2003 private sector stock condition survey 2003 private sector st… · a domestic energy audit...

London Borough of Brent 2003 Private Sector Stock Condition Survey June 2004 Final Report

2003 PRIVATE SECTOR STOCK CONDITION SURVEY

MAIN REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................................................................... i

1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Joint condition/needs surveys ..................................................................................................................1 1.3 The basis for carrying out a condition survey .........................................................................................2 1.4 The basic assessment of stock condition ..................................................................................................3 1.5 Energy efficiency .........................................................................................................................................4 1.6 Decent Homes..............................................................................................................................................4 1.7 Housing Health and Safety Rating System..............................................................................................5 1.8 Summary ......................................................................................................................................................6

2. SURVEY STRUCTURE AND RESPONSE ................................................................................................7

2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................7 2.2 Fieldwork......................................................................................................................................................7 2.3 Base figures ..................................................................................................................................................8 2.4 Data weights ................................................................................................................................................8 2.5 Other characteristics..................................................................................................................................10 2.6 Household characteristics ........................................................................................................................11 2.7 Summary ....................................................................................................................................................13

3. PROFILE OF THE HOUSING STOCK.....................................................................................................15

3.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................15 3.2 Typology of the housing stock ................................................................................................................15 3.3 Tenure .........................................................................................................................................................17 3.4 Type of dwelling........................................................................................................................................18 3.5 Age of property..........................................................................................................................................19 3.6 Size of dwelling .........................................................................................................................................20 3.7 Vacant dwellings .......................................................................................................................................20 3.8 Summary ....................................................................................................................................................21

4. DISREPAIR......................................................................................................................................................23

4.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................23 4.2 Measuring the extent of disrepair ...........................................................................................................23 4.3 Assessment of repair costs – overall findings........................................................................................24 4.4 Elements of repairs....................................................................................................................................26 4.5 Repair costs and dwelling characteristics ..............................................................................................27 4.6 Repair costs and household characteristics ...........................................................................................29 4.7 Summary ....................................................................................................................................................30

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i i

5. LEVELS OF UNFITNESS............................................................................................................................. 31

5.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................31 5.2 Level of unfitness ......................................................................................................................................32 5.3 Severity of unfitness..................................................................................................................................32 5.4 Cost to make fit..........................................................................................................................................33 5.5 Dwelling characteristics of unfit dwellings ...........................................................................................34 5.6 Household characteristics and unfitness ...............................................................................................39 5.7 Comparisons with 2001 EHCS ................................................................................................................41 5.8 Defective dwellings...................................................................................................................................42 5.9 Summary ....................................................................................................................................................43

6. ENERGY EFFICIENCY................................................................................................................................. 45

6.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................45 6.2 Thermal insulation ....................................................................................................................................45 6.3 Heating systems and fuel use..................................................................................................................47 6.4 The SAP rating...........................................................................................................................................50 6.5 General results...........................................................................................................................................50 6.6 SAP ratings and dwelling characteristics ..............................................................................................51 6.7 SAP ratings and household characteristics............................................................................................54 6.8 SAP ratings and heating types and fuel use..........................................................................................56 6.9 Households with low SAP ratings..........................................................................................................58 6.10 CO2 Emissions and cost of heating .......................................................................................................58 6.11 Comparisons with 2001 EHCS ..............................................................................................................60 6.12 Summary ..................................................................................................................................................61

7. IMPROVING ENERGY EFFICIENCY ..................................................................................................... 63

7.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................63 7.2 The cost of improving energy efficiency................................................................................................64 7.3 The improvements to energy efficiency.................................................................................................65 7.4 Targeted energy improvements ..............................................................................................................66 7.5 Improved SAP ratings and dwelling/household characteristics .......................................................67 7.6 The aims of energy efficiency improvement .........................................................................................70 7.7 Summary ....................................................................................................................................................70

8. DECENT HOMES.......................................................................................................................................... 71

8.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................71 8.2 Applying the standard .............................................................................................................................71 8.3 National figures.........................................................................................................................................72 8.4 Decent homes in Brent..............................................................................................................................73 8.5 Characteristics of non-decent homes......................................................................................................74 8.6 Cost to make homes decent .....................................................................................................................76 8.7 Comparisons with 2001 EHCS ................................................................................................................77

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i i i

8.8 Summary ....................................................................................................................................................78

9. HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION................................................................................................79

9.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................79 9.2 Characteristics of HMOs ..........................................................................................................................80 9.3 HMOs and Stock Condition.....................................................................................................................82 9.4 Specific HMO issues .................................................................................................................................82 9.5 HMO fitness standard ..............................................................................................................................84 9.6 Management regulations..........................................................................................................................84 9.7 HMOs and the private rented sector ......................................................................................................85 9.8 Summary ....................................................................................................................................................87

10. HOUSING HEALTH AND SAFETY RATING SYSTEM ..................................................................89

10.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................................89 10.2 The system................................................................................................................................................90 10.3 Individual hazards ..................................................................................................................................91 10.4 Grouped hazard scores...........................................................................................................................91 10.5 Comparison with unfitness....................................................................................................................94 10.6 Summary ..................................................................................................................................................94

11. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................................95

11.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................................95 11.2 Overall impression ..................................................................................................................................95 11.3 Environmental problems........................................................................................................................98 11.4 Summary ................................................................................................................................................101

12. GRANT IMPLICATIONS........................................................................................................................103

12.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................103 12.2 Owner-occupiers’ ability to fund ........................................................................................................103 12.3 Equity release schemes .........................................................................................................................106 12.4 The rented and vacant stock ................................................................................................................107 12.5 Summary ................................................................................................................................................109

GLOSSARY.........................................................................................................................................................111

APPENDIX A1 DATA TABLES....................................................................................................................115

A1.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................115 A1.2 Data tables .............................................................................................................................................115 A1.3 Overcrowding and under-occupation...............................................................................................123

APPENDIX A2 UNFITNESS AND SAP LEVELS IN LONDON..........................................................129

TABLE OF CONTENTS

iv

APPENDIX A3 STATISTICAL ISSUES..................................................................................................... 133

A3.1 Sampling errors ....................................................................................................................................133 A3.2 Non-response and missing data.........................................................................................................134

APPENDIX A4 THE HAZARD SCORING PROCEDURE.................................................................... 135

A4.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................135 A4.2 Generating hazard scores....................................................................................................................135 A4.3 To score a hazard .................................................................................................................................136

APPENDIX A5 UPDATING THE SURVEY.............................................................................................. 139

A5.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................139 A5.2 The Guidance........................................................................................................................................139 A5.3 Updating in the context of this survey..............................................................................................140 A5.4 Summary ...............................................................................................................................................141

APPENDIX A6 STOCK CONDITION SURVEY FORM ....................................................................... 143

1 . INTRODUCTION

PAGE 1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

This report provides the account of a private sector stock condition survey carried out on behalf of

the London Borough of Brent by Fordham Research. The survey was carried out in conjunction with

a housing needs survey, in order that a number of analytical links could be established.

This chapter summarises the principles of the approach used to analyse the data. A number of

important ODPM reports appeared in 2000 which help to focus the analysis and extend it beyond

what has been customary in the past.

1.2 Joint condition/needs surveys

The ODPM guides to both Housing Need and Stock Condition encourage the idea of joint stock

condition and housing needs surveys. This is done both for reasons of economy and co-ordination

as well as for the purpose of the cross-analysis that can be done, which casts valuable further light

on the housing issues that involve both the physical fabric of the dwellings and the households

resident within them.

The Housing Needs Survey Guidance refers to joint surveys as a ‘neglected refinement’, implying

that their value has been underestimated by local authorities. Fordham Research was the lead

consultant for the first such joint surveys (notably for the London Borough of Brent in 1997).

Only a few such surveys have so far been carried out, and so it would be true to say that the full

potential of such joint surveys has not been illustrated in practice. There are considerable practical

difficulties in organising two separate firms to do surveys on the same address and produce

consistent data. This problem has now been resolved in the case of Fordham Research by the fact

that we have the experience and expertise to undertake both surveys. This produces a far higher

quality of joint research.

1 . INTRODUCTION

PAGE 2

1.3 The basis for carrying out a condition survey

The duty to regularly consider the condition of the housing stock was consolidated in the 1985 Housing Act. Stock Condition Surveys are one of the most satisfactory means of fulfilling that duty.

There has been a different evolution of the public sector surveys, which have been quite rigorously

carried out, and the private sector condition surveys, which have not. The latter were not treated

as seriously by local authorities, and as a result their quality has been somewhat variable.

This should now be set to change. The first ‘good practice’ guidance on this topic was published by

the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) in August 2000. The three volumes are collectively

entitled Collecting, Managing & Using Housing Stock Information – A Good Practice Guide (hereafter

referred to as GuideHC to distinguish it from the equivalent guidance on assessing housing need

(GuideHN) published in July 2000).

ODPM GuideHC [Volume 1, Page 5] ‘…Information about the housing stock has been collected by local authorities for many years, and for a wide variety of purposes...’

A broad summary of the basic reasons for a condition survey is provided in the GuideHC (Volume

3, para 2.9) and reproduced below. In summary, stock condition surveys are useful in a variety of

ways:

• Providing a key component of an asset management strategy of the Council’s own stock,

including a range of possible stock options;

• Providing an authority-wide picture of housing conditions as part of a strategic survey of

housing demand and supply within the authority’s ‘enabling’ role;

• Assessing the need for an ‘intervention’ role by the authority, for example through

renovation grants;

• Ascertaining the stock condition element of a local regeneration initiative;

• Meeting information needs on specific stock, such as HMOs.

This amounts to a quite demanding set of requirements. A series of tests have been developed to

enable measures comparable across different local authority areas to be derived.

1 . INTRODUCTION

PAGE 3

1.4 The basic assessment of stock condition

The fitness standard (as set out in Section 604 of the 1985 Housing Act and amended by the 1989 Local Government and Housing Act) details a list of criteria which must be met if the dwelling is to be

considered fit for human habitation. A dwelling-house is unfit for human habitation if it fails to

meet one or more of the requirements listed below and by reason of that failure is not reasonably

suitable for occupation.

Box 1.1 Fitness standard (1985 Housing Act as amended by 1989 Local Government and Housing Act) Under the provisions of Section 604 of the Housing Act 1985 a dwelling house is fit for human habitation unless it fails to meet one or more of the following requirements and as a result of that failure, is not reasonably suitable for occupation:

• Structural stability • Free from serious disrepair • Free from serious dampness prejudicial to the health of the occupants (if any) • Adequate provision for lighting, heating and ventilation • Adequate piped supply of wholesome water • Satisfactory facilities in the dwelling house for the preparation and cooking of food, including

a sink with a satisfactory supply of hot and cold water • Suitably located WC for exclusive use of occupants (if any) • Suitably located fixed bath or shower and wash-hand basin, each of which is provided with a

satisfactory supply of hot and cold water for the exclusive use of the occupants (if any) • Effective drainage system for waste and surface water In addition, a flat may not reasonably be suitable for occupation if the building in which it is located fails to meet one or more of the following requirements:

• Structural stability of the building or part of the building • Free from serious disrepair • Free from dampness • Adequate provision for ventilation • Effective drainage system for foul waste and surface water

Although this appears quite a simple list, the process of assessing fitness is quite complex. In the

first instance all the items stand or fall individually: they are not cumulative. In some cases (e.g.

serious disrepair) the various problems which make it up can however be cumulative.

In practice, a large proportion of unfitness is attributable to a small group of these headings,

notably ‘serious disrepair’ and ‘facilities for the preparation and cooking of food’. Other possible causes of

unfitness are in practice less common. Nevertheless all causes of unfitness have been examined

during the course of this survey.

1 . INTRODUCTION

PAGE 4

1.5 Energy efficiency

The 1995 Home Energy Conservation Act has, for the first time, required local authorities to develop

a strategy for energy conservation. An important prerequisite to developing such a strategy is the

existence of suitable methods of measuring energy efficiency. The present survey therefore

includes a technical assessment of the energy efficiency of dwellings.

In addition to providing meaningful data on energy efficiency, estimates of carbon dioxide arising

from domestic fuel consumption can be produced. This allows a baseline against which targets for

reductions in energy use and carbon dioxide emissions can be set and for the development of

strategies to achieve them. We have followed the Guide approach in addressing energy efficiency

measurement.

ODPM GuideHC [Volume 2, Paras 5.2 & 5.3] A domestic energy audit will normally be conducted in furtherance of the authority’s broad environmental aims as presented in the Corporate Plan. There might also be related social aims, for example, to bring reasonable thermal comfort within the reach of all households. In housing terms, you will need to express these aims slightly differently:

• to reduce the need for domestic energy usage or at least maintain it at a constant level; • to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases and pollutants from domestic energy use; • to reduce the wastage of energy in the home; • to ensure that all dwellings within the area can be adequately heated at a cost which

occupants on low incomes can afford; • to ensure compliance with the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995.

1.6 Decent Homes

The government’s housing objective is “to ensure that everyone has the opportunity of a decent

home and so promote social cohesion, well being and self-dependence”. In 2000 the Government

set a standard for ‘decent homes’ whereby housing should:

i) Meet the current statutory minimum standard for housing (i.e. not unfit)

ii) Be in a reasonable state of repair

iii) Have reasonably modern facilities and services

iv) Provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort

1 . INTRODUCTION

PAGE 5

Although the Decent Homes standard was initially intended to be for the public sector housing

stock only, it has more recently become an important issue in the private sector. The EHCS now

applies the Decent Homes standard to all dwellings. In this report we study each of the above

criteria to ascertain the number of private sector homes which are ‘non-decent’ and the reasons

why.

1.7 Housing Health and Safety Rating System

In July 2001, the ODPM published a report on the Housing Health and Safety Rating System

(HHSRS). The HHSRS is seen as a potential replacement for the current fitness standard under the

1985 Housing Act. The current housing fitness regime is based on ancient criteria: the term ‘unfit for

human habitation’ was first introduced in the 1868 Artisans’ and Labourers’ Dwellings Improvement Act and it’s current 1985 Act definition owes a lot to that heritage. Nevertheless, major risks to

health and safety (such as cold, fire risk, falls on stairs and exposure to radon) are either not

covered at all, or, in the case of fire risk, are covered for HMOs only. Adding new requirements to

the fitness standard would not resolve this problem, since they would not identify the likelihood

or severity of harm.

To replace the fitness standard with an enforcement regime based on the new HHSRS will require

primary legislation. In the meantime therefore local authorities will continue to use the current

fitness standard (as used in this report).

In the case of Brent the survey was begun and survey forms agreed some time after guidance

about HHSRS was produced and so the survey has been able to cover much of the likely

requirements of the new system. We have therefore included a section about the HHSRS although

this is currently not designed to replace the fitness standard calculations, which are still taken to

be the main measure of stock condition.

1 . INTRODUCTION

PAGE 6

1.8 Summary

This report provides an account of a private sector stock condition survey carried out on behalf of

the London Borough of Brent by Fordham Research. The survey was carried out in conjunction with

a short socio-economic survey so that a number of analytical links can be established.

The duty to carry out regular surveys of housing stock condition was established in the 1985

Housing Act. There has been a different evolution of the public sector surveys, which have been

quite rigorously carried out, and the private sector condition surveys, which have not. This should

now be set to change. The first ‘good practice’ guidance on this topic was published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) in August 2000. The three volumes are collectively entitled

Collecting, Managing & Using Housing Stock Information – A Good Practice Guide. The main elements

of a stock condition survey can be summarised as:

• Faults to dwellings and repair costs

• Unfitness

• Energy efficiency

• Decent homes

• Housing health and safety rating

• Grant implications

2 . SURVEY STRUCTURE AND RESPONSE

PAGE 7

2. SURVEY STRUCTURE AND RESPONSE

2.1 Introduction

The survey comprised two related surveys completed simultaneously: an Interview Survey of

households and a Physical Survey of dwellings. The stock condition survey only covered private

sector dwellings in Brent (including RSL dwellings). This chapter reports on the survey fieldwork,

responses and weighting of data to ensure results produced are representative of all private sector

dwellings in the Borough.

The survey sample was drawn from the Council Tax Register. Addresses were selected on a simple

random basis stratified by sub-area (i.e. each address in each sub-area had an equal probability of

being selected). The survey set out to complete 1,000 inspections over the whole of the Borough

and in total 1,003 were achieved.

2.2 Fieldwork

All fieldwork staff were fully briefed by Fordham Research and followed our own survey practices

which are summarised below. In addition, stringent back-checking of surveyors’ work was used to

ensure the accuracy of fitness assessments.

Surveyor instructions (conduct/customer care)

• Always use the photographic identification card provided

• Interviews may only be undertaken with the head of household or their partner

Record keeping

• Surveyors issued with pre-selected address lists (addresses not on list will not be visited)

• All addresses have an outcome (refusals are entered onto address database)

• Surveyors return all completed work weekly (including non-responses)


PAGE 8

Quality assurance

• All surveyors are trained and briefed for each individual Local Authority survey

• A proportion of fieldwork re-inspected by field managers

• Desktop check (all forms checked for completeness)

• Telephone/written checks (on a sample of all surveyors work)

• Written comments provided to all surveyors regardless of their level of experience

• Regular weekly meetings with field managers

Allocations and appointments

• Addresses allocated in batches of 21 (avoids surveyors being able to pick the easiest addresses)

• Expect a minimum access rate of 60-65%

• Addresses visited a minimum of 3 times (including one weekend and one evening call)

2.3 Base figures

There are a number of sources that can be drawn upon in assessing the number of dwellings and

households in the Borough. These include the Council Tax Register provided by the Council, the

2002 H.I.P. return and Census information. The aim is to provide an estimate of the number of

dwellings and occupied dwellings at the time of the survey. Hence we estimate the following bases

for analysis:

Total number of private sector dwellings = 91,900.

Total number of occupied private sector dwellings (households) = 89,680.

2.4 Data weights

The survey data has been weighted to an estimated profile of the housing stock by tenure and sub-

area. The tables below show the estimated distribution for each of these groups. The number of

dwellings in each sub-area is derived from the Council Tax Register provided by the Council. Each

sub-area was made up of wards as detailed in the table and map below.


