbean descent) were found to have been disproportionately afflicted (13.4% of those homeless in the previous 10 years, over three times the next figure down; when figures for those of Asian descent are added, this percentage rises to 19.6%; Burrows, 1997). The DETR study found that minority ethnic groups were over-represented among hostel and B&B residents, and this was particularly the case for women. However, the single homeless are statistically more likely to be male; the disparity disappears when those with children are counted in. Burrows also found that 'black' 'heads' of household were three times more likely to have experienced homelessness than 'white'. One study quoted by Fitzpatrick, Kemp and Klinker (Carlisle, 1996; quoted on page 35) indicated that 40% of prisoners expected to be homeless on release, with fewer than half of ex-offenders able to return to the address at which they lived before they entered custody. They also note the high incidence of ex-service personnel (armed forces) among the homeless (pp 28-29). At the time the Fitzpatrick, Kemp and Klinker report was written (1999), central government was considering measures to prevent homelessness among these latter categories, and prioritising financial and other support for care leavers and other young people forced to leave home (p 29). Crisis at an individual level can include violence, relationship and family break-ups, debts and other financial crisis, mental health and drug use. Domestic violence is an important factor in making single women homeless (p 34); family conflict a leading factor in the homelessness of young people (Fitzpatrick, Kemp and Klinker suggest that the most significant factor of a young person's homelessness was conflict with the mother). Care leavers, young people from step families, and those who have suffered violence or sexual abuse are disproportionately represented. MACE has found a significant number of young people (particularly young women) from Asian families needing to leave home when parents have attempted to impose traditional beliefs on their more liberated offspring. Family and relationship crises can occur at any point of life, and the report highlights the vulnerabilities of the single elderly due to fractured relations with adult children; housing providers (including co-operatives) should be fully supported to help meet these diverse emergency needs. Fitzpatrick, Kemp and Klinker state that: "Processes of family fragmentation have played an important role in generating homelessness, particularly escalating divorce rates and the growth in lone-parent households and step families (Harvey, 1999). Family breakdown creates a serious risk of homelessness for those who are poor or in other ways vulnerable. Thus, relationship breakdown is closely associated with homelessness not only among one- parent families, but also among single people, where social isolation often constitutes a key factor in their vulnerability (Daly, 1993). There is a particularly strong relationship between conflict- ridden step-relationships and homelessness among young people (Jones, 1993)" (pp 21-22). MACE accepts tenants who have been through detoxification initiatives and offers a programme of support to tenants with a history of drug dependency. Flemen, 1997 (quoted on page 32) found that 35% of street homeless young people in central London were heroin users, a level about 18 times higher than among the non-homeless. Klee and Reid (1998) suggest that young homeless people use drugs, particularly opiates, as a form of 'self- medication', to cope with the stress of a roofless or marginal existence. Very high mental-health problems, particularly depression, were identified among their sample in Manchester, and almost half had attempted suicide. They argued that absorption into a drug subculture was likely to be one of the most serious and long-lasting effects of homelessness on the lives of these young people (p 32). One co-operative, Westminster Short Life, takes people directly off the street. MACE tenants who have been street homeless are usually referred on from temporary accommodation. A 1995 Scottish Survey of Consumer Preference in Housing found that 63% of respondents who said they had been homeless in the last 10 years had been forced to find refuge with a friend or relative rather than statutory temporary accommodation (p 12). We have no figures for London. Single homeless people as non-priority are more likely to be dumped in temporary accommodation with little hope of statutory rehousing. Numbers of those in temporary accommodation nationally (quoted in Roof magazine, September/October 2005) have risen from 68,630 in 1991 (including private sector leasing and what Roof calls the 'homeless at home' or hidden homeless) to 118,350 in 2003 (a rise of 172.5% in 12 years). Rough sleeping statistics are alarming. Fitzpatrick, Kemp and Klinker quote a 1996 estimate that there were 106,900 single homeless people in London that year (London Borough Grants, 1999; quoted on page 23). There were around 17,000 bed spaces in London hostels before the millennium, and occupancy rates are very high (a 93% rate for London winter shelters, 1998/99, CRASH; quoted on page 17). Fitzpatrick, Kemp and Klinker suggest that over 50% of users in London each year have been first-time occupants. They also quote a Homeless Network estimate of the prevalence of rough sleeping in central London: 2,381 during 1996/97. Of these 2,381 people, 1,800 were new arrivals; this is an equivalent to an average flow of five new rough sleepers every night (Housing Services Agency, 1998). Sixty per cent of MACE tenants claim statutory benefits. We prioritise housing the unwaged and those on low incomes, the single homeless, and occasionally families; we also house 'key