Housing

Improvements—and frustrations galore

Leslie Loader

Everyone must now accept that modernisation of otherwise sound houses and flats must have similar priority to the building of new ones. It is cheaper to modernise than to build and the services are generally already available. The selection of special areas of housing and environmental deprivation for immediate and concentrated action is essential so as to give an immediate uplift to some of the worst urban stress areas. However, these are mainly to be found in our large conurbations so at the same time the designation of General Improvement Areas must continue elsewhere.

Many who do not know the problems from practical experience cannot readily understand why owners of rented dwellings do not rush to take the money offered to them in the form of improvement grants. There must be reasons why landlords act in a way which at first sight appears to be against all experience of human nature. This is especially so, as it is a peculiar owner who does not obtain much satisfaction at seeing his property in good shape. He will, where he can, up-grade his property (his capital) in the same way as a farmer up-breeds his herd.

Why is it then that so many tenants live under conditions that most of us will describe as appalling, in dismal and unpainted dwellings, lacking amenities generally regarded as essential? To blame it all on to the control of rents at artificially low levels, while the cost of materials and labour is rising, is obvious, but. there are other reasons. The constant criticism of the owners of residential property has had the effect that there is an almost automatic resistance to owners when they make a move to improve their property. It is an unbalanced response: "What is he going to get out of it?" Yet the same person would quite understand the tradesman modernising his shop so as to increase the value of his shop and increase his profits, and of course to have more satisfied customers.

So let us, if we do really want residential property improved and are not merely interested in using the unimproved state of the property for some other purpose,

suggest and hope that the following will be readily adopted and an obligation placed on local authorities to implement them or give the Housing Corporation powers to fulfil them where the local authority does not.

Let's start from the beginning: 1 Standardisation of application forms and procedures so that professional people can operate the same system for all applications irrespective of the local authority. The different forms and procedures being • used at present cause considerable problems and frustrations.

2 The application from the beginning should be dealt with by one officer at the local authority. If there is a housing advisory service then one person in that service should receive the application and guide it through the different local authority departments.

An estate agent told me that at one time he had to deal with thirteen different departments or people for one improvement grant — what better obstacle course could be devised? If there is not a potential saboteur at one point there will be at another. The combination of delays, frustrating objections, and just plain bloody-mindedness make the permutations of the football pools look simple indeed.

3 A 'date' system, Whereby the date is stamped on the papers of the application at each stage, is essential to show up bottlenecks. If these occur due to staff shortage or pressure of work, that stage of the application should be handed over to an appropriate person in the private sector to handle with a strict timetable given to him.

4 It should be made clear that bye-law and planning permission to comply with the improvement grant standards might be of a higher standard when compared with other applications. Therefore, forms for bye-law or planning permission should ask: is it in connection with an application for an improvement grant?

5 When an improvement grant is offered the finance needed for the owner's share should be made available automatically by the local authority or the Housing Corporation at the owner's request and secured in a manner similar to when a private street is made up by a local authority.

6 If the grant is not offered within two months of application an increase of the grant offered should be the right of the applicant, to cover any increased costs of labour and material. At present some local authorities give increases, others do not.

7 The rent increase should be an economic return on the owner's share of the expenditure. Often the rent increase allowed is not sufficient to cover the interest on the mortgage taken up for the owner's contribution to cost of improvements.

8 There appears to be no reason why the owner should not be obliged to repay the grant made, if the property is sold within say, five years, in proportion to the unexpired portion.

simplication, speed, and above all understanding and sympathy with an application that will make life a little easier and less deprived for the occupier must be the attitude of those who deal with this complicated matter.

Leslie Loader is founder chairman of a Southampton Area Housing Association