PAGE 9

Table 2.1 Wards making up the sub-areas of Brent

Sub-area Ward names

Area 1 Alperton, Barham, Preston, Sudbury, Sudbury Court, Tokyngton, Wembley Central Area 2 Barnhill, Fryent, Kenton, Kingsbury, Queensbury, Roe Green, St. Andrews, St. Raphaels (part) Area 3 Church End, Harlesdon, Kensal Rise, Manor, Roundwood, St. Raphaels (part), Stonebridge Area 4 Brentwater, Cricklewood, Gladstone, Willesdon Green Area 5 Brondesbury Park, Carlton, Chamberlayne, Kilburn, Mapesbury, Queens Park

Source: London Borough of Brent Private Sector Stock Condition Survey 2003

Figure 2.1 London Borough of Brent – Private Sector Stock Condition Survey – Study area



PAGE 10

Table 2.2 Number of dwellings in each sub-area

Dwellings Responses Occupied dwellings Sub-area

Number % Number % Number % Area 1 23,772 25.9% 208 20.7% 23,171 25.8% Area 2 20,591 22.4% 188 18.7% 20,211 22.5% Area 3 18,880 20.5% 205 20.4% 18,690 20.8% Area 4 12,785 13.9% 216 21.5% 12,310 13.7% Area 5 15,872 17.3% 186 18.5% 15,298 17.1% TOTAL 91,900 100.0% 1,003 100.0% 89,680 100.0%


Table 2.3 Number of dwellings in each tenure group

Dwellings Responses Occupied dwellings Tenure

Number % Number % Number % Owner-occupied (no mortgage) 24,707 26.9% 223 22.2% 24,430 27.2% Owner-occupied (with mortgage) 35,393 38.5% 369 36.8% 34,550 38.5% RSL 12,860 14.0% 198 19.7% 12,700 14.2% Private rented 18,939 20.6% 213 21.2% 18,000 20.1% TOTAL 91,900 100.0% 1,003 100.0% 89,680 100.0% Vacant dwellings 2,220 2.4% 26 2.6% - -


2.5 Other characteristics

Throughout this report many of the variables (e.g. unfitness) are tabulated along with tenure and

sub-area. In addition, comparisons are also made with dwelling age and building type; the tables

below show the number of dwellings in each of these groups.

Table 2.4 Number of dwellings in each age group

Dwellings Responses Occupied dwellings Age group

Number % Number % Number % Pre-1919 25,645 27.9% 300 29.9% 24,753 27.6% 1919-1944 45,912 50.0% 484 48.3% 44,988 50.2% 1945-1964 6,241 6.8% 63 6.3% 5,953 6.6% Post-1964 14,101 15.3% 156 15.6% 13,986 15.6% TOTAL 91,900 100.0% 1,003 100.0% 89,680 100.0%



PAGE 11

Table 2.5 Number of dwellings in each building type group

Dwellings Responses Occupied dwellings Building type

Number % Number % Number % End terrace 6,215 6.8% 68 6.8% 6,160 6.9% Mid terrace 15,086 16.4% 181 18.0% 14,996 16.7% Semi-detached 26,255 28.6% 269 26.8% 25,611 28.6% Detached 3,561 3.9% 35 3.5% 3,387 3.8% Purpose-built flat 19,851 21.6% 208 20.7% 19,390 21.6% Converted flat 20,932 22.8% 242 24.1% 20,136 22.5% TOTAL 91,900 100.0% 1,003 100.0% 89,680 100.0%


2.6 Household characteristics

In addition to studying the characteristics of dwellings it is of interest to study the characteristics

of the occupiers. In this survey, condition variables are tabulated along with a household type

category, the existence within the household of anyone with a special need and ethnicity. It should

be noted that the base total for these tables is 89,680 as the results exclude vacant dwellings.

Table 2.6 Number of households in each household type group

Occupied dwellings Responses Household type

Number % Number % Single pensioner 9,363 10.4% 82 8.4% 2 or more pensioners 5,749 6.4% 54 5.5% Single non-pensioner 15,263 17.0% 135 13.8% 2 or more adults, no children 36,189 40.4% 404 41.4% Lone parent 3,576 4.0% 48 4.9% 2+ adults, 1 child 9,037 10.1% 111 11.4% 2+ adults, 2+ children 10,504 11.7% 143 14.6% TOTAL 89,680 100.0% 977 100.0%

Source: London Borough of Brent Private Sector Stock Condition Survey 2003 NB A pensioner is taken as a male aged 65 or over or a female aged 60 or over. An adult is taken to be any

other person aged 16 or over.


PAGE 12

Table 2.7 Number of households with special needs

Occupied dwellings Responses Special needs

Number % Number % Special needs 9,504 10.6% 101 10.3% No special needs 80,176 89.4% 876 89.7% TOTAL 89,680 100.0% 977 100.0%

Source: London Borough of Brent Private Sector Stock Condition Survey 2003 NB Special needs households are defined as having one or more members who fall into one or more of the

following categories:

• Frail elderly • A physical disability • A learning disability • A mental health problem • Vulnerable young people and children leaving care • Severe sensory disability • Other

Table 2.8 Number of households in each ethnic group

Occupied dwellings Responses Ethnic group

Number % Number % White 45,771 51.0% 483 49.4% Mixed 4,034 4.5% 45 4.6% Asian 23,169 25.8% 256 26.2% Black 13,842 15.4% 164 16.8% Other 2,863 3.2% 29 3.0% TOTAL 89,680 100.0% 977 100.0%

Source: London Borough of Brent Private Sector Stock Condition Survey 2003 NB The ethnic group of the household is taken as the ethnic group of the respondent to the survey. The

groups used have been re-grouped from 16 different ethnic groups used on the survey form (For example the ‘White’ group contains British, Irish and White-other). The data has been grouped in such a way to allow statistically meaningful analysis to be carried out (i.e. sample sizes in some individual groups will not permit analysis of these groups individually)


PAGE 13

2.7 Summary

The survey comprised two related surveys undertaken simultaneously: a socio-economic survey of

households and a physical survey of dwellings. The surveys were carried out by trained surveyors

who between them achieved 1,003 valid inspections. The survey data was weighted by sub-area

and tenure so as to be representative of all private sector dwellings in Brent. In total it is estimated

that there are 91,900 private sector dwellings in the Borough, of these 2,220 are vacant leaving a

total of 89,680 occupied dwellings.


PAGE 14

3 . PROFILE OF THE HOUSING STOCK

PAGE 15

3. PROFILE OF THE HOUSING STOCK

3.1 Introduction

At the broadest level the condition of the stock within the Borough is influenced by the

relationship between the profile of the dwelling stock and the characteristics of occupants. This

chapter seeks to provide an overview of the profile of the housing stock within Brent using

information derived from the survey and sets the context for the subsequent condition analysis.

We have, where appropriate, put the survey results from Brent into context with comparative

regional and national figures.

The profile of the dwelling stock can be classified using a number of key characteristics. For the

purpose of this chapter the main characteristics considered include tenure, type of property, age

and size of dwelling. These are considered in turn. This chapter also comments on the vacant

housing stock which is considered separately from the occupied stock. Some further details about

the stock can be found in Appendix A1.

3.2 Typology of the housing stock

The composition of the stock is an important determinant of its condition. The survey data has

been used to construct a dwelling typology which brings together those characteristics which can

affect condition. These characteristics are age, types, size and tenure. The figure below shows a

broad typology of the housing stock (five dwelling types by four dwelling ages) which differs

slightly from the main categories used in this report.


PAGE 16

Figure 3.1 A typology of the housing stock

Dwelling age Building type Pre-1919 1919-1944 1945-1964 Post-1964

Detached house

Semi-detached house

Terrace (medium/ large)

Terrace (small)

Flats

Source: Fordham Research 2003


PAGE 17

3.3 Tenure

A range of four tenure types were identified as part of the survey plus vacant dwellings. These are

defined below.

Box 3.1 Definition of tenure type categories Tenure type Definition Owner-occupied (no mortgage) Includes all households who own their home outright.

Owner-occupied (with mortgage) Includes all households buying their own home with a mortgage or loan. Includes shared ownership schemes.

RSL Includes all households living in the property of registered social landlords.

Private rented � Includes all households living in privately owned property which they do not own. Includes households living rent free or in tied homes.

Vacant dwellings Includes all dwellings which were un-occupied at the time of the surveyors visit (regardless of whether long or short term vacancy).

NOTE: � RSL leased properties are counted as private rented

The table below sets out the results from the Brent survey in both a regional and national context.

Brent has a significantly lower level of owner-occupation than England as a whole although it is

similar to the average for London. The proportion of dwellings in the private rented sector is

higher than the equivalent figure for both London and England. Additionally, Brent shows a lower

proportion of dwellings in the Council rented sector and a higher proportion of RSL dwellings.

Overall, the proportion of dwellings in the social rented sector is slightly higher than the

equivalent figure for England and slightly lower than the figure for London.

Table 3.1 Tenure breakdown in Brent, London and England

Tenure Brent London England

Owner-occupied 58.7% 59.2% 69.9% Private rented 18.5% 14.9% 10.4% RSL 12.6% 8.8% 6.6% Council 10.2% 17.1% 13.2% ALL TENURES 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: London Borough of Brent Private Sector Stock Condition Survey 2003 & EHCS 2001 NB Additional information about the Council stock has been taken from the 2002 H.I.P. return


PAGE 18

3.4 Type of dwelling

At the broadest level the type of property can be classified in terms of houses and flats A range of

six dwelling types were identified as part of the survey which are defined below.

Box 3.2 Definition of dwelling type categories Dwelling type Definition Detached House No other dwelling adjoins any part of the structure.

Semi-detached A house that is only attached to one other dwelling. The two dwellings taken together should be detached from any other dwellings.

End Terrace An end house forming part of a block where at least one house is attached to two or more other houses.

Mid Terrace A house forming part of a block where it is attached to two or more other houses.

Purpose-built flat A flat in a purpose-built block.

Converted flat Flat in a building converted from a house or some other use or a flat with or without independent access in a building which is also used for non-domestic or commercial purposes.

Results, presented in the table below, indicate that a large proportion of dwellings in Brent are flats

(44.4%), with just over half of the stock, houses (55.6%). The most common house type in Brent is

semi-detached (28.6%) whilst a slightly greater proportion of flats are converted. When comparing

the data for Brent with England we find that Brent has a lower proportion of all house types

(notably detached houses) and a greater proportion of flats (notably converted flats).

This comparison should be treated with caution due to the fact that the Brent survey only covers

the private sector (i.e. excluding Council owned stock). Figures for London and England include

all tenure groups.


PAGE 19

Table 3.2 Type of dwellings in Brent, London and England

Building type Brent London England

Terraced 23.2% 31.2% 29.7% Semi-detached 28.6% 17.5% 30.8% Detached 3.9% 5.3% 20.8% Purpose-built flat 21.6% 37.1% 15.4% Converted flat 22.8% 9.0% 3.3% TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: London Borough of Brent Private Sector Stock Condition Survey 2003 & EHCS 2001

3.5 Age of property

The following table summarises the survey results in Brent and compares them with the national

and regional picture derived from the EHCS (2001). Again, it should be remembered that the data

for Brent are for the private sector only whilst data for London and England includes Council

owned dwellings. The age profile of the stock in Brent is somewhat different to both that for

England as a whole and London, with Brent having a greater proportion of pre-1944 dwellings

(particularly 1919-1944 dwellings) and a lower proportion of post-1945 dwellings.

Table 3.3 Age of dwellings in Brent, London and England

Age Brent London England

Pre-1919 27.9% 25.6% 20.8% 1919-1944 50.0% 30.0% 17.7% 1945-1964 6.8% 15.7% 21.2% Post-1964 15.3% 28.7% 40.3% ALL AGES 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: London Borough of Brent Private Sector Stock Condition Survey 2003 & EHCS 2001


PAGE 20

3.6 Size of dwelling

The main measure available to assess the size of dwellings is the number of habitable rooms within

the property forming part of the living space (a habitable room is defined as one which could be

used for sleeping purposes and for the purposes of this survey includes kitchens which are large

enough to accommodate a table and chairs at which the occupants could eat). Survey results

indicate that over a third of all dwellings (36.4%) have no more than 3 habitable rooms. The

average number of habitable rooms in each property across the Borough is 4.1.

Table 3.4 Number of habitable rooms

Number of habitable rooms Number %

One - two 12,224 13.3% Three 21,190 23.1% Four 22,171 24.1% Five 21,870 23.8% Six + 14,445 15.7% TOTAL 91,900 100.0%


3.7 Vacant dwellings

The survey estimates that around 2,220 private sector dwellings are vacant, representing 2.4% of

the total stock. The majority of vacant dwellings appear to be mid-term vacant (62.4%). The survey

data would suggest that around a quarter of vacant homes are long-term vacant (over 6 months).

Table 3.5 Vacant dwellings

Reasons for vacancy Number %

Newly vacant (less than a month) 196 8.9% Mid term vacant (1-6 months) 1,385 62.4% Long term vacant (over 6 months) 549 24.7% Second/holiday home 90 4.1% TOTAL 2,220 100.0%



PAGE 21

3.8 Summary

Data from the survey suggests that Brent has somewhat different tenure profile to both London

and England as a whole. When compared with both national and regional data some of the main

differences found were:

• Brent has a higher proportion of dwellings in the private rented sector

• Brent has a higher proportion of converted flats

• The dwelling stock in Brent appears to be more concentrated in the pre-1944 age groups

The comparisons (other than for tenure) should be treated with caution as both regional and

national figures include all tenure groups.


PAGE 22

4 . DISREPAIR

PAGE 23

4. DISREPAIR

4.1 Introduction

This chapter addresses the details of repairs required to dwellings. Typical repairs required will

include repairs to roofs, windows and amenities and services – the survey form at the back of the

report shows the full range of possible repairs a dwelling may require. Repairs do not include

cosmetic improvements such as cyclical painting. The subsequent analysis of repair costs looks at

three different time periods (up to a year, up to five years and within the next ten years).

4.2 Measuring the extent of disrepair

An idea of the presence of faults provides useful information about the main problem areas, but

does not represent either the extent of the problems or the cost of putting them right. The standard

test for such repairs is the cost to put the building into good repair. This includes all the building

elements and the overall cost of any rectifying work. The survey measured three levels of disrepair

(shown in the box below).

Box 4.1 Categories of repair measured in the survey Urgent repair – Where surveyors had recorded that work was needed to an exterior building element, they indicated whether work specified was urgent; defined as works needed to remove threats to the health, safety, security and comfort of the occupants and to forestall further rapid deterioration of the building. This is a measure of serious and immediate problems in the dwelling and includes all interior work. Basic repair - All works identified by the surveyor as needing to be done within 5 years, including any urgent work as described above. These do not include replacement of building elements nearing the end of their life where the surveyor recorded that this action could be delayed by more than 5 years, often by short term patch repairs. Comprehensive repair - This includes all repairs as specified above together with any replacements the surveyor has assessed as being needed in the next 10 years. Replacement periods are only defined for external elements and are given whether or not any repair work has been identified as needed. The replacement period is given as the number of years before the element needs replacing either following specified repair work or simply as the remaining life expectancy. This measure provides a better basis for identifying work which would form part of a planned programme of repair by landlords.

4 . DISREPAIR

PAGE 24

It should be noted that the above repairs categories are cumulative. Consequently figures for basic

repairs and replacements include the costs of urgent repairs, and both are in turn included in the

figures for comprehensive repairs.

Standard repair costs are based on a schedule provided by the Building Research Establishment

(BRE) and have been updated to a 3rd quarter 2002 base for the London region.

The actual costs of work will vary depending on the size of dwellings. Therefore one further

measure has been included – Standardised repair costs. The definition of this is shown in the box

below.

Box 4.2 Standardised repair costs The basic repair cost per square metre of floor area, calculated to remove the effect of the size of buildings and give a better measure of relative deterioration.

4.3 Assessment of repair costs – overall findings

The overall situation in terms of repairs costs for Brent is summarised in the table below. The data

shows an average urgent repair cost of £1,391 per dwelling, this figure rises to £4,201 for

comprehensive repairs. These costs include dwellings requiring no work.

Table 4.1 Overall repairs cost comparison

Brent 2003 England EHCS

2001 (all tenures) Repairs category

Total cost Average cost per

dwelling Average cost per

dwelling Urgent repair £127.8m £1,391 £1,310 Basic repair £265.0m £2,884 £2,170 Comprehensive repair £386.1m £4,201 £3,820 Standardised repair cost (/m²) - £32.8 £18.7

Source: London Borough of Brent Private Sector Stock Condition Survey 2003; EHCS 2001

If we compare repairs costs per dwelling for Brent with those from the EHCS, the assessed costs in

Brent are generally slightly higher than those for England as a whole. The standardised cost figure

is significantly higher than the 2001 England average.

4 . DISREPAIR

PAGE 25

As a result of the above, the total cost of repairs is considerable: comprehensive repairs will cost a

total of £386.1 million, and even urgent repairs will amount to a total of £127.8 million. The table

below looks at the distribution of these repair costs.

Table 4.2 Repairs costs by level of cost

Level of cost Urgent Basic repairs Comprehensive

repair No repairs required 22,657 6,820 5,839 Under £1,000 39,634 30,454 24,182 £1,000-£2,499 16,715 23,828 21,305 £2,500-£4,999 8,200 16,845 17,925 £5,000-£9,999 3,394 10,342 14,631 £10,000-£14,999 524 1,514 3,529 £15,000 and above 776 2,096 4,489 TOTAL 91,900 91,900 91,900


For around a quarter (24.7%) of dwellings no urgent repairs are needed. For both the urgent and

basic repair categories, the numbers requiring substantial expenditure are really quite small.

However, over 8,000 homes will require expenditure of over £10,000 over the next ten years.

4 . DISREPAIR

PAGE 26

4.4 Elements of repairs

It is possible to look at the average cost of basic repairs for the individual elements examined in the

survey. The elements are shown (in descending order of cost) in the table below.

