Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics: Inequality, Housing, Renting, Evictions, Homelessness and House Prices

Andrew, Eating

We’ve been compiling these statistics over the past two years and longer, and we try to keep them updated as often as possible as things grow rapidly worse; but any corrections will be investigated, and any new additions that can be substantiated are welcome. The conclusions we draw from them are our own, but will hopefully be shared, one day, by the millions of people whose homes and lives they describe.

PART 1: INEQUALITY

THE WEALTH OF THE RICHEST 1 PER CENT OF THE BRITISH POPULATION IS EQUAL TO THE WEALTH OF THE POOREST 55 PER CENT.

THE 5 RICHEST BRITISH FAMILIES ARE AS WEALTHY AS THE POOREST 20 PER CENT OF THE BRITISH POPULATION.
* That’s 12.6 million people.

THE WEALTH OF THE RICHEST 1000 PEOPLE IN BRITAIN HAS DOUBLED IN THE PAST TEN YEARS TO £658 BILLION.
* More than a third of the annual economic output of the entire U.K.

BRITAIN HAS 134 BILLIONAIRES, THE MOST PER CAPITA OF ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.
* That’s one for every 489,000 people, more per head of population than any other nation in the G20.

LONDON’S 80 BILLIONAIRES IS THE MOST OF ANY CITY IN THE WORLD.
* With a total wealth of £325 billion, more than the GDP of Ireland or South Africa.

THE £9 TRILLION OF PRIVATE WEALTH IN BRITAIN IS HELD BY JUST 34 PER CENT OF THE POPULATION.*
* The remaining 66 per cent holds no positive financial assets at all.

THE GAP BETWEEN RICH AND POOR IN BRITAIN IS THE LARGEST IN THE WEST.
* The poorest 40 per cent of the British population share a lower proportion of the national wealth, only 14.6 per cent, than in any other Western country.

THE INCOMES OF THE RICHEST 20 PER CENT OF THE BRITISH POPULATION IS 105 TIMES HIGHER THAN THE POOREST 20 PER CENT.

JUST 0.3 PER CENT OF THE BRITISH POPULATION – 160,000 FAMILIES – OWN TWO THIRDS OF THE LAND.
* Making Britain second only to Brazil as the country with the most unequal land distribution in the world.

OVER 1,000,000 PROVISIONS OF THREE DAYS’ EMERGENCY FOOD WERE HANDED OUT AT FOOD BANKS IN BRITAIN OVER THE PAST YEAR.
* Including 415,866 to children.

391 PEOPLE IN THE UK DIED OF MALNUTRITION IN 2015.

THERE HAS BEEN A 71 PER CENT INCREASE IN HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS FOR PATIENTS SUFFERING FROM MALNUTRITION.
* From 3,900 admissions in 2009-10 to 6,690 admissions in 2013-14.

IN 2013-14 MORE THAN 86,000 HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS INVOLVED PATIENTS DIAGNOSED WITH GOUT CAUSED BY A LACK OF VITAMIN C.
* An increase of 78 per cent in five years.

CASES OF SCARLET FEVER ADMITTED TO HOSPITAL DOUBLED LAST YEAR FROM 403 TO 845.
* With a rise in other illnesses such as scurvy, cholera and whooping cough caused by malnutrition.

BRITAIN HAS THE SIXTH LARGEST ECONOMY IN THE WORLD.

PART 2: HOUSING

26 OF THE 100 RICHEST PEOPLE IN THE UK LIST PROPERTY AS A MAJOR SOURCE OF THEIR WEALTH.
* 10 make their money from finance, 10 from investment, 7 from retail and 6 from industry.

THERE ARE 164 PROPERTY MOGULS IN THE RICHEST 1,000 PEOPLE IN BRITAIN, WITH A COMBINED WEALTH OF £143.7 BILLION.
* Financiers, by contrast, are worth £65.2 billion.

THE AVERAGE PRICE OF A HOME IN GREATER LONDON IS NEARLY HALF A MILLION POUNDS.
* Currently £488,729, and around £726,000 in Central London.

2 PER CENT OF NEW-BUILD HOMES IN CENTRAL LONDON IN 2014 WERE BOUGHT BY NON-U.K. RESIDENT OWNERS.

61 PER CENT OF NEW-BUILD HOMES IN GREATER LONDON ARE BOUGHT AS AN INVESTMENT.

IN 2015-16 PUBLIC SECTOR SPENDING ON HOUSING CAME TO £28 BILLION.