workers'. MACE, and other short- life co-operatives in London, are a lifeline for those excluded from the private-rental sector by their need to claim housing benefits, and from local authority allocation priorities and lack of suitable council stock. The September issue of Roof magazine notes further landlord refusal of tenants claiming housing benefit if the proposed flat-rate Local Housing Allowance (LHA) goes ahead (proposed start for social-housing tenants March 2008). The LHA has been piloted already in nine local authority areas on those with private tenancies. The magazine quotes one 'pathfinder' area, Conwy, where the average proportion of properties affordable at LHA rates was below 10% since the scheme commenced. With market rents in London keeping pace with the boom in property prices, and commercial lease fees demanded by local authorities, housing associations, and firms, for short-life dwellings, MACE expects a greater long-term tenant demand for a diminishing, and more expensive, housing stock, effecting a further marginalisation of the more vulnerable. Housing benefit departments already operate to guidance from rent officers on maximum rent levels, which can cut off payments to the sick and unemployed. Short-life housing is no longer cheap as a direct result of boom-inflated leasing charges; we are deeply worried about the restrictive effects of the LHA on the long-term ability of our members to be able to afford their rent. MACE urges the Mayor of London to lobby the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for a complete cancellation of the Local Housing Allowance. Labour market trends indicate a greater proportion of temporary jobs, freelance and other flexible employment contracts often for hours less than full time. Flexible working (or precarious labour) afflicts particularly women, those in their 20s and 30s, and those working in such sectors as creative and media, business services and leisure, retail and entertainment, all slated for growth in the London economy. MACE reminds the Mayor of the 'southafricanisation' (Hirsch) of the London socio-economy, and the growth of 'flexible welfare' of the New Deal programme, where the long- term unemployed are cast out into training for low-grade jobs and temporary office placement, effecting a slippage in benefit as they are required to reapply for statutory housing benefit payments. Many other 'flexible' workers will not be eligible for top-up benefits and thus not covered by the London supporting people strategy. As flexible employment is likely to increase, MACE envisages a greater demand for its space from people not considered vulnerable by the government but nevertheless living in a near permanent state of emergency. As unemployment was for monetarism, 'flexible working' is for the New Labour regime, a brutal marginalisation (underemployment) instrumentalised to effect value discipline. Those forced through New Deal 'training', the low waged, and the underemployed, need a flexible and cheap housing provider with tolerance of institutional delays in benefit process and freelance cash flow. The catchment for co-operative housing in London's polarising economy is (potentially) vast. Support, policy and action from London government to reduce lease fees from statutory landlords, for the rights of self-determination in co-operative development, for construction of social housing to meet the needs of the single (including emergency accommodation), and to cancel the proposed Local Housing Allowance, are imperative. Bibliography Anderson, I. (1994) Access to housing for low income single people: A review of recent research and current policy issues (York) Centre for Housing Policy, University of York Carlisle, J. (1996) The housing needs of ex-prisoners (York) Centre for Housing Policy, University of York CRASH (1999) Survey of users of winter shelters provided in London, Brighton, Bristol and Cambridge, December 1998-March 1999 (London) CRASH Daly, M. (1993) Abandoned: Profile of Europe's homeless people, Second report of the European Observatory on Homelessness (Brussels) FEANTSA Dear, M. and A. J. Scott (eds)(1981) Urbanisation and Urban Planning in Capitalist Society (London) Methuen DETR (1988) Statistics of local authority activities under the homelessness legislation: England, third quarter of 1998 (London) DETR Fitzpatrick, S., P. Kemp and S. Klinker (2000) Single Homelessness, An Overview of Research in Britain (Bristol) The Policy Press Flemen, K. (1997) Smoke and whispers: Drugs and youth homelessness in central London (London) Hungerford Drug Project Harvey, B. (1999) 'The problem of homelessness: a European perspective', in S. Hutson and D. Clapham (eds) Homelessness: Public policies and private troubles (London) Cassell, pp 58-73 Hirsch, J. (1981) 'The apparatus of the State, the reproduction of capital and urban conflicts' in M. Dear and A. J. Scott (eds) Urbanisation and Urban Planning in Capitalist Society (London) Methuen, pp 593- 607 Homeless Network (1997) Central London street monitor (London) Homeless Network Housing Services Agency (1998) The outreach directory annual statistics 1996-1997 (London) Housing Services Agency and Services Network Hutson, S. and D. Clapham (eds)(1999) Homelessness: Public policies and private troubles (London) Cassell Jones, A. (1999) Out of sight, out of mind? The experiences of homeless women (London) Crisis Klee, H. and P. Reid (1998) 'Drugs and youth homelessness: reducing the risk', in Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, vol 5, no 2, pp 115-134 London Borough Grants (1999) Review of single homelessness policy and provision in London (London) London Borough Grants Pieda (1996) Third survey of consumer preference in housing, Research report No 51 (Edinburgh) Scottish Homes Press