Table 4.3 Average cost of individual elements – basic repair

Item Average cost £ per

dwelling % of cost

Walls, fences, paved areas and outbuildings £527.75 18.3% Roofs £491.23 17.0% External doors and windows £364.93 12.7% Heating systems £256.00 8.9% External walls £241.09 8.4% Bathrooms £198.81 6.9% Kitchens £139.78 4.8% Insulation £121.63 4.2% Internal walls £96.87 3.4% Ceilings £75.92 2.6% Chimneys £74.30 2.6% Gas & electric £58.39 2.0% Water closet £42.38 1.5% Internal doors & frames £37.75 1.3% Foundations £36.98 1.3% Drainpipes and soil & waste pipes £30.12 1.0% Internal drainage £25.71 0.9% Floors £24.55 0.9% Water & drainage £12.66 0.4% Staircases £8.51 0.3% Damp proof course £8.48 0.3% Condensation £6.61 0.2% Common parts £3.69 0.1% TOTAL £2,884.14 100.0%


Three items – ‘walls, fences, paved areas & outbuilding’, ‘roofs’ and ‘external doors & windows’ dominate

the list. These three items account for nearly half of the total basic repairs cost.

4 . DISREPAIR

PAGE 27

4.5 Repair costs and dwelling characteristics

The tables below show repair costs by tenure, age of dwelling, sub-area and building type.

There are significant differences in repair costs by tenure, with RSL dwellings showing the lowest

repair costs in each category. Generally, private rented dwellings showed the highest repair costs

(and also the highest standardised repair cost). Additionally, vacant dwellings showed higher

repair costs than occupied dwellings. As might be expected, repair costs are closely related to age

of dwelling. The data shows consistently higher costs for pre-1944 dwellings and the lowest costs

in post-1964 dwellings. The standardised repair cost for pre-1964 dwellings is around double that

found in post-1964 dwellings.

In terms of sub-areas, some differences are observed. Area 5 has the highest urgent cost, whilst

Area 1 shows the highest costs in the other two categories (as well as the highest standardised

costs). Area 3 showed the lowest costs for all categories. By dwelling type, detached houses show

the highest costs (this is however based on a small sample). Additionally, the lowest repair costs

were found in purpose-built flats, although mid terraces showed the lowest standardised repair

cost.

Table 4.4 Repair costs by tenure

Urgent repairs

Basic repairs Comprehensive

repairs Standardised

repair cost Tenure Repair cost per dwelling £ £ per sq. m

Owner-occupied (no mortgage) £1,409 £2,781 £4,004 £30.0 Owner-occupied (with mortgage) £1,428 £3,235 £4,647 £32.5 RSL £1,036 £1,776 £2,356 £28.6 Private rented £1,540 £3,116 £4,876 £39.7 TOTAL £1,391 £2,884 £4,201 £32.8 Vacant dwellings £11,897 £14,944 £16,493 £130.9


4 . DISREPAIR

PAGE 28

Table 4.5 Repair costs by age of dwelling

Urgent repairs Basic repairs Comprehensive


repair cost Dwelling age Repair cost per dwelling £ £ per sq. m

Pre-1919 £1,813 £3,170 £4,329 £32.1 1919-1944 £1,359 £3,292 £4,955 £37.3 1945-1964 £1,218 £2,317 £3,111 £35.1 Post-1964 £806 £1,288 £1,996 £18.3 TOTAL £1,391 £2,884 £4,201 £32.8


Table 4.6 Repair costs by sub-area



repair cost Sub-area Repair cost per dwelling £ £ per sq. m

Area 1 £1,310 £3,458 £5,491 £37.3 Area 2 £1,430 £3,148 £4,576 £36.3 Area 3 £1,078 £2,113 £2,559 £27.9 Area 4 £1,420 £2,539 £4,345 £31.6 Area 5 £1,811 £2,879 £3,620 £28.2 TOTAL £1,391 £2,884 £4,201 £32.8


Table 4.7 Repair costs by building type



repair cost Building type Repair cost per dwelling £ £ per sq. m

End terrace £1,304 £3,531 £5,272 £35.6 Mid terrace £1,128 £2,368 £3,219 £22.6 Semi-detached £1,546 £3,772 £5,530 £34.4 Detached £5,090 £9,199 £13,140 £54.8 Purpose-built flat £833 £1,493 £2,461 £27.7 Converted flat £1,313 £2,195 £3,053 £38.3 TOTAL £1,391 £2,884 £4,201 £32.8


4 . DISREPAIR

PAGE 29

4.6 Repair costs and household characteristics

The table below shows repair costs by household type, special needs households and ethnic group.

The data shows that single pensioner households have the highest urgent repair cost, lone parent

households however show the highest standardised repair cost. Households with special needs

have higher costs for all three repair categories and a higher standardised repair cost. Finally, the

data suggests that Black households have the highest standardised repair cost although differences

between ethnic groups are relatively slight.

Table 4.8 Repair costs by household type



repair cost Household type Repair cost per dwelling £ £ per sq. m

Single pensioner £1,901 £2,853 £3,617 £36.5 2 or more pensioners £1,115 £2,748 £3,852 £27.8 Single non-pensioner £1,120 £2,067 £2,770 £31.8 2 or more adults, no children £972 £2,337 £3,688 £26.1 Lone parent £1,213 £3,249 £4,074 £49.9 2+ adults, 1 child £1,242 £3,537 £6,145 £33.2 2+ adults, 2+ children £893 £2,825 £4,533 £29.4 TOTAL £1,131 £2,586 £3,897 £30.3


Table 4.9 Repair costs and special needs



repair cost Special needs Repair cost per dwelling £ £ per sq. m

Special needs £1,836 £3,396 £4,578 £36.9 No special needs £1,048 £2,490 £3,816 £29.6 TOTAL £1,131 £2,586 £3,897 £30.3


4 . DISREPAIR

PAGE 30

Table 4.10 Repair costs by ethnic group



repair cost Ethnic group Repair cost per dwelling £ £ per sq. m

White £1,151 £2,416 £3,831 £28.8 Mixed £1,168 £2,282 £2,548 £31.5 Asian £1,027 £2,744 £4,377 £29.4 Black £1,205 £2,855 £3,551 £36.0 Other £1,251 £3,137 £4,622 £34.2 TOTAL £1,131 £2,586 £3,897 £30.3


4.7 Summary

The survey studied faults to dwellings and associated repair costs. Some of the main findings of

the analysis were:

• The average cost per dwelling of urgent repairs (i.e. those needing to be done within the

next year) was £1,391 – this totals £127.8m Borough-wide.

• The average cost per dwelling for ‘basic repairs’ (i.e. all work needing to be done within the

next 5 years) was £2,884 – totalling £265.0m Borough-wide.

• The main problem elements (in terms of the amount needing to be spent) were walls,

fences, paved areas & outbuildings, roofs and external doors & windows.

• The private rented sector showed the highest standardised repair costs as did vacant and

pre-1964 dwellings.

5 . LEVELS OF UNFITNESS

PAGE 31

5. LEVELS OF UNFITNESS

5.1 Introduction

The fitness standard (as set out in Section 604 of the 1985 Housing Act and amended by the 1989 Local Government and Housing Act) details a list of criteria which must be met if a dwelling is to be

considered fit for human habitation. A dwelling-house is unfit for human habitation if it fails to

meet one or more of requirements listed below and by reason of that failure is not reasonably

suitable for occupation.

Box 5.1 Fitness standard (1985 Housing Act as amended by 1989 Local Government and Housing Act) Under the provisions of Section 604 of the Housing Act 1985 a dwelling house is fit for human habitation unless it fails to meet one or more of the following requirements and as a result of that failure, is not reasonably suitable for occupation:

• Structural stability • Free from serious disrepair • Free from serious dampness prejudicial to the health of the occupants (if any) • Adequate provision for lighting, heating and ventilation • Adequate piped supply of wholesome water • Satisfactory facilities in the dwelling house for the preparation and cooking of food, including

a sink with a satisfactory supply of hot and cold water • Suitably located WC for exclusive use of occupants (if any) • Suitably located fixed bath or shower and wash-hand basin, each of which is provided with a

satisfactory supply of hot and cold water for the exclusive use of the occupants (if any) • Effective drainage system for waste and surface water In addition, a flat may be not reasonably suitable for occupation if the building in which it is located fails to meet one or more of the following requirements:

• Structural stability of the building or part of the building • Free from serious disrepair • Free from dampness • Adequate provision for ventilation • Effective drainage system for foul waste and surface water


PAGE 32

5.2 Level of unfitness

An estimated 5,292 private sector dwellings are unfit, accounting for 5.8% of the private sector

housing stock. This compares to an unfitness rate of 4.2% nationally (2001 EHCS). The most

common reasons for unfitness in Brent are disrepair, found in 2,769 dwellings (52.3% of those

classified unfit) and food preparation, in 2,447 (46.2%). These are also the most common reasons for

unfitness nationally, although the proportion of unfit dwellings in Brent recorded with these

problems is higher than the national average. The table below shows the reasons for unfitness in

both Brent and nationally (2001 EHCS).

The 1996 survey estimated levels of unfitness in Brent as 16%. The difference in the figures for 1996

and 2003 reflects small differences in methodologies as well as a real decrease in unfitness (as a

percentage of total stock), which has occurred nationally.

Table 5.1 Reasons for unfitness

Reason Number of dwellings % of unfit dwellings % of unfit dwellings

(2001 EHCS) Disrepair 2,769 52.3% 45.5% Food preparation 2,447 46.2% 39.4% Bath/shower, WHB 1,919 36.3% 20.9% Water closet 1,128 21.3% 16.0% Dampness 946 17.9% 21.9% Heating 668 12.6% 10.5% Drainage 400 7.6% 9.5% Water supply 327 6.2% 4.2% Lighting 319 6.0% 6.0% Ventilation 156 2.9% 11.8% Structural stability 129 2.4% 7.0%


5.3 Severity of unfitness

It will be clear from the table above that it is possible for a dwelling to fall into more than one of

the unfitness criteria used. The table below shows the numbers of unfit households with more than

one reason for unfitness. It can be seen that just over half (51.4%) of dwellings only fail on one

item, this compares with 55.2% of dwellings nationally.


PAGE 33

Table 5.2 Unfit dwellings and number of items unfit

Number of items unfit Number of dwellings % of unfit dwellings % of unfit dwellings

(2001 EHCS) One 2,718 51.4% 55.2% Two 1,191 22.5% 23.3% Three 800 15.1% 11.3% Four or more 583 11.0% 10.2% TOTAL 5,292 100.0% 100.0%


5.4 Cost to make fit

In addition to estimating the number of unfit dwellings, the survey can estimate the cost of making

dwellings fit for human habitation. The cost to make fit is the urgent cost associated with the

reason for unfitness. For example, if a dwelling fails the fitness standard for food preparation only

then the cost to make fit will be the total cost of those elements relating to making food preparation

fit only. It is quite possible that there are other urgent works required to the dwelling but which

have not been deemed by a surveyor to make the dwelling unfit. Hence, in most cases the urgent

repair cost for a dwelling will exceed the cost just to make fit.

The cost to make unfit dwellings just fit is £5,963 per dwelling, the urgent repair costs in these

dwellings average £7,972, basic repair average £10,776 and comprehensive repairs £12,504.

Borough-wide these figures are £31.6m, £42.2m, £57.0m and £66.2m respectively. There is a clear

relationship between the various costs and the number of items on which a dwelling fails. Those

dwellings failing on two or more items show a cost to make fit of around six times the cost for

those failing on only one item.


PAGE 34

Figure 5.1 Repair costs by number of items unfit

£1,629

£10,537

£2,795

£13,435

£5,669

£16,168

£7,813

£17,456

£0

£2,000

£4,000

£6,000

£8,000

£10,000

£12,000

£14,000

£16,000

£18,000

£20,000

One Two or moreNumber of items unfit

Cost to make fitUrgent repairBasic repairComprehensive repair


5.5 Dwelling characteristics of unfit dwellings

The following tables and figures show unfitness and tenure, dwelling age, sub-area and building

type.

By tenure, the survey shows that private rented dwellings have the highest level of unfitness,

whilst RSL dwellings show the lowest level. Vacant dwellings show an unfitness level of around

ten times the Borough average. Unfitness is in general strongly associated with age. In the case of

Brent, the pre-1944 stock exhibits the greatest proportions of unfits, 6.6% of pre-1919 and 7.1% of

1919-1944 dwellings are classified as unfit, this compares with only 1.2% of dwellings built after

1964. An estimated 94.0% of all unfit dwellings were built before 1944.

By sub-area, Area 4 has the highest proportion of unfit dwellings (at 8.8%). Trends in relation to

building type show that converted flats are most likely to be unfit, whilst mid terrace houses show

the lowest level of unfitness.


PAGE 35

Table 5.3 Tenure of unfit dwellings

Unfitness

Tenure In unfit housing

Not in unfit housing

Total % of group

in unfit housing

% of those in unfit housing

in group Owner-occupied (no mortgage) 947 23,760 24,707 3.8% 17.9% Owner-occupied (with mortgage) 2,141 33,253 35,393 6.0% 40.4% RSL 415 12,445 12,860 3.2% 7.8% Private rented 1,789 17,150 18,939 9.4% 33.8% TOTAL 5,292 86,608 91,900 5.8% 100.0% Vacant dwellings 1,356 864 2,220 61.1% 25.6%


Figure 5.2 Unfit dwellings and tenure

9.4%

3.2%

6.0%

3.8%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%

Private rented

RSL

Owner-occupied(with mortgage)

Owner-occupied (nomortgage)

% of group in unfit housing

Owner-occupied (no mortgage)

17.9%

Owner-occupied (with mortgage)

40.4%

RSL7.8%

Private Rented33.8%

% of unfit housing in group



PAGE 36

Table 5.4 Unfit dwellings and dwelling age

Unfitness

Age Unfit housing Not unfit housing Total


% of those in unfit housing in

group Pre-1919 1,700 23,945 25,645 6.6% 32.1% 1919-1944 3,273 42,639 45,912 7.1% 61.8% 1945-1964 148 6,093 6,241 2.4% 2.8% Post-1964 171 13,930 14,101 1.2% 3.2% TOTAL 5,292 86,608 91,900 5.8% 100.0%


Figure 5.3 Unfit dwellings and dwelling age

1.2%

2.4%

7.1%

6.6%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8%

Post-1964

1945-1964

1919-1944

Pre-1919


Pre-191932.1%

1919-194461.9%

Post-19643.2%

1945-19642.8%




PAGE 37

Table 5.5 Unfit dwellings and sub-area

Unfitness

Sub-area Unfit housing Not unfit housing Total



group Area 1 1,518 22,254 23,772 6.4% 28.7% Area 2 1,096 19,495 20,591 5.3% 20.7% Area 3 923 17,957 18,880 4.9% 17.4% Area 4 1,119 11,666 12,785 8.8% 21.1% Area 5 636 15,236 15,872 4.0% 12.0% TOTAL 5,292 86,608 91,900 5.8% 100.0%


Figure 5.4 Unfit dwellings and sub-area

4.0%

8.8%

4.9%

5.3%

6.4%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%

Area 5

Area 4

Area 3

Area 2

Area 1


Area 128.7%

Area 220.7%

Area 317.4%

Area 421.1%

Area 512.0%




PAGE 38

Table 5.6 Building type of unfit dwellings

Unfitness

Building type Unfit housing

Not unfit housing

Total % of group in unfit housing


group End terrace 344 5,871 6,215 5.5% 6.5% Mid terrace 478 14,608 15,086 3.2% 9.0% Semi-detached 1,276 24,979 26,255 4.9% 24.1% Detached 321 3,239 3,561 9.0% 6.1% Purpose-built flat 935 18,917 19,851 4.7% 17.7% Converted flat 1,938 18,994 20,932 9.3% 36.6% TOTAL 5,292 86,608 91,900 5.8% 100.0%


Figure 5.5 Unfit dwellings and building type

9.3%

4.7%

9.0%

4.9%

3.2%

5.5%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%

Converted flat

Purpose-built flat

Detached

Semi detached

Mid terrace

End terrace


End terrace6.5% Mid terrace

9.0%

Semi detached24.1%

Detached6.1%

Purpose-built flat

17.7%

Converted flat36.6%




PAGE 39

5.6 Household characteristics and unfitness

The following tables show unfitness by household type, special needs households and ethnic

group. The results show that households containing two or more adults and one child are most

likely to be living in unfit housing. Results estimate that 7.9% of this group are living in unfit

housing, this compares with 4.4% of all households in the Borough. Additionally, special needs

households appear slightly less likely to be living in unfit homes than non-special needs

households. Finally, the survey data suggests that Mixed and Black households are more likely than

average to be living in unfit housing.

Table 5.7 Household type and unfitness

Unfitness

Household type Unfit housing

Not unfit housing


% of those in unfit housing

in group Single pensioner 373 8,990 9,363 4.0% 9.5% 2 or more pensioners 108 5,641 5,749 1.9% 2.7% Single non-pensioner 805 14,458 15,263 5.3% 20.4% 2 or more adults, no children 1,451 34,737 36,189 4.0% 36.9% Lone parent 133 3,443 3,576 3.7% 3.4% 2+ adults, 1 child 715 8,322 9,037 7.9% 18.2% 2+ adults, 2+ children 352 10,152 10,504 3.3% 8.9% TOTAL 3,937 85,743 89,680 4.4% 100.0%


Table 5.8 Special needs and unfit housing

Unfitness

Special needs Unfit housing

Not unfit housing



group Special needs 309 9,196 9,504 3.2% 7.8% No special needs 3,628 76,548 80,176 4.5% 92.2% TOTAL 3,937 85,743 89,680 4.4% 100.0%



PAGE 40

Table 5.9 Ethnic group and unfitness

Unfitness

Ethnic group Unfit housing Not unfit housing Total



group White 1,879 43,892 45,771 4.1% 47.7% Mixed 382 3,652 4,034 9.5% 9.7% Asian 762 22,408 23,169 3.3% 19.4% Black 914 12,929 13,842 6.6% 23.2% Other 0 2,863 2,863 0.0% 0.0% TOTAL 3,937 85,743 89,680 4.4% 100.0%



PAGE 41

5.7 Comparisons with 2001 EHCS

The following table compares the results of this survey with the 2001 EHCS. In general the two

surveys show similar patterns with regard to the characteristics of unfit dwellings. One important

difference is in the rate of unfitness amongst vacant dwellings, the figure for Brent is four times

greater than the national average. It should be remembered when considering these figures that

the overall level of unfitness in Brent is slightly higher than that found in the 2001 EHCS.

