HOME PAGE

CHICHESTER DISTRICT COUNCIL HOUSING REGISTER

A NOTE ON NUMBER OF APPLICANTS ON THE REGISTER

Introduction

1. The large number of people on the CDC housing register has been cited as an important reason for needing high levels of new house building in Chichester. In June 2010 Miles Cullen was quoting, in the context of the need for more housing, that there were 9,000 applicants on the CDC Register.

2. We know that the figure of 9,000 was misleading as a review of the register had reduced the number of applicants by 1400 with the prospect of a further reduction of around 2,500 once the exercise has been completed.

3. Only recently (17th August) a CDC spokesman was reported in the Chichester Observer as saying “We currently have 7,300 on the housing waiting list”. While it may be factually correct, the statement is ‘economical with the truth’.

4. There is genuine concern amongst councillors that CDC needs to be able to provide an adequate supply of affordable housing and, in the absence of anything better, the housing register seems to be viewed as the best available indicator of this need.

5. It would appear however from discussions that I have had with various CDC officers that the register is an imperfect guide in this respect. Banding

6. Applicants for housing are placed in one of 4 bands (A, B, C or D) according to their needs, and those with the highest priority being place in category A. Those in category D are “without prioritised housing need factors”. The detailed definitions of each band are shown in the attached extract from the CDC Allocations policy

7. It seems that anyone in the UK can apply for housing and, if they do, they will go on the register. Therefore even if an applicant has perfectly adequate housing he will still count on the register (in band D).

8. What is more they can apply to more than one housing authority (and are encouraged to do so). This means that someone may apply to, for instance, Chichester, Arun, Worthing and Havant Councils (or anywhere else in the Country!). There is therefore, the prospect of considerable duplication of housing applicants between Districts.

9. The scheme seems to work on the basis that the housing organisation posts the details of available properties on their website and those on the housing register can bid for properties that they feel are suitable for them. The organisation then offers the property to the application with the highest housing need.

Review of Register

10. A few months ago CDC started its first review of its housing register and removed those who had not placed a bid in the last 6 months or more within the 3 bands A-C (resulting in 1412 being taken off the register). There were also 3,500 within Band D who had not bid within 6 months and a letter has been sent to these; the Council believe this will result in a further 3,000 being removed from the register. It is understood that the review was completed in September and that 2,500 are due to be removed.

July Figures

11. The total number of applicants registered by band in July 2010 are…

	Band			Qty
	A			71
	B			272
	C			2019
	D			4913
	Total			7275

12. These figures relate to the whole of the District and it can be seen that those in the 2 highest priority bands (i.e. homeless, those lacking 2 bedrooms or with very high medical/ safety needs) only total 343.

Local Housing Need

13. It seemed to me that where these applicants needed to live was an important factor in the provision of future housing as there was no point in building more affordable houses in Chichester if people really wanted to live in Petworth! I have discovered that this information, surprisingly, is not recorded! What is recorded however is the local connection that applicants have to an area; this can be by one or more of 3 categories i.e. work, relatives (kin) or residency.

14. I therefore requested from CDC an analysis of the numbers on the register who have a local connection to Chichester City. This showed by band an analysis for each of the 3 categories. In addition, I asked for the figures for the parishes surrounding Chichester City although in these cases only the total local connection figures for all bands and those in bands A-C were given for each Parish. The data supplied by CDC is shown in Appendix B.

15. In Appendix C I have combined the 2 sets of figures supplied and these show that 31% of those on the housing register have a local connection with Chichester City, 16% have a local connection with the 12 neighbouring parishes* making a total of 47%. Conclusion

16. It is obvious that Chichester District is an attractive place and many people would like to live here. However with 75% of the land covered by either the National Park or an AONB clearly it is impossible to meet everyone’s desires. Land is finite, if the available building sites are used up now they will not be available in the future to meet genuine local need. Furthermore, there is no value in spoiling the area by too rapid development in advance of adequate infrastructure: this would be to the detriment of not only those already living here but newcomers as well.

17. The Housing Register is a far from perfect tool for measuring need for strategic planning purposes. It only represents an approximate snapshot at any one time of demand for affordable housing: the data is always out of date because some of the real need will have already been met elsewhere. It attracts people from all over the UK because Chichester is a desirable place to live. Given the limited land available, it must be proper for the housing authority not to satisfy this external demand. Furthermore, it offers no indication of housing need in the future.

18. In terms of affordable housing, it seems reasonable for the District Council to focus on meeting the proven housing need (Bands A – C) for those with a local connection, with priority being given to those in Bands A & B. In Chichester City this currently amounts to c 700 (or 1100 if the 12 local parishes are included). It is still questionable, however, whether this need should be met from within the City where land prices are, and will remain, very high. There are indications that this makes “affordable” houses built within the City unaffordable to those in most need.

19. Graylingwell and the Barracks sites will provide c 530 “affordable” houses (at the 40% rate). More could be provided by greater intensive clusters of affordable homes on land already in the ownership of CDC/Marlet homes as well as small-scale private developments within the City. In essence these should satisfy the bulk of the current housing register applicants with a current local need even working within the present system.

20. If this need is not satisfied it means that the high cost of “affordable” housing in Chichester has resulted in the new homes coming on stream being unaffordable for those in need and a firm indication that the current system is fatally flawed. Either way the housing register provides no case for massive additional housing development within the City.

* I am not sure that it is reasonable to include Tangmere within the analysis; if these were excluded the total would be 44%.

Chris Lindsay
Chairman,
EBRA

September 2010