PROPERTY WEALTH IN BRITAIN INCREASED BY NEARLY £400 BILLION IN THE TWO YEARS UP TO DECEMBER 2015.
* And the wealth of the richest 10 per cent of UK households increased by 21 per cent.

THE ESTIMATED TOTAL VALUE OF THE HOUSING STOCK IN ENGLAND IN 2015 WAS £5.6 TRILLION.
* An increase of £1 trillion since 2010, and now nearly 60 per cent of the UK’s entire net wealth.

THE 80 PER CENT MARKET RATE ON SO-CALLED ‘AFFORDABLE HOMES’ IN LONDON’S NEW-BUILD HOMES REQUIRES A SALARY OF £44,500.
*The median household income in London is £30,500.

IN 2015, 5,300 TWO-BEDROOM HOMES WERE SOLD IN LONDON FOR BETWEEN £650,000 AND £1 MILLION.
* Compared with only 2,000 for less than £300,000.

THE RATIO BETWEEN HOUSE PRICES AND PERSONAL DISPOSABLE INCOME IN LONDON IN 2016 WAS THE HIGHEST IT HAS EVER BEEN.
* Surpassing levels before the sub-prime mortgage crisis of 2007.

PART 3: RENTING

64 PER CENT OF HOMES IN ENGLAND ARE OWNER-OCCUPIED, 18 PER CENT ARE PRIVATELY RENTED, AND 17 PER CENT ARE SOCIALLY RENTED.

LESS THAN 10,000 HOMES FOR SOCIAL RENT WERE BUILT IN ENGLAND IN 2014-15.
* The lowest number since records began in 1991-92.

THE AVERAGE PRIVATE SECTOR RENTS IN LONDON ARE MORE THAN DOUBLE THE NATIONAL AVERAGE.
* £2,216 per month for a two-bedroom home.

AS OF MARCH 2017 THE AVERAGE MONTHLY RENT IN LONDON WAS £1,203.
* The average in England was £833 per month.

PRIVATE RENTS IN BRITAIN HAVE RISEN TO DOUBLE THE COST OF COUNCIL PROPERTIES.

A QUARTER OF PEOPLE RENTING IN BRITAIN RELY ON HOUSING BENEFIT TO MEET THE COST OF ACCOMMODATION.

£20.9 BILLION WAS SPENT ON HOUSING BENEFIT IN ENGLAND IN 2015-16.

IN THE TWO YEARS LEADING UP TO 2016, ALMOST 59,000 HOUSEHOLDS HAD THEIR BENEFITS CAPPED TO A MAXIMUM OF £26,000 PER YEAR.
* Nearly half of those households were in London.

A THIRD OF HOMES IN THE PRIVATE RENTED SECTOR DO NOT MEET THE GOVERNMENT’S DECENT HOMES STANDARDS FOR HEALTH, SAFETY AND HABITABILITY.

A THIRD OF PEOPLE LIVING IN POVERTY IN ENGLAND AND WALES LIVE IN PRIVATE RENTED ACCOMMODATION.
* Up a fifth from a decade ago.

OVER THE PREVIOUS FIVE YEARS, THE NUMBER OF RENTED HOUSEHOLDS IN ENGLAND AND WALES THAT WERE EVICTED HAS MORE THAN TREBLED.
* To 18,000 households evicted in 2014/15.

46 PER CENT OF 16-34 YEAR-OLDS WERE RENTING FROM PRIVATE LANDLORDS IN 2016.
* Up from 21 per cent in 1996

IN 2014-15, 40,000 HOMES WERE BUILT IN BRITAIN BY HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS.
* 5,464 were for social rent, 5,205 were for private sale, and 8,797 were for ‘affordable’ rent, up to 80 per cent of market price.

IN 2015-16, GOVERNMENT FUNDING THROUGH THE HOMES AND COMMUNITIES AGENCY BUILT 602 HOMES FOR SOCIAL RENT.
* In 2009-10 it provided 28,859.

BETWEEN 2012 AND 2015, THE NUMBER OF HOUSING ASSOCIATION HOMES FOR SO-CALLED ‘AFFORDABLE’ RENT ROSE FROM 7,354 TO 123,264.
* With 76,259 converted from homes for social rent.