Table 5.10 Comparing 2003 Brent survey and 2001 English House Condition Survey

Unfit dwellings Comparator

Brent 2001 EHCS Overall unfitness 5.8% 4.2%

Unfitness and tenure Owner-occupied Private rented RSL Local Authority Vacant dwellings

5.1% 9.4% 3.2%

- 61.1%

3.2% 10.9% 3.4% 4.7% 15.5%

Unfitness and dwelling age Pre-1919 1919 – 1944 1945 – 1964 Post-1964

6.6% 7.1% 2.4% 1.2%

10.3% 5.3% 3.0% 1.2%

Unfitness and building type All houses Purpose-built flat Converted flat

4.7% 4.7% 9.3%

4.2% 3.0% 10.5%

Main reasons for unfitness Disrepair Food preparation

52.3% 46.2%

45.5% 39.4%

Source: London Borough of Brent Private Sector Stock Condition Survey 2003; 2001 EHCS


PAGE 42

5.8 Defective dwellings

In addition to the main measure of unfitness dwellings could be recorded by surveyors as ‘fit but

defective’ in one or more of the matters of unfitness. In total it is estimated that 8,513 dwellings

(9.3%) are currently fit but defective. The table below shows the causes of defective dwellings, of

these, the most significant is disrepair, followed by food preparation and dampness.

Table 5.11 Reasons for defective dwellings

Reason Number of dwellings % of defective dwellings

Disrepair 4,638 54.5% Food preparation 2,502 29.4% Dampness 2,421 28.4% Bath/shower, WHB 1,280 15.0% Drainage 477 5.6% Heating 287 3.4% Structural stability 256 3.0% Water closet 213 2.5% Water supply 196 2.3% Lighting 103 1.2% Ventilation 0 0.0%



PAGE 43

5.9 Summary

Under the provisions of Section 604 of the 1985 Housing Act (amended by the 1989 Local

Government and Housing Act) a dwelling house is fit for human habitation unless it fails to meet

one or more of eleven requirements and as a result of that failure, is not reasonably suitable for

occupation. The following were some of the main findings in relation to unfitness in Brent:

• It is estimated that 5.8% of private sector dwellings in Brent are unfit (5,292 dwellings). This

figure is considerably lower than the 16% level of unfitness estimated in the 1996 survey.

The difference in these two figures reflects small differences in methodologies as well as a

real decrease in unfitness (as a percentage of total stock), which has occurred nationally.

• The current level of unfitness in Brent, 5.8%, is higher than average nationally (4.2%).

• The main causes of unfitness are disrepair and food preparation.

• Private rented dwellings are most likely to be unfit as are pre-1944 dwellings and converted

flats.

• 61.1% of all vacant dwellings in the Borough are estimated to be unfit.

An additional 8,513 dwellings are estimated to be ‘fit but defective’ (representing 9.3% of the

private sector dwelling stock).


PAGE 44

6 . ENERGY EFFICIENCY

PAGE 45

6. ENERGY EFFICIENCY

6.1 Introduction

This chapter looks at the energy efficiency of dwellings in Brent. An energy rating is intended to

give a measure of the overall energy efficiency of a dwelling. The Standard Assessment Procedure

(SAP) is the Government’s recommended system for home energy rating. The SAP rating is

standardised for floor area so that the size of the dwelling does not strongly affect the result. SAP

is expressed on a scale of 1 to 120 – the higher the number, the more energy efficient the dwelling.

The box below gives a general description of the SAP rating.

Box 6.1 Definition of SAP rating This is a government-specified energy rating for a dwelling. It is based on the calculated annual energy cost for space and water heating. The calculation assumes a standard occupancy pattern, derived from the measured floor area so that the size of the dwelling does not strongly affect the result, which is expressed on a 1-120 scale. The higher the number the better the standard.

The first aspect of analysis relates to the amount of thermal insulation followed by a discussion of

heating systems – these are two of the main factors which determine the SAP rating of a dwelling.

6.2 Thermal insulation (i) Cavity walls

It is estimated that 25.7% of dwellings in Brent have cavity walls, of these a total of 52.0% have no

cavity insulation. The table below shows this information by age of dwelling. It is clear that pre-

1919 dwellings are least likely to have cavity walls, whilst 92.7% of dwellings built since 1964 have

cavity walls. Only 57.7% of post-1964 dwellings with cavity walls contain insulation.


PAGE 46

Table 6.1 Cavity walls and insulation by dwelling age

Age of dwelling Number of dwellings

Number with cavity walls

% with cavity walls

% of these with added insulation

Pre-1919 25,645 606 2.4% 24.3% 1919-1944 45,912 6,714 14.6% 25.6% 1945-1964 6,241 3,258 52.2% 59.5% Post-1964 14,101 13,075 92.7% 57.7% TOTAL 91,900 23,654 25.7% 48.0%


(ii) Double glazing

Information from the 2001 EHCS suggests that nationally around 76% of all dwellings have some

double glazing. In Brent, 76.8% of dwellings have at least some double glazing and 51.0% have all

windows double glazed. The results below show the presence of double glazing by age of dwelling

and tenure. Older dwellings are generally less likely to have full double glazing; only 35.4% of

dwellings built before 1919 have full double glazing, compared with 65.5% of post-1964 dwellings.

By tenure, we find that only 42.0% of private rented dwellings have full double glazing, which

compares with 55.6% of RSL dwellings.

Table 6.2 Double glazing by dwelling age

Age of dwelling Number of dwellings

Number with full double glazing

Number with some double

glazing

% with full double glazing

Pre-1919 25,645 9,081 6,357 35.4% 1919-1944 45,912 24,509 15,385 53.4% 1945-1964 6,241 4,019 1,148 64.4% Post-1964 14,101 9,231 842 65.5% TOTAL 91,900 46,839 23,733 51.0%



PAGE 47

Table 6.3 Double glazing by tenure

Tenure Number of dwellings

Number with full double

glazing

Number with some double

glazing

% with full double glazing

Owner-occupied (no mortgage) 24,707 13,905 7,130 56.3% Owner-occupied (with mortgage) 35,393 17,824 11,034 50.4% RSL 12,860 7,147 1,131 55.6% Private rented 18,939 7,963 4,438 42.0% TOTAL 91,900 46,839 23,733 51.0%


(iii) Loft insulation

The last insulation element to be considered is loft insulation. It is estimated that 55.2% of

dwellings in Brent have loft insulation (30.5% have no loft). A great many dwellings with

insulation (61.4%) had no more than 100mm of insulation whilst 18.2% were estimated to have

over 150mm (250mm being the current recommended standard of insulation).

6.3 Heating systems and fuel use (i) Main heating systems

For the purpose of this survey the ‘main heating system’ is taken as the system which heats the

majority of the dwelling. The high efficiencies of modern heating systems have had a positive

effect on the overall energy efficiency of dwellings. In Brent, it is estimated that 94.6% of dwellings

have central heating. The definition of central heating used here is a very wide one including

electric storage heaters and warm air systems. The national figure for 2001 showed 94% of

dwellings had central or programmable heating systems. The results in general suggest that

dwellings in Brent are as likely to contain central heating as those nationally. The table below

shows the main heating system available in dwellings.


PAGE 48

Table 6.4 Main heating systems

Main heating system Number of dwellings % of dwellings

Boiler with radiators 80,126 87.2% Electric storage heaters 5,864 6.4% Room heaters 4,945 5.4% Other system 965 1.1% TOTAL 91,900 100.0%


The figures below show heating systems by tenure and age of dwelling. The data shows that

owner-occupied dwellings (with a mortgage) are particularly likely to be centrally heated via a

boiler with radiators. In total, 92.6% of owner-occupied dwellings (with mortgage) have this type

of central heating, this compares with 76.0% of RSL owned dwellings. Dwellings in the private

rented sector appear particularly likely to use room heaters whilst RSL dwellings are the most

likely to have electric storage heaters. Pre-1919 dwellings appear most likely to have room heaters

whilst dwellings built after 1964 have the highest proportion of electric storage heaters.

Figure 6.1 Heating system and tenure

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Private rented

RSL

Owner-occupied (withmortgage)

Owner-occupied (nomortgage)

% of dwellings

Boiler with radiators Electric storage heaters Room heaters Other system



PAGE 49

Figure 6.2 Heating system and age of dwelling

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Post-1964

1945-1964

1919-1944

Pre-1919

% of dwellings

Boiler with radiators Electric storage heaters Room heaters Other system


(ii) Fuel use

In terms of fuel use for heating the data shows the main type of fuel used is mains gas (89.0% of

dwellings), this is followed by both off- and on-peak electricity. These three account for 98.6% of

all fuel types used in Brent. The table below shows the distribution of fuel uses for main heating

systems.

Table 6.5 Fuel used for main heating system

Fuel used Number of dwellings % of dwellings

Mains gas 81,822 89.0% On-peak electric 1,960 2.1% Off-peak electric 6,871 7.5% Other 1,248 1.4% TOTAL 91,900 100.0%



PAGE 50

6.4 The SAP rating

The SAP rating depends upon a range of factors that contribute to energy efficiency, namely:

• thermal insulation of the building fabric

• efficiency and control of the heating system

• ventilation characteristics of the dwelling

• solar gain characteristics of the dwelling

• the price of fuels used for space and water heating

The rating is not affected by factors that depend on the individual characteristics of the household

occupying the dwelling when the rating is calculated, for example:

• household size and composition

• the ownership and efficiency of particular domestic electrical appliances

• individual heating patterns and temperatures

Nor is it affected by geographical location, so that a given type of dwelling has the same rating in

all parts of the United Kingdom.

6.5 General results

The average SAP rating for Brent is 52. This compares with a national average (2001) of 51 and an

average for London of 53. The figure below shows the distribution of SAP ratings. The majority of

dwellings have a SAP rating between 40 and 59 (58.5%). An estimated 7.4% of dwellings have a

SAP of below 30 (compared with a national average of 9.4% and a regional average of 6.0% in

London).

The SAP rating in Brent estimated for 2003 is significantly higher than the equivalent figure in

1996, which was 37.


PAGE 51

Figure 6.3 Frequency distribution of SAP rating

1.7%

0.5%

5.3%

7.2%

29.7%

28.8%

15.6%

6.7%

2.9%

1.8%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

0 to 9

10 to 19

20 to 29

30 to 39

40 to 49

50 to 59

60 to 69

70 to 79

80 to 89

90 or more

% of dwellings


6.6 SAP ratings and dwelling characteristics

The figures below show SAP ratings by tenure, dwelling age, sub-area and building type. Owner-

occupied (no mortgage) dwellings show the lowest mean SAP rating, the highest being for RSL

dwellings. Typically the older the dwelling, the lower the SAP rating. This is the case in Brent

where dwellings built pre-1964 have an average SAP of around 50. The highest mean SAP is found

in the post-1964 age group (at 65). By sub-area, the survey finds little difference between different

parts of the Borough.

In terms of building type, exposure is often a key factor and hence we would expect lower SAP

ratings for detached, semi-detached and end terraced dwellings. This is indeed the case; mid

terraced dwellings have a mean SAP of 54, whilst detached houses have the lowest mean SAP

rating of 41. Flats in Brent also have high mean SAP ratings. The highest mean SAP rating is for

purpose-built flats (mean SAP of 60).


PAGE 52

Figure 6.4 SAP rating by tenure

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Private rented

RSL

Owner-occupied(with mortgage)

Owner-occupied(no mortgage)

% of dwellings

0 to 1920 to 3940 to 5960 to 7980+

53

58

52

48

0 20 40 60 80

Average (mean) SAP


Figure 6.5 SAP rating by age of dwelling

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Post-1964

1945-1964

1919-1944

Pre-1919

% of dwellings

0 to 1920 to 3940 to 5960 to 7980+

65

51

49

50

0 20 40 60 80

Average (mean) SAP



PAGE 53

Figure 6.6 SAP rating by sub-area

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Area 5

Area 4

Area 3

Area 2

Area 1

% of dwellings

0 to 1920 to 3940 to 5960 to 7980+

52

54

54

51

51

0 20 40 60

Average (mean) SAP


Figure 6.7 SAP rating by building type

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Converted flat

Purpose-builtflat

Detached

Semi-detached

Mid terrace

End terrace

% of dwellings

0 to 1920 to 3940 to 5960 to 7980+

53

60

41

47

54

46

0 20 40 60 80

Average (mean) SAP



PAGE 54

6.7 SAP ratings and household characteristics

The figures below show SAP ratings by household type, special needs households and ethnic

group. The SAP rating is largely dependent on age of dwelling and building type, however it is of

interest to see how SAP ratings vary between different types of household group. By household

type the data shows that households containing two or more pensioners have the lowest mean

SAP rating, with a value of 45. Special needs households showed a slightly lower mean SAP rating

than other households. By ethnic group, the results show that Black households have the highest

mean SAP rating, while White households show the worst energy efficiency.

Figure 6.8 SAP rating by household type

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

2+ adults 2+children

2+ adults 1 child

Lone parent

2+ adults nochildren

Single non-pensioner

2+ pensioners

Single pensioner

% of dwellings

0 to 1920 to 3940 to 5960 to 7980+

52

55

54

53

55

45

50

0 20 40 60

Average (mean) SAP



PAGE 55

Figure 6.9 SAP rating by special needs

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

No special needs

Special needs

% of dwellings

0 to 1920 to 3940 to 5960 to 7980+

53

51

0 20 40 60

Average (mean) SAP


Figure 6.10 SAP rating by ethnic group

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Other

Black

Asian

Mixed

White

% of dwellings

0 to 1920 to 3940 to 5960 to 7980+

53

55

53

54

51

0 20 40 60

Average (mean) SAP



PAGE 56

6.8 SAP ratings and heating types and fuel use

The figures below show SAP ratings by heating type and fuel use. These two factors have a

significant impact on the SAP rating. Analysis by heating type indicates that dwellings with central

heating generally have higher SAP ratings than other dwellings. The mean SAP of dwellings

centrally heated via a boiler with radiators is 54, this figure compares with an average SAP of 28

for dwellings whose main heating type is room heaters. Analysis by the main fuel types shows that

dwellings using mains gas have the highest SAP rating (54). At the other end of the scale,

dwellings using on-peak electricity have a mean SAP of only 11.

Figure 6.11 SAP rating by heating type

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Other system

Room heaters

Electric storageheaters

Boiler withradiators

% of dwellings

0 to 1920 to 3940 to 5960 to 7980+

70

28

42

54

0 20 40 60 80

Average (mean) SAP



PAGE 57

Figure 6.12 SAP rating by fuel type

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Other

Off peak electric

On peak electric

Mains gas

% of dwellings

0 to 1920 to 3940 to 5960 to 7980+

26

39

11

54

0 20 40 60

Average (mean) SAP


Additionally, the survey provides some details about how the SAP rating varies depending on the

loft insulation and wall construction of the dwelling. The table below gives the mean SAP ratings

by each of these factors. The table shows that dwellings with 100mm or more loft insulation have

higher SAP ratings than those with less than 100mm. However, dwellings without a loft have the

highest SAP ratings. For cavity walls, the data shows that dwellings with filled cavity walls have

the highest SAP ratings, dwellings without cavity walls show the lowest mean SAP.

Table 6.6 SAP ratings and loft insulation and cavity walls

Loft insulation Mean SAP Cavity walls Mean SAP

Less than 100mm 46 Non-cavity walls 50 100mm or more 52 Insulated cavity walls 65 No loft 59 Uninsulated cavity walls 53 AVERAGE 52 AVERAGE 52



PAGE 58

6.9 Households with low SAP ratings

Below are highlighted some characteristics of households with low SAP ratings. A low SAP rating

in this instance is taken as a SAP rating of less than 30. Households living in the least efficient

homes tend to:

• live alone – 37.8% of the least efficient homes contain only one person, whereas only 27.5%

of all households are single person households.

• be elderly – 31.9% of the least efficient homes only contain elderly people, compared to

16.9% of all households.

• have special needs – 13.2% of the least efficient homes contain someone with a special

need as opposed to 10.6% of all households.

• have low incomes – the average gross earned income of households in the least energy

efficient homes is £17,355 compared with £23,028 for all households.

6.10 CO2 Emissions and cost of heating

As part of the SAP calculation a by-product is the calculation of Carbon Dioxide emissions and the

costs for space and water heating. This data is summarised below. Overall it is estimated that

households current heating systems make for an average (mean) requirement to spend £431 on

space and water heating and that the average dwelling produces 5.42 tonnes of CO2 per year.

The figure below shows some characteristics of dwellings/households by fuel costs. The results for

CO2 emissions would typically show the same trends as these are heavily influenced by the

amount of fuel used (and hence the cost of fuel used).


PAGE 59

Figure 6.13 Average heating costs and dwelling/household characteristics

£491£373

£427£364

£435

£420£442

£470£409

£365£432

£355£517

£417

£350£285

£859£519

£445£523

£486£417

£396£431£430

£273£381

£462£475

£408£314

£446£489

£0 £100 £200 £300 £400 £500 £600 £700 £800 £900 £1,000

Other

Black

Asian

Mixed

White

No special needs

Special needs


2+ adults 1 child

Lone parent

2 or more adults - no children

Single non-pensioners

2 or more pensioners

Single pensioners

Converted flat

Purpose-built flat

Detached

Semi-detached

Mid terrace

End terrace

Area 5

Area 4

Area 3

Area 2

Area 1

Post-1964

1945-1964

1919-1944

Pre-1919

Private rented

RSL



Average heating cost



PAGE 60



surveys show similar patterns with regard to energy efficiency.


