« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
5. BALANCED COMMUNITIES, INDIVIDUAL AND COMMUNITY NEED
5.1 Whilst the previous chapter considered the prioritisation of individual need, this chapter considers the range of issues identified in the research concerning the role of allocations in balancing or sustaining communities. In particular there is consideration of issues reported by landlords between giving priority to individual need or to community need.
5.2 The research identified the following issues amongst landlords in relation to balancing communities and community need
- Lack of clarity about the broad concept of balanced communities and questions about the relevance of the term today, and related issues of achieving best use of housing stock
- Practical issues of what is acceptable practice in giving priority to community needs, whether through sensitive lettings or local lettings initiatives
- Particular tensions between meeting individual needs while at the same time addressing the interests of local communities.
Interpretations
5.3 Respondents to the survey considered that the term 'balancing communities' was the least clear of all the terms commonly used in allocations. Nearly two thirds (62%) of all respondents stated that they considered the term insufficiently clear: local authorities were more likely to have difficulty with the term (85%).
5.4 In large part, the comments referred to a lack of specification of the term 'balancing/balanced communities', with no definition in legislation or guidance.
'Should "balanc" apply to age, ethnicity, economic status etc etc.' ( RSL)
'Some confusion over exactly what balancing communities means. Age, gender, race, employment?' ( RSL)
'What exactly is meant by balancing a community - is it a mix of age, needs and types of household or do you balance a community by not mixing older people with young people, for example. Thing is, we just don't know.' ( RSL)
5.5 For many landlords, there was enthusiasm for the term to be defined centrally so that landlords were given a clear framework within which to develop allocations systems which complied with this definition. However it is important to note that not all landlords were keen for greater central direction: instead they considered that it was appropriate that the term remained open, with the responsibility for specification resting with the local landlord and taking account of the local context. Some were very clear that the meaning should be area and circumstance specific, since it should have different meanings in different places/circumstances
'[I] think the term is interpretational between areas and landlords; to an extent its one of those buzz words/phrases used a lot by agencies and politicians without any real concept of what is meant by it. But if landlords acknowledge the local context they operate in, then I don't think its quite as difficult to interpret.
For example, some people in a rural area may see a balanced community as one where there are few 'outsiders' moving in, whereas local planners may view young people moving in as vital to an area's survival. It's easy to see how a lot of landlords find it too vague a term - especially at operational level, but a 'one size fits all' approach won't work - what's needed is more guidance on how to achieve a balanced community, taking account of local factors, and clearer guidance what can or cannot be done within allocations to help achieve this.' ( LA)
5.6 Achieving balanced communities sets out the broad objective: sensitive lettings and local lettings initiatives often provide the means by which that objective is translated within allocations systems.
5.7 Given landlords' difficulties with the concept of balancing communities, it is perhaps not surprising that landlords also had difficulties with terms such as sensitive lettings and local letting initiatives. Comments made by respondents to the survey in relation to sensitive lettings included
'Proper definition of this to clearly separate sensitivity from potential interpretation as cherry picking practices.' ( RSL)
'When is it appropriate to bypass an applicant who does not meet the local mix?' ( LA)
'When does sensitive become selective?' ( RSL)
and in relation to local lettings initiatives
'Relationships between LLIs and mainstream allocations policies is unclear.' ( RSL)
'Unclear as to how they sit within the allocations policy…' ( LA)
'Thought this was frowned upon.' ( LHO)
5.8 In addition landlords noted the connection between these terms and both 'best use of housing stock' and 'restricting eligibility to certain properties or property types'.
'In our case this (best use of housing stock) is linked to the next item on Local Lettings Initiatives and the ability to create balanced communities.' ( LA)
'…again discretion (restricting eligibility to certain properties or property types) - when is it acceptable to bypass applicants with higher points, to allocate to a more suitable applicant.' ( RSL)
'May be examples of low demand where we will get to the bottom of the list and wish to house people with no or little housing need or where we wish to allow under occupation... Had low demand initiatives where provided curtains, rent free allowance, decoration allowance. This has worked but guidance is not clear on range of flexibility allowed in response to low demand' ( RSL).
5.9 Overall these terms caused greatest confusion amongst social landlords.
Achieving Balanced Communities: Practical Issues
5.10 There were a range of practical difficulties identified by landlords responding to the survey: these also emerged clearly from those interviewed in the case study areas. These difficulties were in part related to their lack of clarity of what constituted a balanced community, but were also influenced by questions about the relevance of the term in the current context.
5.11 Landlords in both RSLs and local authorities questioned the extent to which social landlords could deliver balanced communities given the profile of social rented housing stock. This issue had two dimensions, both related to the impact of RTB.
5.12 First, landlords commented that RTB had resulted in major changes to the numbers, distribution, size and type of housing stock in the social rented sector.
- Social rented housing no longer represented the majority tenure as it had prior to the introduction of RTB
- Large public sector estates no longer existed and had been replaced by mixed tenure areas
- Sales had disproportionately been of larger properties, leaving mainly 2 and 3 bedroom properties
- Flats now predominate as the more popular property types of terraced and semi-detached properties have been sold.