OVER THE NEXT QUARTER OF A CENTURY RENTS ARE PREDICTED TO RISE AT TWICE THE RATE OF INCOMES.
* And renters will be twice as likely to live in poverty (i.e. living in a household with less than 60 per cent the median UK income).

PART 4: EVICTIONS

THERE WERE 37,839 COURT-ORDERED EVICTIONS IN ENGLAND AND WALES IN 2014/15.
* Four times the 8,034 mortgage repossessions. 19,539 of these evictions were by social landlords.

THERE WERE UP TO 200,000 REVENGE EVICTIONS IN BRITAIN IN 2013.
* In response to tenants complaining about housing standards.

NEARLY 42,000 FAMILIES WERE EVICTED FROM RENTAL ACCOMMODATION IN 2014.
* The highest number since records began in 2000.

42,226 REPOSSESSION CLAIMS WERE MADE BY LANDLORDS IN THE FIRST THREE MONTHS OF 2015, UP 10 PER CENT ON THE PREVIOUS QUARTER.
* 64 per cent of claims were made by social landlords.

A TOTAL OF 42,728 HOUSEHOLDS IN RENTED ACCOMMODATION IN ENGLAND AND WALES WERE EVICTED BY BAILIFFS IN 2015.
*The highest number since records began in 2000, and a 53 per cent increase from five years ago.

IN THE FIRST THREE MONTHS OF 2015, COUNTY COURT BAILIFFS IN ENGLAND AND WALES EVICTED 11,300 FAMILIES.
* An increase of 8 per cent on the same period last year, and 51 per cent higher than five years ago.

16,500 HOMES WERE REPOSSESSED IN LONDON IN 2014.
* 94 per cent were rented properties repossessed by social or private landlords.

EVICTIONS FOR RENT ARREARS FROM HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS IN BRITAIN INCREASED FROM 7,535 IN 2010 TO 9,425 IN 2015.

IN THE THREE YEARS UP TO APRIL 2015, MORE THAN 50,000 FAMILIES WERE FORCIBLY MOVED OUT OF THEIR LONDON BOROUGH.

PART 5: HOMELESSNESS

AS OF APRIL 2016, 1,183,779 HOUSEHOLDS WERE ON LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSING WAITING LISTS IN ENGLAND.

AS OF MARCH 2016, 71,500 HOUSEHOLDS IN ENGLAND WERE LIVING IN TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION.

AS OF JUNE 2017, 307,000 PEOPLE IN BRITAIN, ONE IN EVERY 200, ARE HOMELESS, AN INCREASE OF 13,000 OVER THE PREVIOUS YEAR.
* 281,000 are in temporary accommodation, 21,300 are in homeless hostels or social services housing, and 4,500 are sleeping rough.

IN LONDON, 1 IN EVERY 59 PEOPLE ARE HOMELESS.

IN THE PREVIOUS FIVE YEARS, THE NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS PLACED IN TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION IN BRITAIN HAS RISEN BY A QUARTER.

THE NUMBER OF FAMILIES LIVING IN BED AND BREAKFASTS IN BRITAIN MORE THAN TRIPLED IN FIVE YEARS.
* From 630 in 2010 to 2,040 in 2015.

280,000 HOUSEHOLDS IN BRITAIN ARE CURRENTLY AT RISK OF HOMELESSNESS.

250,000 HOUSEHOLDS IN LONDON ARE ON HOUSING WAITING LISTS.

240,000 HOUSEHOLDS, WITH 320,000 CHILDREN, ARE LIVING IN OVERCROWDED ACCOMMODATION.

53,343 LONDON HOUSEHOLDS, WITH OVER 90,000 CHILDREN, ARE HOMELESS AND LIVING IN TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION.
* A 9 per cent annual increase, and 75 per cent of the national total.

592,000 CHILDREN IN LONDON ARE LIVING BELOW THE POVERTY LINE.
* 37 per cent of all children in the capital.

THERE WERE 36,540 BED SPACES FOR SINGLE HOMELESS PEOPLE IN ENGLAND IN 2015.
* 7,115 fewer than in 2010.

THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE SLEEPING ROUGH IN LONDON INCREASED BY 6 PER CENT IN 2015-16 TO AN ESTIMATED 8,096 PEOPLE.
* More than double the 3,673 in 2009-10.

MORE THAN 200,000 HOMES IN ENGLAND WITH A TOTAL VALUE OF £43 BILLION WERE EMPTY FOR AT LEAST SIX MONTHS DURING 2016.