SAP rating Comparator

Brent 2001 EHCS (London) Overall SAP rating

52 51 (53)

SAP rating and tenure Owner-occupied RSL Private rented

50 58 53

50 60 45

SAP rating and dwelling age Pre-1919 1919 – 1944 1945 – 1964 Post-1964

50 49 51 65

41 46 48 59

SAP rating and building type End terrace Mid terrace Semi-detached Detached Bungalow Purpose-built flat Converted flat

46 54 47 41 -

60 53

46 53 48 49 46 60 43

SAP rating and loft insulation Loft with less than 100mm insulation Loft with 100mm insulation or more No loft

46 52 59

46 52 55

SAP rating and cavity walls Non-cavity walls Insulated cavity walls Uninsulated cavity walls

50 65 53

43 60 50

SAP rating and heating system Central heating Storage heaters Room heaters

54 42 28

53 40 30



PAGE 61

6.12 Summary

An important part of any stock condition survey is the measurement of energy efficiency. The

Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) is the Government’s recommended system for home

energy rating – where a high score (on a scale from 1 to 120) means a dwelling is more energy

efficient. Some of the main findings in Brent were:

• 94.6% of dwellings have central or programmable heating.

• 76.8% of dwellings have some double glazing.

• Brent has an average SAP rating of 52, which is similar to the average for both England

(51) and London (53). Brent’s 1996 SAP rating was estimated at 37, suggesting that there

has been a notable improvement in energy efficiency in Brent between 1996 and 2003.

• Owner-occupied (no mortgage) and pre-1919 dwellings showed the lowest mean SAP

ratings as did semi-detached/detached houses. Flats, notably purpose-built flats showed

the highest SAP ratings.

• Households with particularly low SAP ratings also appear to show quite distinct

characteristics. They are more likely to include single persons, the elderly, those with

special needs and those on low incomes.

• It is estimated that households current heating systems make for an average (mean)

requirement to spend £431 on space and water heating and that the average dwelling

produces 5.42 tonnes of CO2 per year.


PAGE 62

7 . IMPROVING ENERGY EFFICIENCY

PAGE 63

7. IMPROVING ENERGY EFFICIENCY

7.1 Introduction

This chapter is devoted to studying ways in which the Council could improve the energy

efficiency of dwellings in the Borough. This is both in terms of improving SAP ratings and

reducing the amount required to be spent on fuel. In looking at fuel costs it is possible to calculate

a ‘payback’ period which is simply calculating the amount of time it would take for the cost of

improvements to equal the cost of savings. The report studies three main ways in which the energy

efficiency of dwellings can be improved, these are:

• Add or increase insulation to hot water cylinders, lofts and cavity walls

• Upgrade or install heating systems to gas powered programmable central heating

• Upgrade all windows to double glazing

The analysis looks at the costs and savings of each of these measures in isolation as well as

combinations of these. The analysis also studies only carrying out improvements to particular

dwellings (e.g. those with initially low SAP ratings, those containing the elderly etc.), this can help

the Council in working out the most cost effective package of measures for energy efficiency

improvement in the local area.

The two most typical aims of improving energy efficiency asked for in Councils’ specifications are:

1. Action required and costs of improving average SAP ratings to 65

2. Action required and costs of improving average SAP ratings by 30%

In the case of Brent the second of these points would lead to an increase in mean SAP to 68 (given

the current estimated average of 52). This chapter therefore seeks to inform both of these purposes.


PAGE 64

7.2 The cost of improving energy efficiency

The table below shows the costs of improving the various measures mentioned in the introduction.

The costs are based on estimates provided by the Council for the local area. It can be seen that in

the case of insulation there are three elements and for central heating there are two. In the case of

double glazing the actual cost per dwelling will depend on the amount of double glazing already

present, adjusted by the size of dwelling. The cost shown is an estimate of the cost of full

replacement in an average sized dwelling. A dwelling which currently has half double glazing and

is half the size of the average dwelling would therefore have a cost of only a quarter of this average

– such figures may therefore not be exact for any individual dwelling but should be of the right

order (particularly when looking at the stock overall). In the case of insulation a dwelling can be

improved on between none and all three of the elements shown (e.g. if cavity walls do not exist

then insulation is not an option) and no adjustments are made for size of the dwelling. In the case

of central heating an upgrade is considered to be the option where a relatively inefficient central

heating system already exists and full installation is the option where there is currently no central

heating provision. Hence whilst the costs of insulation measures can be cumulative, the costs of

heating systems can only be one or other of those shown – in this way the maximum cost per

average sized dwelling will be £8,725 (£25+£200+£500+£4,000+£4,000).

Table 7.1 Cost of energy improvement measures (per dwelling)

Energy efficiency improvement measure Cost per dwelling

Insulation Hot water cylinder jacket to minimum 80mm £25 Loft insulation to minimum 200mm £200 Cavity wall insulation £500 Double glazing Install full double glazing to ‘average’ sized dwelling £4,000 Central heating Upgrade current system £2,000 Install new central heating system £4,000



PAGE 65

7.3 The improvements to energy efficiency

The table below shows the impact of applying various energy efficiency measures on dwellings in

the Borough – this impact is measured in improvements to SAP ratings and also ‘payback’ periods

(based on the cost of measures compared with the estimated reduction in running costs). Without

any improvements, the current stock has a mean SAP rating of 52 with average heating costs (for

space and hot water) of £431 per dwelling.

Table 7.2 Impact of energy improvement measures

Energy improvement measure

Number of dwellings requiring measures (including upgrades)

Cost per dwelling requiring

improvement

New SAP

New energy

cost (per dwelling)

Total cost of

improvements (per

dwelling)

Payback period (years)

Total cost of

measures (Borough-

wide)

No extra measures - - 52 £431 - - - Insulation only 62,771 £258 55 £400 £176 5.7 £16.2m Double glazing only 45,061 £3,071 54 £414 £1,506 89.8 £138.4m Central heating only 20,146 £3,415 59 £375 £749 13.4 £68.8m Insulation and double glazing 77,854 £1,985 57 £383 £1,682 35.2 £154.6m Insulation and central heating 68,315 £1,244 62 £351 £925 11.6 £85.0m Double glazing and central heating 53,733 £3,856 61 £361 £2,254 32.2 £207.2m All three measures 79,465 £2,811 64 £337 £2,430 25.8 £223.4m


The table shows for example that 62,771 dwellings could benefit from additional insulation.

Adding this insulation would improve the SAP rating from 52 to 55 and reduce average energy

costs per dwelling to £400 per annum (from £431) a reduction of £31. The total cost per dwelling of

these measures (including dwellings not requiring any improvement) would be £176 hence the

payback period is 5.7 years (£176/£31. The total cost of adding insulation for the whole of the

Borough is estimated to be £16.2m. For double glazing the payback period is considerably longer,

whilst updating/installing central heating systems has a payback period of 13.4 years.

Combining measures suggests that insulation and central heating improvements together could

improve the mean SAP to 62 with a cost per dwelling of £925 – this would reduce running costs by

£80 giving a payback period of 11.6 years. Combining all three measures shows an improved SAP

of 64 at a cost per dwelling of £2,430 and a payback period of 25.8 years. In general any package of

measures which includes installing double glazing has a considerably longer payback period and

relatively small increases in SAP ratings.


PAGE 66

The above table studies all households and measures are cumulative (e.g. all those dwellings

requiring insulation will automatically be in the ‘insulation and double glazing’ group even if they

do not require double glazing). It is therefore also possible to look at those dwellings only

requiring specific action (e.g. the insulation and double glazing group would only include those

dwellings requiring both measures). Results are shown in the table below.

Table 7.3 Impact of energy improvement measures

Energy improvement measure


Cost per dwelling requiring improvement

Previous SAP

New SAP Previous energy

cost

New energy

cost (per dwelling)


Total cost of

measure (Borough-

wide)

Insulation only 25,732 £281 54 59 £408 £373 8.0 £7.2m Double glazing only 11,150 £2,856 57 62 £351 £320 93.8 £31.8m Central heating only 1,611 £3,609 53 89 £328 £158 21.3 £5.8m Insulation and double glazing 22,437 £3,356 48 56 £506 £430 44.4 £75.3m Insulation and central heating 7,061 £3,481 42 80 £498 £223 12.7 £24.6m Double glazing and central heating 3,933 £6,819 46 82 £433 £200 29.3 £26.8m All three measures 7,542 £6,865 41 81 £579 £235 20.0 £51.8m No additional measures suggested 12,435 - 64 64 £300 £300 - -


The table shows for example that a total of 7,542 dwellings require improvements to all of

insulation, double glazing and central heating. Carrying out these measures would increase the

SAP rating of these dwellings from 41 to 81. The consequent improvement in running costs would

be a reduction of £344 per dwelling per annum. However, with a cost per dwelling of £6,865 it

would take 20.0 years for the costs to be recouped.

7.4 Targeted energy improvements

It is uncommon for any local authority to look at improvements for all types of

dwellings/households, mainly due to the cost of such improvements. The table below suggests a

few groups which might be targeted for energy improvement measures and the relative

improvement possible to be made to the relevant dwellings. All the figures are based on the

‘insulation and central heating’ category although it should be recognised that where a group of

households or dwellings show particularly high improvements it is likely that a lesser package of

measures would still be more beneficial than if targeted towards other groups.


PAGE 67

Targeting households where people are on benefit is often a starting point for any scheme,

however this has the drawback that such households do not necessarily live in dwellings which

are less efficient than dwellings in general. The table below shows characteristics of improving

energy efficiency for dwellings with low SAP ratings (currently below 30), elderly households,

benefit households, special needs households and low income households (plus low income

owner-occupiers). The bottom row of the table repeats the Borough-wide data for comparative

purposes.

Table 7.4 Impact of energy improvement measures (insulation and central heating) for different dwelling/household groups

Dwelling/household group


Cost per dwelling requiring

improvement

Previous SAP

New SAP Previous energy

cost

New energy

cost (per dwelling)


Total cost of

measure (Borough-

wide)

SAP < 30 7,294 £3,205 20 60 £860 £412 7.1 £23.4 Elderly households 15,112 £1,359 48 62 £455 £342 12.1 £20.5 Benefit households 31,725 £1,106 52 64 £414 £332 13.5 £35.1 Non-elderly benefit households 10,866 £983 58 69 £344 £288 17.4 £10.7 Special needs households 9,504 £1,178 51 61 £442 £354 13.4 £11.2 Income < £10k 31,769 £1,160 52 64 £417 £328 13.1 £36.8 Owner-occupied (income < £10k) 17,186 £953 48 58 £492 £394 9.7 £16.4 All dwellings 91,900 £925 52 62 £431 £351 11.6 £85.0


The table shows that for most of the specific groups chosen for analysis a payback period in terms

of the suggested works would be above the average for all dwellings in the Borough. The group

which shows the shortest payback period (dwellings with SAP ratings below 30) is unfortunately

the group which is most likely to be difficult to identify. Low income owner-occupiers also show a

payback period below the average for all dwellings.

7.5 Improved SAP ratings and dwelling/household characteristics

The figure below shows the amount average SAP ratings of individual dwelling/household

groups’ increase as a result of improvements to dwellings insulation and heating systems. Overall

the borough-wide mean SAP increases from 52 to 62, equating to an improvement of 19.5%.

Including double glazing in this measure could push the improvement up to 23.3%.


PAGE 68

Dwellings/households that show particularly high improvements in SAP ratings include RSL

dwellings (up 26.5%), dwellings built between 1945 and 1964 (up 29.9%), purpose-built flats (up

30.5%) and pensioner households. In contrast dwellings/households which show lower

improvements include owner-occupied (with mortgage) dwellings (up 14.6%), dwellings built

between 1919 and 1944 (up 16.6%), detached houses (up 13.8%) and households containing

children.

Some of the reasons for the high or low improvements can be relatively easily established. For

example the high improvements are usually in dwellings/ households commonly without a

central heating systems (e.g. in the RSL sector and purpose-built flats), whilst lower improvements

are concentrated in groups of dwellings which were already more likely to have central heating

(e.g. owner-occupied (with mortgage)).


PAGE 69

Figure 7.1 Improved SAP ratings and characteristics of dwellings/households

15.0%22.3%

13.1%15.3%

20.3%

18.1%20.5%

11.8%12.2%

17.4%15.9%

22.1%27.0%

30.9%

15.7%30.5%

13.8%15.4%

17.5%15.0%

15.3%15.2%

19.8%21.4%

23.0%

27.1%29.9%

16.6%16.7%

20.5%26.5%

14.6%22.1%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Other

Black

White

No special needs

2+ adults 1 child



Purpose-built flat

Semi-detached

End terrace

Area 5

Area 3

Area 1

Post-1964

1919-1944

RSL


% improvement in SAP



PAGE 70

7.6 The aims of energy efficiency improvement

A 30% improvement in energy efficiency for the private sector stock appears difficult to achieve. A

full range of measures will increase the mean SAP rating of dwellings from 52 to 64 (an

improvement of 23.3%), however the total cost of this is estimated to be £223.4m. A more realistic

aim might be to look at upgrading or installing heating systems to more efficient central heating

systems along with a programme of insulation; these two measures would increase the mean SAP

rating from 52 to 62 at a total cost of £85.0m. It can be seen therefore that there is a clear trade-off

between further improvements to energy efficiency and the cost of bringing about these

improvements.

In truth there is a limit to the amount that dwellings can be improved – for example in the stock

without cavity walls (and hence considerable exposure through inefficient walls) the amount that

can reasonably be done to dwellings to improve efficiency is more limited than in other dwellings.

That said, there are considerable improvements possible from improving insulation in dwellings

and upgrading or replacing heating systems.

An average SAP of 64 is technically possible. However this requires such a high take-up of energy

efficiency measures that it might not be a sensible target over any reasonable time period. If

however dwellings built in the future were included in the assessment then an improvement in

average SAP ratings of 30% might be a reasonable long term target.

7.7 Summary

Improving energy efficiency in Brent by 30% appears difficult to achieve. To achieve an

improvement of 23.3% would mean improving virtually every dwelling in the Borough to some

degree. By applying insulation and central heating improvements to dwellings the increase in SAP

is 19.5% (to a mean SAP of 62). Small further improvements could be made through double

glazing although this does not appear to be very cost-effective. The package of measures estimated

to achieve the highest mean SAP (of 64) would entail a total cost of £223.4m Borough-wide.

8 . DECENT HOMES

PAGE 71

8. DECENT HOMES

8.1 Introduction

The government’s housing objective is “to ensure that everyone has the opportunity of a decent

home and so promote social cohesion, well being and self-dependence”. In 2000 the Government

set a standard for ‘decent homes’ whereby housing should:

i) Meet the current statutory minimum standard for housing (i.e. not unfit)

ii) Be in a reasonable state of repair

iii) Have reasonably modern facilities and services

iv) Provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort

This chapter addresses the availability of decent homes by looking at the extent to which homes

across and within different groups and areas of the housing stock are non decent, the reasons for

dwellings failing to meet this standard and the costs of work necessary to address these problems.

8.2 Applying the standard

The 2001 EHCS sets out what factors would be considered to make a dwelling ‘non-decent’. The

table below shows the four criteria along with suggested measurements by the guidance, this is

followed by our comment about how the current survey data has been used to meet the criteria.

8 . DECENT HOMES

PAGE 72

Table 8.1 Decent homes criteria and comment on calculation Decent home criterion

Summary of government guidance Application in this survey

Does it meet the current minimum standard?

Is dwelling unfit? All unfit dwellings are included here.

Is it in reasonable state of repair?

Key components: external wall structure, wall finish/applied surface, chimney stacks, roof structure, roof covering, external doors, windows, gas system, electrical supply, heating boiler Non key components: kitchen amenities, bathroom amenities, heating system

The definition used in the survey is consistent with the EHCS and considers urgent work required to any of the key components or urgent work required to two or more of the non-key components.

Has it reasonably modern facilities?

Kitchen: modern (<20 years old), adequate space and layout. Bathroom: modern (<30 years old) Appropriately located bathroom and WC Adequate noise insulation Flats: common areas adequate size and layout

A dwelling must fail on at least three of these categories to be considered as non-decent. This is consistent with the EHCS.

Does it provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort?

Has programmable heating system and (for gas/oil programmable heating) has it cavity wall insulation and/or at least 50mm of roof insulation, where appropriate (for electric storage heaters/LPG/programmable solid fuel central heating) has it cavity wall insulation and at least 200mm of roof insulation, where appropriate?

All of this information is available from the survey data and hence this part of the standard is replicated in full.


8.3 National figures

The 2001 EHCS estimates that a total of 7.0m dwellings are non decent. This represents 33% of all

dwellings. Of these, 1.6m are social sector dwellings, representing 38% of the social sector. The

remaining 5.4m non-decent homes are private sector dwellings, this represents 32% of the private

sector. It is additionally estimated that 79% of non-decent dwellings fail on only one of the four

criteria used. The table below shows estimates of the reasons for failure. It is clear that the main

reason for a home to be considered as non-decent is under the heading ‘thermal comfort’.

8 . DECENT HOMES

PAGE 73

Table 8.2 Causes of non-decent homes for all dwellings (EHCS, 2001)

Non decent due to % of all dwellings % of non-decent dwellings

Unfitness 4% 13% Disrepair 9% 27% Modern facilities 2% 7% Thermal comfort 26% 80%

Source: EHCS 2001 NB Percentages add up to more than 100 because some dwellings fail on more than one criterion

8.4 Decent homes in Brent

Having worked through each of the four headings used to determine decent (or non-decent)

homes in Brent the survey estimates that in the private sector some 31.6% of dwellings would be

categorised as non-decent. This represents 29,059 dwellings in the Borough. The table below

highlights the reasons for homes being considered as non-decent. In comparison with national

figures (for all dwellings) the results suggests that the reasons for non-decency in Brent closely

mirror those found nationally.

Table 8.3 Causes of non-decent homes in Brent

Non decent due to Number of non-decent

dwellings % of non-decent dwellings

Unfitness 5,292 18.2% Disrepair 8,594 29.6% Modern facilities 2,310 8.0% Thermal comfort 23,492 80.8%


NB Percentages add up to more than 100 because some dwellings fail on more than one criterion

The table below shows the number of reasons for dwellings being considered non-decent. The

table shows that over three quarters of non-decent dwellings are considered such on just one of the

various items. This is comparable to the national estimate (for all non-decent dwellings) of 79%.