5.13 Secondly, and linked to its reduced and changed role, it was also noted that the demand for the social rented sector had also changed in terms of the household size of those applying and in relation to their needs. Comments were made about the growth in the number of applications from single people and from those with support, care or health needs.
5.14 Given the health, care and support needs of many of those relying on the social rented sector for housing, staff at all levels raised concerns about management issues in terms of (a) accessing and securing support and (b) dealing with neighbourhood and anti-social behaviour problems.
'There has been a definite increase in the number of cases of ASB and neighbourhood problems in the area - more and more staff time is taken up in dealing with estate management problems. A lot of problems relate to drug problems as well as young people in a tenancy for the first time who want to party and have friends round. We've also seen a rise [in] people with mental health problems and a problem can be securing support…...' ( RSL)
5.15 In this context, landlords also noted that there were practical constraints on them in achieving balanced communities because of other legislation.
'We have non-purpose built sheltered housing on the lower levels of mainstream blocks. Ideally, the blocks would be designated housing for older people, with lets to mainstream properties going to older housing applicants, creating a more sustainable living environment. The Act makes it illegal to take age into account' ( RSL).
5.16 Thirdly, landlords noted that the 'community' may vary - a local authority wide area, an estate or a small neighbourhood/block - according to local circumstances. Broadly speaking, landlords tended to consider that the term had more relevance in relation to neighbourhoods/blocks than it did at local authority level.
5.17 Other difficulties reported by landlords related to the number of properties they had,
'I am unsure how small housing associations with small stock in a local authority area can balance a community.' ( RSL)
'The shortage of housing stock and the pressure of Homeless legislation mitigate against being able to balance a community.' ( LA)
and included implications for other applicants
'Not sure how allocating to produce a balanced community can be reconciled with policy of allocating houses based on assessment of housing need.' ( LA)
and particularly given a growing number of homeless applicants
'Difficult to achieve when housing Section 5 Referrals for every nomination.' ( RSL)
5.18 There were also clearly significant concerns amongst landlords about the extent to which creating balanced communities could be reconciled with the requirement to demonstrate transparency, particularly where this was being delivered through a policy of sensitive letting.
'The provisions in section 21 require the policy to be transparent which creates problems when trying to be selective in the allocations process to achieve balanced communities.' ( LA)
'2001 Act requirements on openness and transparency conflict with need to preserve confidentiality, especially where applicant groups such as learning disability, sex offenders, mental illness, etc, are involved.' ( RSL)
5.19 There were wider concerns about the evidence required whether through system wide arrangements, local lettings initiatives or sensitive lettings. There were a significant number of comments by landlords that although the terms lacked definition, their attempts to define and implement it locally had been, or they were concerned would be, criticised by Communities Scotland. These comments were made by respondents to the survey and within the case study areas: they were made both by RSLs and by local authorities.
'There is very little guidance on this issue (Local Lettings Initiatives). RSLs develop mechanisms - but remain nervous that Communities Scotland will comment adversely if we are not seen to consistently address housing need.' ( RSL)
'One can never be sure whether use of some discretion in allocating a particular property will be seen, on inspection, as discrimination against particular client or client group.' ( LA)
'Like many things over the years this is never defined yet our efforts and interpretation are open to scrutiny and criticism from those who will not themselves offer definitions. This can be frustrating and demoralising for officers and committee members who have worked in an area for many years and are making inroads into the crippling deprivation.' ( RSL)
5.20 It is important to repeat that the research gathered the views and perceptions of landlords: as such it did not review the basis on which these comments were made by landlords, or indeed verify whether Communities Scotland had in fact made the comments it was claimed they had. It is also worth noting that there was evidence of respondents not understanding the legal requirements upon them, and hence the basis on which Communities Scotland's criticism may be made.
'……R&I 21 reports criticise LAs who impose age restrictions etc. often done to create a balanced community.' ( LA)
5.21 Equally, however it is important to acknowledge that there was a clear strand of comments from landlords that the position adopted by Communities Scotland at inspection had not been expected or anticipated. In addition, for some staff there was continued confusion even after inspection as to why they had been criticised in the way they had. There are two points of particular importance to note in relation to this. First, the views in the survey were unprompted, given in the context of providing more detail on areas which required clarification. Secondly, these concerns were also expressed by landlords, again unprompted, in the case study areas where the research team were able to challenge and clarify, both by those who had recently been inspected and those with a forthcoming inspection.
5.22 Landlords perceived that Communities Scotland had their own interpretation which was applied at inspection but which was not formally part of either legislation or guidance. This may link to a widespread uncertainty about the type of evidence which would be acceptable to Communities Scotland at inspection.
5.23 Frequently made comments in relation to the issues of balanced communities and community need were
- The term was unclear and meant different things to different people
- Balancing communities invariably meant bypassing applicants with higher levels of need
- It was not clear in what circumstances it was justifiable to bypass an applicant with higher level needs, perhaps homeless, in favour of balanced community objectives
- Landlords were not clear what type and level of evidence would satisfy Communities Scotland.