AS OF FEBRUARY 2016, 22,000 HOMES IN LONDON HAVE BEEN LEFT EMPTY FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS.*
* More than a third, 8,560, have been empty for over two years; and 1,150 homes have been empty for over a decade (not including the City of Westminster, which withheld figures).

MORE THAN A MILLION UK HOUSEHOLDS ARE AT RISK OF BECOMING HOMELESS BY 2020.

PART 6: HOUSE PRICES

AVERAGE HOUSE PRICE IN LONDON BY BOROUGH
* In November 2015

Kensington & Chelsea: £1,658,563
City of Westminister : £1,385,797
Camden: £1,049,673
Hammersmith and Fulham: £951,328
City of London: £804,600
Wandsworth: £789,115
Richmond upon Thames: £773,433
Islington: £700,625
Southwark: £637,274
Merton: £633,739
Haringey: £613,292
Barnet: £611,318
Ealing: £606,001
Hackney: £589,164
Lambeth: £559,716
Brent: £543,277
Tower Hamlets: £515,588
Kingston upon Thames: £513,695
Hounslow: £504,562
Harrow: £489,725
Bromley: £456,810
Greenwich: £447,187
Lewisham: £431,060
Hillingdon: £422,290
Enfield: £416,049
Redbridge: £415,639
Waltham Forest: £411,215
Sutton: £376,388
Croydon: £362,518
Havering: £342,354
Newham: £340,670
Bexley: £311,097
Barking and Dagenham: £258,631

THE AVERAGE HOUSE PRICE IN GREATER LONDON IS £597,860.

THE AVERAGE HOUSE PRICE IN CENTRAL LONDON IS £970,892.

PART 7: THE HOUSING AND PLANNING ACT

A £450,000 ‘STARTER HOME’ IN LONDON REQUIRES A SALARY OF £77,000.
* And a deposit of £97,000.

‘STARTER HOMES’ ARE UNAFFORDABLE IN 98 PER CENT OF THE COUNTRY FOR PEOPLE ON LOW INCOMES.
* And in 58 per cent of the country for those on middle incomes.

40 PER CENT OF EX-COUNCIL FLATS SOLD THROUGH ‘RIGHT TO BUY’ ARE NOW BEING RENTED OUT MORE EXPENSIVELY BY PRIVATE LANDLORDS.

214,000 HOUSEHOLDS WILL BE AFFECTED BY ‘PAY TO STAY’ ACROSS ENGLAND.
* And in London, most of the 27,000 households affected will be unable either to afford to rent privately or to buy in the same area.

ALMOST 113,000 COUNCIL HOMES IN ENGLAND WILL BE FORCIBLY SOLD AS ‘HIGH VALUE’ HOUSING.
* 78,778 of these homes will be lost from the 20 most affected local authorities, with half of these in Central London.

THE PROPOSED VALUES OVER WHICH ‘HIGH VALUE’ HOMES IN LONDON WILL BE SOLD IS:
* 1-bedroom: £340,000; 2-bedroom: £400,000; 3-bedroom: £490,000; 4-bedroom: £790,000; 5+ bedroom: £1,205,000.

THE PERCENTAGE OF HOMES OVER ‘HIGH VALUE’ THRESHOLDS IN CENTRAL LONDON IS:
* Kensington & Chelsea: 97 per cent; Westminster: 76.2 per cent; Hammersmith & Fulham: 50.3 per cent; Camden: 49.8 per cent; Islington: 24 per cent; Southwark: 9.5 per cent; Lambeth: 9.4 per cent.

THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOMES IN CENTRAL LONDON ABOVE THE ‘HIGH VALUE’ THRESHOLD IS:
* Camden: 7,494; Westminster: 5,830; Kensington & Chelsea: 4,369; Hammersmith & Fulham: 3,951; Southwark: 3,755; Islington: 3,711; Lambeth: 2,337.

IN THE 20 BOROUGHS LIKELY TO BE HARDEST HIT, 159,014 PEOPLE ARE ON COUNCIL HOUSING WAITING LISTS.
* With 22,371 children living in temporary accommodation.

PART 8: WHAT CRISIS?

THERE WAS NO FINANCIAL CRISIS –
There is a Class War being waged by the rich.

THERE IS NO HOUSING CRISIS –
There is a Class War being waged through housing.

THERE IS NO DEFICIT CRISIS –
There is a Class War being waged against the poor.