8 . DECENT HOMES

PAGE 74

Table 8.4 Number of non-decent items

Number of items Number of non-decent

dwellings % of non-decent dwellings

One 22,178 76.3% Two 4,169 14.3% Three 1,676 5.8% Four 1,037 3.6% TOTAL 29,059 100.0%


8.5 Characteristics of non-decent homes

The figure below shows some dwelling and household characteristics of non-decent homes.

Private rented dwellings are most likely to be considered non-decent, as are pre-1919 dwellings

and terraced dwellings. Single pensioners are significantly more likely than other households to be

living in non-decent homes, as are special needs and Black households.

The data also shows that ‘vulnerable households are slightly more likely than other households to

be living in non-decent accommodation. However, the proportion of ‘vulnerable’ households in

non-decent homes (34.1%) is below national estimates of around 43%. Vulnerable households have

been taken as those with an earned income of below £12,500 who are also in receipt of state

benefits.

8 . DECENT HOMES

PAGE 75

Table 8.5 Non-decent homes and dwelling/household characteristics Number of dwelling in group that: Dwelling characteristic

Non decent Fail fitness Fail disrepair Fail

modernisation Fail thermal

comfort Tenure Owner-occupied (nm) 33.4% 3.8% 8.8% 2.6% 28.8% Owner-occupied (wm) 27.4% 6.0% 7.5% 2.3% 21.3% RSL 30.3% 3.2% 10.5% 0.5% 23.6% Private rented 38.1% 9.4% 12.8% 4.1% 30.6% Age of dwelling Pre-1919 37.0% 6.6% 8.0% 2.8% 31.1% 1919-1944 30.8% 7.1% 10.1% 3.2% 24.9% 1944-1964 30.9% 2.4% 7.1% 2.3% 21.9% Post-1964 24.8% 1.2% 10.4% 0.0% 19.4% Sub-area Area 1 31.9% 6.4% 8.1% 3.2% 25.3% Area 2 30.1% 5.3% 9.4% 1.4% 24.9% Area 3 34.7% 4.9% 10.3% 2.0% 28.6% Area 4 30.1% 8.8% 10.5% 2.8% 22.9% Area 5 30.9% 4.0% 9.1% 3.3% 25.3% Type of dwelling End terrace 34.5% 5.5% 5.9% 0.0% 30.3% Mid terrace 35.2% 3.2% 4.7% 2.2% 31.8% Semi-detached 29.0% 4.9% 8.4% 2.5% 25.5% Detached 31.2% 9.0% 10.6% 9.0% 29.6% Purpose-built flats 30.5% 4.7% 14.7% 2.0% 20.9% Converted flat 32.7% 9.3% 9.7% 3.0% 23.4% All dwellings 31.6% 5.8% 9.4% 2.5% 25.6% Household type Single pensioners 46.3% 4.0% 11.6% 4.8% 41.7% 2 or more pensioners 21.8% 1.9% 2.8% 1.9% 21.8% Single non-pensioners 30.7% 5.3% 11.3% 3.1% 23.3% 2+ adults, no children 26.7% 4.0% 6.9% 0.5% 21.5% Lone parent 37.1% 3.7% 14.2% 3.7% 28.9% 2+ adults, 1 child 28.6% 7.9% 7.4% 1.1% 19.1% 2+ adults, 2+ children 32.3% 3.4% 6.1% 0.0% 26.6% Special needs Special needs 35.3% 3.3% 6.5% 1.8% 30.2% No special needs 29.8% 4.5% 8.3% 1.6% 23.9% Ethnicity of head of household White 32.3% 4.1% 7.4% 2.2% 26.4% Mixed 26.7% 9.5% 7.2% 0.0% 20.0% Asian 24.0% 3.3% 6.9% 1.3% 18.2% Black 36.6% 6.6% 12.8% 1.0% 30.5% Other 26.0% 0.0% 9.0% 0.0% 26.0% Vulnerable households Vulnerable 34.1% 5.3% 10.3% 2.4% 28.0% Not vulnerable 28.9% 4.0% 7.3% 1.3% 23.2% All households 30.4% 4.4% 8.1% 1.6% 24.6%


8 . DECENT HOMES

PAGE 76

8.6 Cost to make homes decent

In addition to estimating the number of homes considered as non-decent it is possible to estimate

the likely costs of making these homes decent. In the case of unfit homes or those not in a

reasonable state of repair the costs can be taken directly from survey evidence about the causes of

unfitness/defective dwellings. In the case of modern facilities the cost estimates are based on the

cost of replacing a kitchen/bathroom (as appropriate) as well as separate costs where the reason

for non decency is poor space, layout, location or the lack of a particular amenity. Finally for

thermal comfort the costs are taken as the cost for providing central heating and insulation

measures (where central heating is not present) and for providing insulation only where there is

central heating.

The table below shows estimated costs for rectifying each cause of non-decency and the total cost

Borough-wide. The table shows that the average non-decent home would cost £4,006 to make it

decent. Borough-wide this would entail a total cost of £116.4m.

Table 8.6 Costs for remedying non-decent homes in Brent

Non decent due to Number of non-decent dwellings

Average cost per non-decent dwelling

Total cost Borough-wide

Unfitness 5,292 £5,963 £31.6m Disrepair 8,594 £1,477 £12.7m Modern facilities 2,310 £8,758 £20.2m Thermal comfort 23,492 £1,176 £27.6m AVERAGE/TOTAL 29,059 £4,006 £116.4m


8 . DECENT HOMES

PAGE 77



surveys show similar patterns with regard to the characteristics of decent homes.


Non-decent dwellings Comparator

Brent 2001 EHCS (London) Overall proportion non-decent

31.6% 33.1% (36.2%)

Non-decency and tenure Owner-occupied Private rented RSL Local Authority Vacant dwellings

29.9% 38.1% 30.3%

- 81.1%

29.4% 49.4% 27.6% 42.7% 49.5%

Non-decency and dwelling age Pre-1919 37.0% 51.1% 1919-1944 30.8% 38.3% 1945-1964 30.9% 35.4% Post 1964 24.8% 20.3%


8 . DECENT HOMES

PAGE 78

8.8 Summary

Survey information was used to calculate a measure of ‘decent homes’ based on published

government guidance. Although the decent homes standard was originally designed for social

sector housing the principle has now been extended to the private sector. In assessing decent

homes four factors are taken into account. These are:

• Unfitness

• Disrepair

• Modern facilities

• Thermal comfort

The results suggested that 31.6% of dwellings failed the standard under one or more of these

headings. This figure compares with a national estimate (for private sector housing) of 32%. Some

of the main findings relating to ‘non-decent’ homes were:

• The main reason for failure was thermal comfort, 80.8% of non-decent homes failed under

this heading. This is also the main reason nationally.

• Over three quarter of ‘non-decent’ homes fail on only one of the four factors.

• Groups with high levels of ‘non-decency’ included: private rented, pre-1919 dwellings,

terraced houses, single pensioner, special needs and Black households.

• The Borough-wide cost of remedying non-decent homes is £116.4m.

9 . HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION

PAGE 79

9. HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION

9.1 Introduction

This chapter looks at the characteristics of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs). The Housing

Act 1985 provides the legal definition of HMO that was subsequently amended by the Local

Government and Housing Act 1989. The legal definition of an HMO is ‘a house which is occupied

by persons who do not form a single household’.

The main reason for interest in HMOs is an additional standard under Section 352 of the 1985 Housing Act.

Box 9.1 HMO standard (1985 Housing Act) Under the provisions of Section 352 of the Housing Act 1985, a house in multiple occupation is not reasonably suitable for the number of occupants, if it fails to meet one or more of the following requirements (having taken into account the numbers of individuals and/or households living on the premises) and as a result of that failure is not reasonably suitable for occupation by those occupants:

• Satisfactory facilities for the storage, preparation and cooking of food, including an adequate number of sinks with a satisfactory supply of hot and cold water

• Adequate number of suitably located WCs for the exclusive use of the occupants • Adequate number of suitably located fixed baths or showers and wash hand basins each of

which is provided with a satisfactory supply of hot and cold water for the exclusive use of the occupants

• Adequate means of escape from fire • Adequate other fire precautions

HMOs have been split into 6 main categories as shown in the table below. The table below

estimates that there were 10,674 buildings acting as HMOs at the time of the survey. The main

category of HMO was converted houses.

The number of HMOs shown in this survey is significantly lower than in the survey carried out in

1996. The difference is largely down to differences in definition with regard to converted flats. This

survey considers the HMO to be the whole building (house) whereas the 1996 survey analysed

converted flats in terms of dwellings (i.e. there might be three flats to one building).


PAGE 80

Table 9.1 Categories of HMO

Category Number of buildings % of HMOs

Bedsits 438 4.1% Shared house 1,670 15.6% Household with lodger 193 1.8% Bed & Breakfast 0 0.0% Registered Home 98 0.9% Converted House 8,275 77.5% TOTAL 10,674 100.0%


9.2 Characteristics of HMOs

The figure below shows some of the main characteristics of HMOs, these figures are also compared

with the overall stock. A large proportion of HMOs were found to be in the private rented sector

(42.5%) – this compares with 20.6% of all dwellings. In general the buildings forming HMOs are

older, with 70.0% dating from before 1919 compared with 27.9% of all dwellings. The majority of

households living in HMOs are non-pensioner adults without children (74.5%), this compares with

57.4% of all households. Additionally, non-special needs and White households appear more likely

to be living in HMOs than other household groups.


PAGE 81

Figure 9.1 Characteristics of HMOs

3.2%15.4%

25.8%4.5%

51.0%

89.4%10.6%

11.7%10.1%

4.0%40.4%

17.0%6.4%

10.4%

22.8%21.6%

3.9%28.6%

16.4%6.8%

17.3%13.9%

20.5%22.4%

25.9%

15.3%6.8%

50.0%27.9%

20.6%14.0%

38.5%26.9%

3.6%15.5%

10.5%4.8%

65.6%

93.2%6.8%

3.2%6.5%

4.3%48.2%

26.3%3.0%

8.5%

80.8%0.5%0.5%

8.4%7.4%

2.5%

29.2%17.1%

36.5%3.1%

14.0%

0.8%2.0%

27.1%70.0%

42.5%18.4%

29.2%9.9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Other

Black

Asian

Mixed

White

No special needs

Special needs

2+ adults, 2+ children

2+ adults, 1 child

Lone parent

2 or more adults, no children

Single non-pensioner


Single pensioner

Converted flat

Purpose-built flat

Detached

Semi detached

Mid terrace

End terrace

Area 5

Area 4

Area 3

Area 2

Area 1

Post-1964

1945-1964

1919-1944

Pre-1919

Private rented

RSL



HMOsAll dwellings/households



PAGE 82

9.3 HMOs and Stock Condition

The table below shows the estimated average repair costs for HMOs and all dwellings in the

Borough. The data shows that for all categories the average cost per building for HMOs is higher

than for all dwellings. The standardised repair cost is also higher than the figure for all dwellings

in the Borough.

Table 9.2 Overall repairs cost comparison (HMOs and all dwellings)

HMOs All dwellings Repairs category

Total cost Average cost per building

Total cost Average cost per dwelling

Urgent repair £29.0m £2,718 £127.8m £1,391 Basic repair £49.2m £4,606 £265.0m £2,884 Comprehensive repair £68.7m £6,438 £386.1m £4,201 Standardised repair cost (/m²) - £37.2 - £32.8


Using the definition of unfitness in S604 of the Housing Act 1985, (which relates to individual units

within HMO buildings and not necessarily the building itself) the survey estimates that 8.2% of all

HMOs are unfit, compared with a Borough average of 5.8%.

9.4 Specific HMO issues

There are a number of issues specific to HMOs which need to be considered, these include means

of escape from fire and the use of amenities. The following tables highlight these issues in relation

to the HMOs found in the survey.

Table 9.3 Means of escape from fire

Means of escape from fire Number of buildings % of buildings

Protected shaft, fire doors with strips and seals 253 2.4% Protected shaft, fire doors 2,524 23.6% Fire doors 2,717 25.5% Fire doors, poor condition 400 3.8% Not present 3,977 37.3% Not required 803 7.5% TOTAL 10,674 100.0%



PAGE 83

Table 9.4 Fire detection systems

Fire detection system Number of buildings % of buildings

Full, working AFD 553 5.2% Full, defective AFD 0 0.0% Mains AFD/smoke detectors 826 7.7% Battery smoke detectors only 2,842 26.6% No AFD or smoke detectors 5,792 54.3% Not required 661 6.2% TOTAL 10,674 100.0%

Source: London Borough of Brent Private Sector Stock Condition Survey 2003 NB AFD – Automatic fire detection system

The main results from the tables above are that 37.3% of HMOs do not have any provision for

escape from fire and 54.3% have no fire or smoke detection systems (with a further 26.6% having

battery smoke detectors only).

The table below shows the availability of amenities in HMOs. Virtually all buildings have use of all

basic amenities, however, there are a noticeable number of dwellings sharing amenities,

particularly where up to 5 lets have to share an amenity.

Table 9.5 HMOs and amenities

Amenity Use

Kitchen Wash hand

basin Bath/shower WCs

Exclusive use all lets 8,288 8,580 8,480 8,480 Exclusive use most lets 192 0 0 0 Shared up to 1:5 1,765 1,903 1,913 2,003 Shared worse than 1:5 327 89 179 89 None 102 102 102 102 TOTAL 10,674 10,674 10,674 10,674



PAGE 84

9.5 HMO fitness standard

Having considered the availability of means of escape from fire, fire detection systems and the

availability of amenities we are able to assess whether any of these buildings are considered to fail

the standards for HMOs as a result of these factors. The table below shows the results of this as

assessed by the surveyors. The results show that 75.2% of HMOs are considered to fail the

standard for HMOs – mostly due to insufficient fire precautions but some additionally due to

amenities.

Table 9.6 Dwellings failing the HMO standard (due to fire and amenities)

Category Number of buildings % of buildings

Does not fail the standard 2,649 24.8% Fails for fire 7,424 69.6% Fails for amenities 112 1.0% Fails for fire and amenities 489 4.6% TOTAL 10,674 100.0%


As stated above, by using the standard unfitness procedure (s604) it was estimated that 8.2% of

units within HMOs were unfit. This translates to a total of 875 HMO buildings). When the

additional dwellings failing the HMO standard (S352) are included this figure increases to 8,234

buildings, which equates to 77.1% of all the HMOs. Therefore an additional 7,359 buildings would

be considered not suitable for human habitation for reasons other than those included as part of

the main fitness assessment. It is estimated that 667 buildings fail on both s604 and s352 standards.

9.6 Management regulations

Finally the table below shows the adequacy of management of HMOs [level of compliance with

The Housing (Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Regulations 1990]. The majority of

HMOs have been categorised in the ‘good’ or ‘adequate’ categories with only 10.6% of buildings

categorised as inadequate or poor. This result may not appear realistic (given the levels of failure

under the HMO standard) – however the management regulations generally relate to the condition

of common parts and not the condition inside individual units (e.g. in the case of converted flats)

nor do the management regulations relate to missing facilities (only the condition of such facilities

where they do exist).


PAGE 85

Table 9.7 HMOs and management regulations

Management regulations Number of buildings % of buildings

Good 2,804 26.3% Adequate 5,000 46.8% Just adequate 1,742 16.3% Inadequate 705 6.6% Poor 424 4.0% TOTAL 10,674 100.0%


9.7 HMOs and the private rented sector

The following three tables concentrate on HMO buildings in the private rented sector. An

estimated 4,538 HMOs were found to be within the private rented sector (42.5% of all HMOs).

The data shows that HMOs in the private rented sector are more likely than other HMOs not to

have a means of escape from fire. Such dwellings were also slightly more likely to be without a fire

detection system. HMO dwellings in the private rented sector however, showed a similar level of

overall unfitness under the HMO standard to other dwellings. The rate of failure under the HMO

standard for both amenities and fire, was more than double the average for all HMOs in the

Borough.

Table 9.8 Means of escape from fire (private rented sector only)

Means of escape from fire Number of buildings % of buildings

Protected shaft, fire doors with strips and seals 76 1.7% Protected shaft, fire doors 882 19.4% Fire doors 1,278 28.2% Fire doors, poor condition 218 4.8% Not present 1,959 43.2% Not required 124 2.7% TOTAL 4,358 100.0%



PAGE 86

Table 9.9 Fire detection systems (private rented sector only)

Fire detection system Number of buildings % of buildings

Full, working AFD 316 7.0% Full, defective AFD 0 0.0% Mains AFD/smoke detectors 355 7.8% Battery smoke detectors only 1,242 27.4% No AFD or smoke detectors 2,529 55.7% Not required 96 2.1% TOTAL 4,538 100.0%

Source: London Borough of Brent Private Sector Stock Condition Survey 2003 NB AFD – Automatic fire detection system

Table 9.10 Dwellings failing the HMO standard (due to fire and amenities) – private rented sector only

Category Number of buildings % of buildings

Does not fail the standard 1,120 24.7% Fails for fire 2,984 65.8% Fails for amenities 0 0.0% Fails for fire and amenities 434 9.6% TOTAL 4,538 100.0%



PAGE 87

9.8 Summary

In the survey particular attention is given to HMOs due to an additional standard applied to such

buildings (relating to fire safety and amenities in common parts and covered in Section 352 of the

1985 Housing Act). In total it was estimated that there were 10,674 buildings acting as HMOs at the

time of the survey. The following are some of the main characteristics of HMOs:

• A large proportion of HMOs were found to be in the private rented sector (42.5%) – this

compares with 20.6% of all dwellings.

• In general the buildings forming HMOs are older, with 70.0% dating from before 1919

compared with 27.9% of all dwellings.

• Non-pensioner households without children, non-special needs households and White

households are particularly likely to live in HMOs.

Generally HMO buildings had higher repair costs than other dwellings. Levels of unfitness (under

s604) for individual units making up larger HMO buildings were also slightly higher than for the

Borough as a whole. In terms of failure under the HMO standard, the survey estimates that 75.2%

of the HMO buildings are not suitable for human habitation.