Association, '3.9 single Britons "live in poverty"' in The Guardian, Thursday September 15, 2005 Roof magazine, September/October 2005 Appendix A: About MACE Housing Co-operative Founded in 1974, MACE began as a short-life co-operative, initially with housing from the GLC. The Co-op became 'fully mutual' in 1986 in an attempt to deliver permanent accommodation for its members. It is registered as a Friendly Society under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act. MACE now manages 102 properties and houses 218 people in eight London boroughs (Hackney, Islington, Tower Hamlets, Newham, Haringey, Enfield, Waltham Forest, Barking and Dagenham). We manage properties belonging to a variety of landlords (housing associations, local authorities and private firms). Some of these properties have permanent leases, but most are still 'short life'. The co-op is run on principles of self-determination (non- intrusion) and self-management (autogestion). We employ eight staff (including a chief executive) and elect a tenant management committee each year, which is responsible for the overall direction of the organisation and aspects of staff support. Tenants are involved in depth discussion on key issues via seven sub-committees which address everything from disputes, finance and repairs, to allocations and future development. MACE recognises the skill and knowledge that its staff bring to bear in the management of its properties and in the detail of the autogestion process. We are committed to equal opportunity, training and the personal development of all employees. MACE has a diverse and multi-cultural membership; we house those on low incomes, the unwaged, the single homeless, key workers, and occasionally families. Our staff speak 11 different languages between them. Under the Supporting People programme, they offer support to tenants with a history of homelessness or living in temporary hostels, those with alcohol or drug dependence, and advise on benefit claims, and offer or negotiate training (computer skills, housing management, construction). On average, some 60 single 'non- priority' individuals contact MACE to access accommodation every week. [MACE's receipt of Supporting People funding was cancelled in 2007--Ed], In policy and provision of social housing, the single homeless are routinely marginalised as low priority despite demographic trends, and categorised as 'high risk' by finance institutions. 'Affordable' housing association rents and options for shared ownership are too costly for those on low incomes. There is no 'trickle down'. Yet despite the fact that we cater for those marginalised by more mainstream social- housing priorities (housing the single homeless is our core objective), we find ourselves in danger of being frozen out of the housing establishment, and with the property boom, also in danger of losing leases on much of our short-life stock, without replacement. MACE is not a Registered Social Landlord (RSL) nor Housing Corporation registered. We find it difficult to raise private capital alone, and although we have been involved in development (in partnership with Solon CHS, now Stadium), we find, for instance one council seizing the space with demands for 100% nomination rights (Hackney), and another council (Islington) commandeering leased street properties (existing short life) and demanding a commercial price for sale. We have been told by Solon that development schemes are more likely to get public finance if they provide for families, key workers and live-work arrangements. While we are happy to cater for members who escape the single/homeless category, it does make our vision for permanent housing for all members impossible -- the vast majority of MACE members simply do not fit into these preferred (and often more affluent) categories. Co-operative (tenant-managed) housing needs to be stated as a valid and important option in policy statements to be reflected in development on the ground (somehow we have to be incorporated as 'best practice' or strategic priority to get a foot in the door). Just as the consultative process in regeneration risks becoming a socialisation of governance, in a housing context we risk the process of assimilation to a functionalist performance principle, yet "autogestion reveals contradictions [...] autogestion must continually be enacted. The same is true of democracy, which is never a condition but a struggle" (Lefebvre). The intimacy of personal space demands the principle of self-determination, as a fundament to the expression and assertion of the social (and private) subject; self-management of housing services extends this freedom to debates over policy, delivery and direction (an extension of liberty). This intervention (praxis) seems vital to counter the operation of moral hierarchies reminiscent of Edwardian philanthropy. Our tenants deserve a better prospect. Looking to the future, we have a group working towards self-building (part/whole 'affordable ownership'); they need land. Staff are negotiating new housing projects with Stadium, Transport for London, and the London boroughs of Enfield and Haringey. These projects will secure longer-term leases than we have been used to. New possibilities in Newham and Southwark are being explored. Our Development Strategy Document (2004) states: "MACE aspires to future self-determination and a greater say in the solution to its members housing needs. The future development of permanent housing will be the key move towards ensuring [that this] is met". Bibliography Lefebvre, H. (2001) 'Comments on a New State Form' in Antipode (Oxford) Blackwell, pp 769-782 MACE Housing Co-operative (2004a) Development Strategy Document, unpublished MACE Housing Co-operative (2004b) Members' Handbook (London) MACE ENDS.

<< Back to main page