THERE IS NO BENEFITS CRISIS –
There is a Class War being waged on the vulnerable.

THERE IS NO ECONOMIC CRISIS –
There is a Class War being waged against workers.

THERE IS NO N.H.S. CRISIS –
There is a Class War being waged against the sick.

THERE IS NO EDUCATION CRISIS –
There is a Class War being waged against students.

THERE IS NO POPULATION CRISIS –
There is a Class War being waged against immigrants.

THERE IS NO URBAN DENSITY CRISIS –
There is a Class War being waged in the inner cities.

THERE IS NO ELECTORAL CRISIS –
There is a Class War being waged politically.

THERE IS NO SOCIAL CRISIS –
There is a Class War being waged across society.

And we need to win it . . .

Architects for Social Housing

Illustration by Andrew Cooper

A Manifesto For All Londoners? Sadiq Khan’s Promises on Housing

Homes for Londoners

Homes for Londoners

1. The Labour mayoral candidate’s promise to double the number of homes built in London to 50,000 a year is part of an offer, which was made to the Government by the London Housing Commission this week, in return for greater mayoral powers to force local authorities to make more public land available for private residential developments, and is therefore in accord with the planning legislation in the Government’s Housing and Planning Bill.

– The assertion that London needs 50,000 new homes a year for the next decade has become a widely accepted fact that remains to be proved, but whose constant repetition has silenced the question of whether it is based on the housing needs of Londoners or on the profits to be made in London’s vastly inflated housing market, whose speculators and beneficiaries are the source of its repeated assertion.

– Both these opening statements would not look out of place (and will no doubt be included) in the manifesto of the Conservative mayoral candidate, and in no way contradict that Party’s housing policies or philosophy.

Homes for Londoners to rent and buy

– Although the Labour mayoral candidate’s identification of London’s need for ‘homes for social rent’ is a welcome change from both the Labour and Conservative Party’s obsession with building homes to buy, nowhere else in this manifesto does he propose policies to back up the promise he makes here of ‘supporting councils and housing association to build’.

– The promise to build homes for a ‘London Living Rent’ based on one-third of average local wages is also a welcome one, but it is unclear where these homes are to be built. These can (and no doubt will) be interpreted as homes built in the outer boroughs of Greater London to accommodate residents evicted from Central London housing estates by either Labour-led estate regeneration programmes or legislation in the Housing and Planning Bill.

– The promise to build homes for first-time buyers on ‘other public land’ is consistent with Government legislation to build Starter Homes on the land currently occupied by existing council estates, and is, once again, in accord with the legislation for the eviction of residents from London’s council estates contained in the Housing and Planning Bill.

– The promise to give Londoners ‘first-dibs’ to build on ‘brownfield land’ does not take account of the Government’s stated intentions to recategorise and redevelop council estates as such, which is not only at the heart of the Conservative Party’s rhetoric on housing, but also the platform on which the Conservative mayoral candidate is running his own campaign.

– In this light, the promise to use the mayor’s planning powers ‘to their full extent’ takes on the tone of a threat, which has already been issued by the London Land Commission, to compel local authorities to make a register of all public land, including all housing estates, with the purpose of identifying and unlocking brownfield land for development.

– As a definition of what the mayoral candidate calls ‘genuinely affordable homes’, the manifesto, despite its assertions, does not offer anything quantifiably different from the Tory Government’s definition of affordable homes at up to 80% of market rate, or from its policy of building Starter Homes for private investment funded at a 20% discount by the State.

Homes for Londoners will drive up homebuilding

– The identification of ‘other public sector land’ as a means of increasing homebuilding is consistent not only with the Government’s Housing and Planning Bill, but also with the London Land Commission Register, the Adonis Report, City Villages: more homes, better communities, and the Savills Report, Completing London’s Streets – all of which identify the demolition of London’s local authority housing estates as their point of departure.

– The manifesto’s promise to build ‘genuinely affordable homes’ lacks any definition beyond the vague promises already given and the absence of any clear figures of what constitutes affordable and for whom.

– The promise to ‘maximise the affordable housing in new developments’ is meaningless unless the Housing and Planning Bill’s legislation to replace Section 106 agreements with the new duty to build Starter Homes is addressed.

– The promise to help councils and housing associations ‘to invest their land’ is a clearer indication of how the mayoral candidate intends to honour his earlier promise to ‘support councils and housing associations to build’, and as such a complete departure from the ideology of public housing.