PAGE 88

10 . HOUSING HEALTH AND SAFETY RATING SYSTEM

PAGE 89

10. HOUSING HEALTH AND SAFETY RATING SYSTEM

10.1 Introduction

The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a means of identifying faults in

dwellings and of evaluating the potential effect of any faults on the health and safety of occupants,

visitors, neighbours and passers-by.

The system grades the severity of any dangers present in the dwelling. It also provides a means of

differentiating between dwellings that pose a low risk to health and safety and those which pose a

higher risk such as an imminent threat of serious injury or death. The system concentrates on

threats to health and safety and is not concerned with matters of quality, comfort and convenience.

As part of a stock condition survey the system can assist in identifying dangerous housing

conditions that could be given priority and indicate specific areas to be targeted. For individual

dwellings, the system can help determine matters that require remedial action and the priority

with which those matters should be tackled.

The form of construction, type and age of dwelling will not affect the identification and evaluation

of hazards. These matters will however be relevant to the nature of remedial action.

This chapter does not seek to go into any detail about the rationale behind the HHSRS but merely

concentrates on the results of the analysis, how hazards vary across different groups and how

sensitive the rating system is to different assumptions about what is an acceptable hazard.

Additionally, this survey only studies 10 of the 32 potential hazards to be assessed under the

system. The 10 hazards chosen were thought by the Council to be the most appropriate in the local

situation. Nationally the 10 most important hazards (most of which are covered here) account for

over 90% of all occurrences of hazardous dwellings.


PAGE 90

10.2 The system

The hazard scoring procedure is discussed in detail in Appendix A4. This section briefly sets out

the components of calculations and how they are used.

A hazard score is a numerical figure calculated for each hazard identified at a dwelling. The higher

the score the greater the hazard (ODPM guidance then suggests taking the highest score for each

dwelling to indicate the most serious hazard for that particular dwelling).

The hazard score is generated by looking at three factors:

1. The likelihood expressed as a ratio – in effect this is a 1 in x chance of any particular

hazard occurring in a one year period.

2. A weighting given to each class of harm – there are four classes used in the calculation

(Extreme, Severe, Serious and Moderate) in the case of falls these might represent a range

from death to substantial bruising.

3. A spread of health outcomes indicated as a percentage – this would mean that if the

hazard occurs what are the chances of it being in each of the classes of harm (e.g. in the

case of falls this might be no (or negligible) chance of death and 60% chance of substantial

bruising).

Once each dwelling has been assessed for each potential hazard the data is banded to provide

more useful data. The bands suggested in ODPM guidance are shown in the Box below.

Box 10.1 Hazard scores equivalent risk of death and suggested response Band Score Equivalent annual risk of death Response A B C

5,000 or more 2,000 – 4,999 1,000 – 1,999

1 in 200 or more 1 in 200 – 1 in 500 1 in 500 – 1 in 1,000

Mandatory

D E F G H I

500 – 999 200 – 499 100 – 199 50 – 99 20 – 49 10 – 19

1 in 1,000 – 1 in 2,000 1 in 2,000 – 1 in 5,000 1 in 5,000 – 1 in 10,000 1 in 10,000 – 1 in 20,000 1 in 20,000 – 1 in 50,000 1 in 50,000 – 1 in 100,000

Discretionary

J Less than 10 Less than 1 in 100,000 Ideal

Our main analysis therefore concentrates on dwellings with any hazard in bands A to C and also

bands D to I, we also conduct an analysis looking at how figures differ by changing the threshold

of a mandatory response from ‘A to C’ to ‘A to D’.


PAGE 91

10.3 Individual hazards

Each of the individual hazards has been grouped into three categories shown in the box above as

to the type of response suggested by the results of the surveyors assessment (Mandatory,

Discretionary and Ideal). The table below shows the numbers of dwellings falling into each of

these groups for each type of hazard.

Table 10.1 Type of hazard and suggested response

Mandatory Discretionary Ideal Total Hazard

Number % Number % Number % Number % Falls on the level 1,129 1.2% 8,542 9.3% 82,229 89.5% 91,900 100.0% Falls on stairs 1,114 1.2% 3,002 3.3% 87,784 95.5% 91,900 100.0% Falls between levels 748 0.8% 1,033 1.1% 90,119 98.1% 91,900 100.0% Carbon monoxide 0 0.0% 590 0.6% 91,310 99.4% 91,900 100.0% Fire 2,770 3.0% 12,930 14.1% 76,201 82.9% 91,900 100.0% Hot surfaces and materials 0 0.0% 1,415 1.5% 90,485 98.5% 91,900 100.0% Damp & mould 108 0.1% 3,809 4.1% 87,983 95.7% 91,900 100.0% Electrical hazards 0 0.0% 2,467 2.7% 89,433 97.3% 91,900 100.0% Excessive cold 600 0.7% 168 0.2% 91,132 99.2% 91,900 100.0% Structural failure 0 0.0% 320 0.3% 91,580 99.7% 91,900 100.0%


The table shows that the three hazards most likely to lead to a mandatory response from the

Council are fire, falls on the level and falls on stairs.

10.4 Grouped hazard scores

We can use the data in the above table to estimate the number of dwellings which fall into the

mandatory group on any hazard, those which fall into the discretionary groups on any hazard

(excluding those in the mandatory group) and finally dwellings with no hazards (ideal). The table

below shows the results of this analysis.


PAGE 92

Table 10.2 Grouped hazard scores

Category of worst hazard Number of dwellings % of dwellings

Mandatory 5,834 6.3% Discretionary 24,876 27.1% Ideal 61,190 66.6% TOTAL 91,900 100.0%


The table shows that a total of 6.3% of dwellings have at least one hazard described as requiring a

mandatory response, a further 27.1% of dwellings have discretionary hazards leaving 66.6% with

no recorded hazards – the dwellings therefore being described as ‘ideal’.

The figure below shows the mandatory and discretionary hazards by dwelling and household

characteristics.

Private rented dwellings are most likely to be in the mandatory or discretionary category. Older

(pre-1919) dwellings also tend to be more likely than average to be in either of the hazard

categories. By sub-area, Area 4 shows the highest proportion in the mandatory group, whilst Area

3 has the highest proportion in the discretionary group. Converted flats also have the highest

proportion of dwellings in both categories (excluding the small detached houses group).

Single pensioner households were more likely than average to be in either the mandatory or

discretionary categories. The survey did not show any noticeable trends in relation to special needs

or ethnic group (particularly when looking at the mandatory category).


PAGE 93

Figure 10.1 Characteristics of dwellings/households with hazards

19.8%29.2%

23.4%25.9%

29.2%

26.9%30.3%

23.4%28.5%

16.8%30.8%

26.0%19.8%

27.3%

56.5%20.5%

17.8%19.0%

13.5%21.3%

36.1%27.8%

38.1%18.9%18.9%

11.9%20.7%

24.3%41.9%

40.5%30.9%

24.9%17.9%

5.0%6.6%

4.6%6.4%6.5%

6.0%5.6%

6.4%4.8%

7.7%4.8%

8.2%5.4%

7.3%

12.3%3.3%

17.1%4.3%4.0%4.6%

6.5%8.8%

6.0%7.0%

4.6%

5.0%1.6%

5.1%10.4%

8.7%6.8%

5.5%5.5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Other

Black

Asian

Mixed

White

No special needs

Special needs


2+ adults 1 child

Lone parent




Single pensioners

Converted flat

Purpose-built flat

Detached

Semi-detached

Mid terrace

End terrace

Area 5

Area 4

Area 3

Area 2

Area 1

Post-1964

1945-1964

1919-1944

Pre-1919

Private rented

RSL



% with hazard

MandatoryDiscretionary



PAGE 94

10.5 Comparison with unfitness

Cross-tabulating the hazard ratings with unfitness and defective dwellings is shown in the table

below. The table shows that there is some link between hazards and unfitness (and defective

dwellings) but these links are far from clear. Of all dwellings in the mandatory category some

23.6% are also considered to be unfit, this compares with 10.0% in the discretionary group and

2.3% in the ideal group. Of unfit dwellings, 72.9% are in either the mandatory or discretionary

group, this compares with 64.9% of dwellings in defective dwellings and 27.3% of dwellings

described as in good condition. Of all dwellings in the mandatory hazard group some 59.5% are

actually described as being in good condition.

Table 10.3 Unfit & defective dwellings, and hazard ratings

Unfit and defective dwellings Hazard rating

Unfit Defective Good condition TOTAL Mandatory 1,374 988 3,472 5,834 Discretionary 2,484 4,538 17,854 24,876 Ideal 1,434 2,987 56,768 61,190 TOTAL 5,292 8,513 78,094 91,900


10.6 Summary

The Housing Health and Safety Rating System is an alternative method for looking at the

condition of dwellings in an area taking into account the potential hazards of a dwelling in relation

to any persons using it rather than a study of the fabric condition of the home.

It is estimated that around 6.3% of dwellings require a mandatory response, which is slightly

above the estimated level of unfitness in the Borough of 5.8%. Below are some characteristics of

‘hazardous’ homes:

• The main hazards in Brent relate to fire, falls on the level and falls on stairs.

• Private rented and pre-1919 dwellings appear particularly likely to be ‘hazardous’.

• There is some link between unfitness and the hazard rating although a significant number

of dwellings fail on only one of the two measures.

11 . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

PAGE 95

11. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

11.1 Introduction

The quality of the local environment can be assessed on two main dimensions: its overall

impression, and the nature and severity of specific environmental problems. These aspects are to

some extent related but a good overall impression does not necessarily imply an absence of

specific problems, and a poor overall impression is not necessarily a function of specific problems.

This chapter looks firstly at the overall visual quality of the immediate environment around a

dwelling (scored on a scale from 1 (best) to 7 (worst)) and then specific environmental problems

(score on a scale from 1 (no problem) to 5 (major problem)).

11.2 Overall impression

The overall impression of the environment was measured in the survey on a 7-point scale, from

best through to worst based on the surveyor’s impressions of the area. The figure below shows

that the great majority of dwellings (93.7%) are considered to be within the 3 middle bands, which

might be considered to be ‘average’ environments. Around 0.3% were thought to be in the ‘best’

band and 0.1% in the ‘worst’ band.


PAGE 96

Figure 11.1 Overall impression of the environment

0.3%3.8%

33.3%

52.6%

7.8%

2.1% 0.1%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 (Best) 2 3 4(Average)

5 6 7 (Worst)

Impression score

Perc

enta

ge o

f occ

uran

ce


This scale was used to divide dwellings into good (scores 1,2 & 3), average (scores 4) and poor

(scores 5,6 & 7) environments for further analysis. In total it was estimated that 37.4% of dwellings

were in a ‘good’ environment with 9.9% in environments described as ‘poor’.

The figure below shows dwelling and household characteristics along with the overall impression

of the environment. The figure shows that RSL and private rented dwellings are particularly likely

to be in areas described as poor as are dwellings in the Area 3 and purpose-built flats. Household

characteristics show lone parents and Black households are more likely than other households to be

living in poor environments.


PAGE 97

Figure 11.2 Characteristics of dwellings/households with overall impression of the environment

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

Black

Asian

Mixed

White

No special needs

Special needs


2+ adults 1 child

Lone parent




Single pensioners

Converted flat

Purpose-built flat

Detached

Semi-detached

Mid terrace

End terrace

Area 5

Area 4

Area 3

Area 2

Area 1

Post-1964

1945-1964

1919-1944

Pre-1919

Private rented

RSL



Good Average Poor



PAGE 98

11.3 Environmental problems

Dwellings can suffer from a wide range of problems in the local environment. The survey looked

at 15 different problems and surveyors were asked to assess whether the problem was of major or

minor significance (on a scale of 1 to 5). The table below shows the results for all dwellings for each

of the 15 problems considered. Surveyors also had the opportunity to code ‘not applicable’, these

have been included as part of the ‘no problem’ categories.

Overall the main individual problems appear to be relating to adequacy of street parking and condition of paving. At the other end of the scale the least problematic environmental issue appears

to relate to vacant sites and children’s play areas.

Table 11.1 Environmental problems

Scale of problem Potential problem 1 (no

problem) 2 (minor problem)

3 4 5 (major problem)

TOTAL

Vacant sites 96.7% 2.1% 0.8% 0.5% 0.0% 100.0% Industrial pollutants 95.5% 3.5% 0.7% 0.2% 0.0% 100.0% Non-conforming uses 94.1% 4.2% 1.6% 0.1% 0.0% 100.0% Condition of shops/businesses 85.9% 10.3% 3.2% 0.5% 0.1% 100.0% Nuisance from street parking 56.1% 29.1% 10.9% 3.5% 0.5% 100.0% Adequacy of street parking 47.9% 27.7% 16.5% 7.0% 0.9% 100.0% Condition of road surface 53.8% 35.2% 8.3% 2.2% 0.5% 100.0% Condition of paving 33.1% 51.6% 12.6% 2.2% 0.5% 100.0% Adequacy of street lighting 87.5% 9.0% 3.2% 0.2% 0.2% 100.0% Condition of street furniture 89.0% 9.4% 1.4% 0.1% 0.0% 100.0% Grass planting/landscaping 77.1% 17.1% 4.6% 0.9% 0.3% 100.0% Litter/rubbish/dumping 55.1% 34.3% 7.9% 2.0% 0.7% 100.0% Scruffy gardens 58.9% 32.3% 7.9% 0.8% 0.1% 100.0% Condition of garages 90.6% 7.5% 1.4% 0.5% 0.0% 100.0% Children’s play areas 95.7% 4.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%


These fifteen problems have then been re-coded into one single variable for further analysis. This

variable was classified as a major problem if any one of its components was deemed by the

surveyor to be of major significance (codes 4 & 5 on the scale). It was classified as a minor problem

if one or more of its component parts was identified by the surveyor to be of minor significance

(codes 2 & 3 on the scale).


PAGE 99

This analysis shows that of all dwellings, 7.1% are described as being in an environment with no

problems, 77.2% in an environment with minor problems and 15.7% in an environment with major

problems.

The figure below shows dwelling/household characteristics and environmental problems. The

results show that private rented dwellings are least likely to be in areas with no problems.

Additionally, post-1964 dwellings are most likely to be in areas with no problems.

In terms of sub-areas, the results suggest that dwellings in Area 1 are most likely to be in

environments with major problems, whilst dwellings in Area 3 are least likely to have no problems.

In terms of dwelling types, the results suggest that terraced houses are most likely to be in areas

with major problems and detached houses are most likely to be in areas with no problems.

Household characteristics suggest some differences between groups. The most noticeable is that

households containing two or more adults and two or more children and special needs households

are most likely to be living in environments with major problems. Households with a Mixed ethnic

origin are least likely to live in environments with major problems.


PAGE 100

Figure 11.3 Characteristics of dwellings/households and environmental problems

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

Black

Asian

Mixed

White

No special needs

Special needs


2+ adults 1 child

Lone parent




Single pensioners

Converted flat

Purpose-built flat

Detached

Semi-detached

Mid terrace

End terrace

Area 5

Area 4

Area 3

Area 2

Area 1

Post-1964

1945-1964

1919-1944

Pre-1919

Private rented

RSL



No problems Minor problems Major problems



PAGE 101

11.4 Summary

The environmental assessment took two dimensions: an overall impression and a study of

individual environmental problems.

The overall impression showed that the majority (93.7%) of dwellings were classified by surveyors

as being in ‘average’ environments with 0.3% assessed as being in the ‘best’ environment and 0.1%

in the ‘worst’ environment. RSL and private rented dwellings were particularly likely to be

assessed as in a poor environment.

Individual environmental problems suggested the main problems are with adequacy of street parking and condition of paving. Private rented dwellings are most likely to be in areas with major problems

as are dwellings in Area 1.


PAGE 102

12 . GRANT IMPLICATIONS

PAGE 103

12. GRANT IMPLICATIONS

12.1 Introduction

This chapter examines the ability of various household groups to afford the improvements

required. Clearly in the private sector the local authority’s role in this is advisory, since it can only

intervene directly via the grants mechanism. However the local authority role as enabler has

become more rather than less important as the overall level of grant funding has fallen.

It is more important now for the local authority to consider ways in which various groups (owners

and landlords particularly), can be encouraged to fund the necessary improvements. This is the

trend of H.I.P. Guidance as well as the logic of the declining ability of the public sector to assist

with repairs.

The chapter begins by looking at owner-occupiers ability to afford repairs and improvements to

energy efficiency based on current income levels. This is followed by a similar analysis taking into

account the possibility of using equity release schemes to fund repairs/improvements and finally a

summary of the costs in the rented sectors. The final section includes figures for vacant owner-

occupied dwellings.

Where energy efficiency is studied in this chapter it relates to the costs of improving/providing

insulation and central heating (it will be remembered that this increases the mean SAP of all

dwellings to 62 and with a relatively short payback period (of 11.6 years)).

12.2 Owner-occupiers’ ability to fund

It will be recalled that owner-occupiers show some of the highest levels of unfitness in Brent (in

terms of overall numbers). In addition owner-occupiers make up a large proportion of the total

costs for repairs/energy efficiency improvements. For these reasons, it is important to analyse the

ability of owner-occupiers to carry out the necessary works.


PAGE 104

For repairs/improvements required in the owner-occupied sector the survey makes assumptions

about the ability to afford based on income levels. The assumptions are shown in the table below.

The means test applied here is quite simplistic, but nonetheless reasonable. Households with less

than £12,500 of household income are unlikely to be able to afford any significant amount of

repairs, and those in the intermediate band of income may in many cases not be able to do so.

Table 12.1 Assumptions used in assessing a households ability to fund repairs/ improvements (owner-occupiers only)

Income band Proportion of repairs/improvements to be made

by household Under £12,500 Zero £12,500 to £25,000 Half Over £25,000 All


NB The income band is based on annual gross earned income (excluding all benefits)

The table below shows the number of households in each of these broad income bands for both

those in unfit housing and also all households. It can be seen from the table that surprisingly there

is little difference between the broad income distribution of those in unfit housing compared with

all households. It does appear however that households in unfit housing tend to be less likely to be

in the highest income bracket, implying that they will be less likely to fund all of the necessary

repairs/improvements to their dwellings.