'What is a "balanced community"? Most "social housing communities" have an over-concentration of people with issues of health, addiction, deprivation and poverty. Any attempt to balance a community with less dependent people is likely to contravene legislation on "reasonable preference". Also how do we demonstrate transparency when we bypass someone on the housing list in favour of a balanced community?' ( RSL)
Individual or Community Need
5.24 The lack of clarity amongst landlords about definition and evidencing caused some of the difficulty, but at its core the tension experienced by landlords appeared to reflect a more fundamental issue - a tension between giving priority to individual need on the one hand, or to 'community need' on the other. Landlords were uncertain about the extent to which the allocation should take account of the wider community in the interests of fulfilling the duty to existing tenants to provide a quality environment and to new tenants, particularly those who were very vulnerable, to provide a sustainable tenancy.
5.25 The tensions appeared to be most acute in relation to certain types of individual need: in this category were sex offenders (considered in chapter 6), households with a history of anti-social behaviour and those with chaotic behaviour often associated with a combination of substance misuse, mental health problems and offending. Finding accommodation where their behaviour was least likely to disrupt existing local communities was seen as challenging.
'Not sure how allocating to produce a balanced community can be reconciled with policy of allocating houses based on assessment of housing need.' ( LA)
5.26 Similarly in housing very vulnerable tenants, such as those who were young and vulnerable, the nature of the wider community where there was a supply of vacant properties was seen as increasing the difficulty in sustaining the tenancy.
5.27 The implications of making an inappropriate allocation were significant for landlords, but even where the allocation was 'suitable' for the individual household with high priority landlords noted that there could be a considerable impact on the existing residents. It is perhaps not surprising therefore that it was operational staff in both RSLs and local authorities who were particularly keen that allocations policies should be able to take account of community need.
5.28 Issues noted in the previous chapter for specialist RSLs, where their housing stock included mainstream accommodation, are also relevant here. Given the vulnerability of the client groups being provided for, it was of particular importance that this mainstream accommodation was let to those who would not create additional difficulties, and preferably would be actively supportive: inevitably that required consideration of community need and application of sensitive lettings practices. The perceived lack of discretion within section 5 was seen as problematic in this context. Where possible RSLs were managing the problem through good working relationships with the LA.
5.29 There were issues of a different kind identified in the more rural areas, particularly in remote and more closed communities.
'We have tried to develop a model of Community Lettings that take community needs (not local connection) into account - needs a clear assessment of community needs within a housing context & clearer guidance about this would be helpful. We continually face conflict between developing and supporting pressured small and very rural communities against the drive to meet high housing needs across a very large and diverse area.' ( RSL)
5.30 The particular issues in rural areas were reported as
- The small size of the social rented sector in certain rural settlements where lets were subject to close local scrutiny and where there may be long standing unmet housing need in the local population
- The strong pressure from local communities, including in many instances land owners, developers and elected members, to give priority to those with some sort of local connection or reason to reside within the area
- The often stronger community feeling in closed rural communities, with those coming from other locations sometimes having difficulties in being accepted. This was reflected in an unwillingness on the part of people from outwith the area to be housed in such areas unless they were 'local' people
- Issues in the more remote and fragile areas of using allocations to support local economic development or community sustainability. This applied, for example, in relation to giving priority to key workers (such as the local teacher). Such applicants had very little housing need in the usual definition of the term, but could be crucial to particular local communities.
5.31 Landlords were split between those who felt the need to respond to community need and those who felt it was inappropriate in terms of equal opportunities. As in relation to tensions between housing those with high levels of individual need but a history of behaviour problems, front-line staff were generally more in favour than managers of taking account of community need.
5.32 There were issues for landlords on how best to incorporate community need within allocations policies. This related both to the evidence that was required in assessing what the local community need was, and whether this was best addressed through incorporation as 'community need' points within the general allocations policy, through the development of local lettings initiatives, or through sensitive lettings. Those who felt it was inappropriate to change legislation or regulation to take account of community need felt a higher profile approach from the then Scottish Executive on equalities and homelessness may help in its work to assist communities to understand the context within which allocations take place.
5.33 Generally in relation to the whole issue of balanced communities, there was enthusiasm amongst landlords for clarification of what was and what was not meant by these terms and in particular for practical examples of how this could be achieved in practice. While some, particularly front line staff, requested very detailed guidance, many considered that in such a complex and widely varying issue the best approach might be for the then Scottish Executive to define the key principles and then give examples of practice which are endorsed by Communities Scotland.
'Better guidance on when it is reasonable to take broader community issues into account, and how there are identified & then addressed without coming into conflict with other requirements (equality, choice, open access etc) would be helpful.' ( RSL)
'Guidance on achieving this in practice through allocations policy.' ( LA)
'Need guidance on what a balanced community is and the range of acceptable actions which can be taken in trying to achieve it. Core guidance accompanied by good practice examples,' ( RSL)
« Previous | Contents | Next »