– The promise to give councils the powers to borrow money for investing in building new homes is welcome, but not with the qualification of investing that money in ‘affordable housing’.

– Nowhere in these plans for homebuilding in the capital does the mayoral candidate make any promise to build council housing; nor, beyond the earlier identification of the need for homes for social rent, is anything said about how such homes might be built within the framework of the proposals put forward in the manifesto.

Supporting renters and homeowners

– The promise to give councils ‘a greater say’ in strengthening renters’ rights over tenancies and rent rises is welcome. However, nothing is said about the much-needed introduction of a rent cap; nor, given the powers that the Housing and Planning Bill will withdraw from local authorities, and which the manifesto has expressed a commitment to enforce, is it clear how these rights will be strengthened by councils.

– The declaration of the mayoral candidate’s opposition to the Housing and Planning Bill’s attacks on social housing through Pay to Stay and the enforced sale of so-called High Value council housing is welcome, but incompatible with his building programme. We note that this is the only time in the section of the mayoral candidate’s manifesto devoted to housing that it mentions ‘council housing’, and that it immediately follows this with a promise to build ‘new social housing and other genuinely affordable homes’. If the mayoral candidate believes these are the same thing, he is misinformed.

– The requirement that estate regeneration only take place when there is: 1) ‘resident support’, 2) ‘full and transparent consultation’, 3) ‘it does not result in the loss of social housing’, 4) ‘all other options have been exhausted’, and 5) tenants have the ‘right to return’ and leaseholders are given a ‘fair deal’ – is one we will hold the mayoral candidate to in the event of his election.

– However, we challenge the mayoral candidate to identify any estate community that 1) supports the demolition of their homes, and 2) thinks that the consultation process has been either full or transparent; and we remind him 3) that council housing is not social housing, and that the replacement of secured tenancies by assured tenancies on increased rents and reduced rights is also a loss, and one unnecessary to genuine estate regeneration; 4) that the options exhausted must take account of more than the profit margins of property developers established by their own viability assessments, as has occurred in every estate regeneration scheme in London that has ended in demolition, and must include, as its priority, the continued existence of the community the estate houses; and 5) that a right to return to homes a resident can afford neither to rent nor to buy is no right at all, and as meaningless a guarantee as the promise of a fair deal.

Homelessness

– The promise to implement programmes to ‘tackle the source of homelessness’ says nothing about the nature of those programmes, and is therefore indistinguishable from the rising incidents of Labour boroughs implementing Public Space Protection Orders to criminalise homelessness, about which abuse of legislation the mayoral candidate also says nothing.

– The promise to engage in prevention measures ‘such as family mediation’ as a programme of tackling homelessness displays both an ignorance of the causes of homelessness and a willingness to adopt the Conservative Government’s demonisation of working-class families as a means of avoiding addressing the effects of its cuts to social services, welfare and housing.

– The promise to coordinate councils’ efforts to place homeless people in ‘private rented housing’ is an indictment of the lack of provision elsewhere in the manifesto either to maintain existing council estates or to build new council housing, and accords with Labour councils’ enforced displacement of tens of thousands of families out of their borough or London itself.

Planning for the Future

– The promise to make segregated entrances for affordable housing ‘indistinguishable’ from those serving the remainder of a residential development falls well short, in both moral vision and honesty, of the ban on ‘poor doors’ this promise should have made, and has no place on a Labour mayoral candidate’s manifesto that claims to be ‘for all Londoners’.

http://www.sadiq.london/homes_for_londoners_manifesto

– Architects for Social Housing

Lambeth’s ‘1000 homes’ Election Promise 2014

At the last local election the Labour party made an election promise to build 1000 additional council or social rent homes.

An assessment of (all?) Lambeth’s estates was conducted in 2012. ( We have still not obtained clarification from Lambeth as to how Knights walk was part of this because it is not an estate).

The residents understand that, because Knight’s walk is not in need to refurbishment to achieve LHS (the work which has in fact been done already) the only reason for Knight’s walk to be the subject of  regeneration is in order to build as many new homes as possible or satisfy their political agenda.

Questions:

On what research basis did they arrive at 1000 homes?

Did they specify, as part of their election promise, that homes would  need to be demolished in the process?

So they think that is this had been stated, that people would have been so keen to support that?

Did they ever have any funding for the proposed 1000 homes?

Was the funding of these new homes always reliant on the construction and selling-off of land and homes on the private market?