Table 12.2 Broad income levels of owner-occupiers

Unfit All households Income band Number of

households % of households

Number of households

% of households

Under £12,500 606 29.9% 19,348 32.8% £12,500 to £25,000 659 32.5% 14,126 23.9% Over £25,000 760 37.5% 25,506 43.2% TOTAL 2,025 100.0% 58,980 100.0%


The table below shows a summary of costs for owner-occupiers. This is then offset against the

implied abilities to afford improvements based on households’ income levels. The table is split

between those in unfit housing and all households.


PAGE 105

Table 12.3 Summary of costs in owner-occupied housing

Cost per dwelling Total cost Implied grant

demand

UNFIT OWNER-OCCUPIED DWELLINGS – total number of dwellings – 2,025

Make fit only £3,426 £6.9m £3.2m All urgent repairs £5,171 £10.5m £5.8m All repairs within 5 years £8,011 £16.2m £8.5m All repairs within 10 years £9,884 £20.0m £10.0m Energy efficiency improvements £980 £2.0m £1.2m MAXIMUM TOTAL £10,864 £22.0m £11.2m

ALL OWNER-OCCUPIED DWELLINGS – total number of dwellings – 58,980

All urgent repairs £1,088 £64.2m £35.0m All repairs within 5 years £2,688 £158.6m £77.5m All repairs within 10 years £3,998 £235.8m £109.8m Energy efficiency improvements £771 £45.5m £22.5m MAXIMUM TOTAL £4,769 £281.3m £132.3m


The table shows for example that the average cost to make unfit owner-occupied dwellings fit is

£3,426 per dwelling – given a total number of unfit owner-occupied dwellings of 2,025 this makes

for a total of £6.9m needing to be spent to make these dwellings fit for human habitation. Given the

income levels of these households it is then further estimated that there would be a grant demand

of £3.2m. Including all repairs required over the next 10 years along with suggested energy

improvements the total cost figure rises to £22.0m with a potential grant demand of £11.2m.

Turning to all households it can be seen that the maximum total cost for all repairs/improvements

comes to £281.3m, again using estimates of owners ability to afford this figure is reduced to a

potential grant demand of £132.3m.


PAGE 106

12.3 Equity release schemes

Against this background though: the owner-occupiers involved here will in most cases have some

equity, there may be means of releasing some of the equity to repair the dwellings. This is likely to

be a more realistic focus of Council attention than trying to increase the grant availability by the

necessary sum.

The Brent survey asked all owner-occupiers the following question:

“If you sold your home now, how much money do you estimate you would get, after paying off any remaining mortgages and other associated debts?”

Using information collected from this question it is possible to make some broad estimates about

the scope for equity release schemes to help fund repairs to owner-occupiers dwellings.

Releasing equity is seen as a way of using the debt free equity value of owner-occupied homes to

provide repairs and improvements at nil or minimal public cost. Schemes are primarily aimed at

older person households who may be equity rich but cash poor, however, for analysis purposes

there is no reason why this should not be extended to all owner-occupied dwellings in the

Borough.

In terms of equity release itself a limit of 30% of a current dwelling value has been assumed (this is

consistent with information available from the Home Improvement Trust). It is then assumed that

the amount available to borrow could be used to directly offset any repairs/improvements

required. The table below shows an estimate of the impact of equity release schemes for owner-

occupiers. Again it is assumed that households with over £25,000 income would be able to fund

any repairs and those with an income of £12,500 to £25,000 would fund half of all repairs.

It should be noted that this analysis considers the possibility of using equity release schemes; it

does not study the willingness of owner-occupiers to use this form of finance to carry out

repairs/improvements required. In other surveys where we have asked households about their

willingness to use equity release schemes we find that up to half of owners may be willing to

release equity. Unfortunately, we have additionally found that elderly owner-occupiers (the

typical target group for such schemes) are less likely than other owners to be interested in equity

release.

Finally, the analysis does not take account of the additional mortgage/loan payments that would

arise from releasing equity on a property. In many cases this will be an additional barrier to access

to such schemes.


PAGE 107

Table 12.4 Summary of costs in owner-occupied housing – including the maximum use of equity release schemes

Cost per dwelling Total cost Implied grant

demand

UNFIT HOUSING – total number of dwellings – 2,025

Make fit only £3,426 £6.9m £0.0m All urgent repairs £5,171 £10.5m £0.0m All repairs within 5 years £8,011 £16.2m £0.0m All repairs within 10 years £9,884 £20.0m £0.3m Energy efficiency improvements £980 £2.0m £0.0m MAXIMUM TOTAL £10,864 £22.0m £0.4m

ALL OWNER-OCCUPIED DWELLINGS – total number of dwellings – 58,980

All urgent repairs £1,088 £64.2m £0.0m All repairs within 5 years £2,688 £158.6m £0.1m All repairs within 10 years £3,998 £235.8m £1.2m Energy efficiency improvements £771 £45.5m £0.0m MAXIMUM TOTAL £4,769 £281.3m £1.4m


The table above shows a total of £281.3m of repairs/improvements required by owner-occupiers

over the next ten years (including energy efficiency costs). Looking only at households income

would suggest a requirement for public sector grant to cover £132.3m of this (or 47.0% of the cost).

The impact of equity release for owner-occupiers could be very significant. Potentially over the

next ten years it could reduce the public sector grant requirement from £132.3m to just £1.4m.

However it must again be stressed that this would depend on households eligibility, their

willingness to participate and their ability to pay the additional mortgage/loan costs incurred.

That said, it is still clear that equity release schemes could have a significant impact on reducing

grant requirements in Brent.

12.4 The rented and vacant stock

In the case of social and private rented dwellings, it is the financial ability of the landlord that

matters rather than the income of the tenant. The table below shows the full range of costs again

split between unfit and all dwellings. Vacant (owner-occupied) dwellings are included in the table

below for reasons of completeness.


PAGE 108

Table 12.5 Summary of costs in rented and vacant housing

Tenure RSL Private rented Vacant (owner-

occupied)

Cost per dwelling

Total cost

Cost per dwelling

Total cost

Cost per dwelling

Total cost

UNFIT RENTED AND VACANT DWELLINGS

Number of dwellings 415 1,789 1,062 Make fit only £2,248 £0.9m £2,967 £5.3m £17,297 £18.4m All urgent repairs £4,042 £1.7m £5,052 £9.0m £19,764 £21.0m All repairs within 5 years £4,771 £2.0m £8,057 £14.4m £22,977 £24.4m All repairs within 10 years £4,940 £2.1m £9,433 £16.9m £25,630 £27.2m Energy efficiency improvements £1,695 £0.7m £1,676 £3.0m £2,161 £2.3m MAXIMUM TOTAL £6,635 £2.8m £11,108 £19.9m £27,791 £29.5m

ALL RENTED AND VACANT DWELLINGS

Number of dwellings 12,860 18,939 1,121 All urgent repairs £1,036 £13.3m £1,540 £29.2m £18,901 £21.2m All repairs within 5 years £1,776 £22.8m £3,116 £59.0m £21,987 £24.6m All repairs within 10 years £2,356 £30.3m £4,876 £92.4m £24,661 £27.6m Energy efficiency improvements £1,414 £18.2m £1,002 £19.0m £2,075 £2.3m MAXIMUM TOTAL £3,770 £48.5m £5,878 £111.3m £26,736 £30.0m


The table shows that the maximum total cost for the RSLs is £48.5 million (over the next ten years).

This contrasts with the private rented sector where the ten year bill is £111.3 million.

On the face of it, therefore, the private landlords face a serious bill for the necessary repairs costs.

We have no direct information as to the ability or willingness of private landlords to fund the

improvements which have been identified through the survey. To establish this convincingly

would itself require a substantial survey.

However it may well be possible, through organisations of landlords, for the Council to contact

them and alert them to the need for some action now to prevent more serious costs arising in

future.


PAGE 109

12.5 Summary

This chapter looked at the total costs of repairs and energy efficiency improvements required. The

analysis was separated by tenure and took account of owner-occupiers income and equity levels.

Some of the main finding were:

• To carry out all urgent repairs required to unfit owner-occupied dwellings (currently

occupied) would cost an estimated £10.5m.

• Households’ income levels could reduce this figure to a potential grant demand of £5.8m

whilst including the scope for equity release would further reduce this figure substantially.

• To carry out all urgent repairs required to owner-occupied dwellings (currently occupied)

would cost an estimated £64.2m. Again, this figure could be reduced dramatically when

taking into account households income and equity levels.

• In the private rented sector the total bill for carrying out all urgent repairs comes to £29.2m.

The equivalent figure for RSL dwellings is £13.3m.


PAGE 110

GLOSSARY

PAGE 111

GLOSSARY Age/construction date of dwelling

The age of the dwelling refers to the date of construction of the oldest part of the building. Average

The term ‘average’ when used in this report is taken to be a mean value unless otherwise stated.

Basic amenities

• kitchen sink

• bath or shower in a bathroom

• a wash hand basin

• hot and cold water to the above

• inside WC

Central heating system

A heating system with a distribution system sufficient to provide heat in at least one room in

addition to the room or space containing the boiler. In this report, the definition also includes

electric storage heaters which run on off-peak electricity and programmable gas convector heaters. Comprehensive repair

This includes all repairs as specified above together with any replacements the surveyor assessed

as falling due over the next 10 years. For all exterior elements, whether work was specified or not,

they recorded the replacement period of that element - the number of years before it would need

replacing. This measure provides a better basis for identifying work which would form part of a

planned programme of repair by landlords. Cost to make fit

The costs of undertaking all 'urgent' basic repair work, plus any additional costs to rectify the

problems of unfitness. These are the 'required expenditure' costs to make 'just fit' and not to secure

the dwelling in the long term. The economics of undertaking the work varies between tenures for

the same jobs.

GLOSSARY

PAGE 112

Double glazing

Factory made sealed window units. Does not include windows with secondary glazing or external

doors with double or secondary glazing (other than double glazed patio doors which count as 2

windows).

Dwelling

A dwelling is a self contained unit of accommodation where all rooms and facilities available for

the use of the occupants are behind a front door. For the most part a dwelling will contain one

household, but may contain none (vacant dwelling), or may contain more than one (HMO). Fixed heating

Heating which is permanently stationed in a room whether it is fixed in place or not. It has a

designated space in which it remains and is connected via a gas point, fused spur, dedicatable 13

amp power socket or is run from a centrally-located boiler or heat exchanger, either dedicated to

the dwelling or as part of a district or common heating system. It also includes open fireplaces

which are capable of use with minimum effort (not permanently blocked) and 'Aga' type cookers

or ranges which also emit heat into the room. Floorspace

The useable internal floor area of the dwelling as measured by the surveyor. The area under

partition walls has been excluded, as has that for integral garages and stores accessed from the

outside only.

Household

One person living alone or a group of people who have the address as their only or main residence

and who either share one meal a day or share a living room.

Houses in multiple occupation (HMO)

An HMO is a dwelling-house which is occupied by more than one household. There are, for the

purposes of this survey 6 categories of HMO:

1. Bedsits

2. Shared house

3. Households with lodger

4. Bed & Breakfast 5. Registered Home 6. Converted House

GLOSSARY

PAGE 113

Modern bathroom

A bathroom which was installed less than 30 years ago.

Modern kitchen

A kitchen which was installed less than 20 years ago. Repairs and replacements

These are all urgent repairs plus all other repairs/replacements to external elements where the

surveyor indicated a fault, but where the work was not specified as urgent. This is taken to be all

work required in the next five years.

SAP rating

The energy rating as determined by the Government’s Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP). This

is an index of the notional annual cost of heating a dwelling to achieve a standard heating regime

and normally runs from 1 (highly inefficient) to 120 (highly efficient). Standardised costs

These are costs in £ per square metre (£/sqm). It is assumed that all work is undertaken by

contractors on a block contract basis. For flats, the size of the contract is assumed to be the whole

block and for houses it is taken as a group of 5 dwellings. As such, the costs are more closely

associated with those which may be incurred by a landlord organising the work on a planned

programme basis. By reducing costs to a £/sqm basis the effect of the size of buildings on the

amount of disrepair recorded is omitted, otherwise the extent of the disrepair measured is

substantially determined by the size of the building. The common price base and contract type

eliminate other price variations. These costs should not be used as an indication of the expenditure

required to remedy the defects.

Unfit housing

A dwelling house is unfit for human habitation if in the opinion of the local authority it fails to

meet one or more of the requirements of the fitness standard as laid down in Section 604 of the

1985 Housing Act as amended by 1989 Local Government and Housing Act and by reason of that

failure is not reasonably suitable for occupation.

Urgent repairs

These are any works specified to deal with an external fault where its treatment was specified as

urgent, plus all recorded work to internal elements.

GLOSSARY

PAGE 114

Vacant dwellings

The assessment of whether or not a dwelling was vacant was made at the time of the interviewer's

visit. Clarification of vacancy was sought from neighbours. Surveyors were required where

possible to gain access to vacant dwellings and undertake full inspections.

APPENDIX A1 DATA TABLES

PAGE 115


A1.1 Introduction

This appendix provides further detailed information from the stock condition survey. The tables

below cross-tabulate some of the main variables used in the report. These are:

• Tenure

• Dwelling age

• Sub-area

• Dwelling type

• Household type

• Special needs

• Ethnic group

To this list has been added the size of dwelling. This has been measured using the average number

of habitable rooms and also the average (mean) floorspace of dwellings.

In addition, this appendix looks briefly at stock condition variables and overcrowding and under-

occupation. The housing needs survey provides more details about the measurement of

overcrowding and under-occupation.

A1.2 Data tables

The following tables show general characteristics of dwellings and households in the private sector

housing stock in Brent.


PAGE 116

Table A1.1 Summary of dwelling/household characteristics and tenure Tenure Dwelling characteristic



RSL Private rented Total

Age of dwelling Pre-1919 5,551 9,014 3,972 7,109 25,645 1919-1944 16,326 19,720 1,991 7,875 45,912 1944-1964 1,378 2,519 1,184 1,161 6,241 Post-1964 1,452 4,141 5,713 2,795 14,101 TOTAL 24,707 35,393 12,860 18,939 91,900 Sub-area Area 1 7,740 10,404 846 4,781 23,772 Area 2 7,266 8,570 1,429 3,327 20,591 Area 3 3,381 6,037 5,710 3,752 18,880 Area 4 2,990 4,450 1,771 3,575 12,785 Area 5 3,330 5,933 3,104 3,505 15,872 TOTAL 24,707 35,393 12,860 18,939 91,900 Type of dwelling Mid terrace 2,561 2,250 565 839 6,215 End terrace 6,263 5,026 1,770 2,027 15,086 Semi-detached 10,122 13,082 268 2,783 26,255 Detached 1,406 1,621 48 485 3,561 Purpose-built flats 2,382 6,585 5,820 5,064 19,851 Converted flat 1,974 6,829 4,388 7,741 20,932 TOTAL 24,707 35,393 12,860 18,939 91,900 Household type Single pensioners 5,762 404 2,262 935 9,363 2 or more pensioners 4,722 484 436 107 5,749 Single non-pensioners 2,698 7,417 2,308 2,840 15,263 2+ adults, no children 9,373 12,995 3,319 10,502 36,189 Lone parent 0 1,421 1,650 504 3,576 2+ adults, 1 child 953 5,124 1,255 1,705 9,037 2+ adults, 2+ children 922 6,706 1,470 1,407 10,504 TOTAL 24,430 34,550 12,700 18,000 89,680 Special needs Special needs 4,601 2,593 1,226 1,085 9,504 No special needs 19,829 31,957 11,474 16,915 80,176 TOTAL 24,430 34,550 12,700 18,000 89,680 Ethnicity of Head of household White 14,368 15,757 4,817 10,830 45,771 Mixed 906 1,442 1,278 407 4,034 Asian 6,576 11,794 1,483 3,317 23,169 Black 2,580 4,053 4,968 2,241 13,842 Other 0 1,504 154 1,205 2,863 TOTAL 24,430 34,550 12,700 18,000 89,680 Size of dwelling Av no. of rooms 4.7 4.3 3.4 3.6 4.1 Av floor space (m2) 102 97 66 80 90



PAGE 117

Table A1.2 Summary of dwelling/household characteristics and age of dwelling Age of dwelling Dwelling characteristic

Pre-1919 1919-1944 1944-1964 Post-1964 Total

Tenure Owner-occupied (nm) 5,551 16,326 1,378 1,452 24,707 Owner-occupied (wm) 9,014 19,720 2,519 4,141 35,393 RSL 3,972 1,991 1,184 5,713 12,860 Private rented 7,109 7,875 1,161 2,795 18,939 TOTAL 25,645 45,912 6,241 14,101 91,900 Sub-area Area 1 1,505 16,359 1,617 4,291 23,772 Area 2 466 15,862 1,758 2,505 20,591 Area 3 10,388 3,620 1,613 3,259 18,880 Area 4 3,668 6,587 639 1,892 12,785 Area 5 9,619 3,485 613 2,155 15,872 TOTAL 25,645 45,912 6,241 14,101 91,900 Type of dwelling Mid terrace 1,422 3,591 607 595 6,215 End terrace 5,811 6,918 269 2,087 15,086 Semi-detached 1,439 23,177 1,357 282 26,255 Detached 492 2,360 448 260 3,561 Purpose-built flats 744 4,902 3,392 10,814 19,851 Converted flat 15,738 4,963 168 63 20,932 TOTAL 25,645 45,912 6,241 14,101 91,900 Household type Single pensioners 2,611 4,000 767 1,984 9,363 2 or more pensioners 1,316 3,910 294 229 5,749 Single non-pensioners 5,632 5,418 1,331 2,882 15,263 2+ adults, no children 10,285 18,611 2,044 5,249 36,189 Lone parent 333 1,997 131 1,114 3,576 2+ adults, 1 child 2,559 4,527 691 1,260 9,037 2+ adults, 2+ children 2,017 6,524 695 1,268 10,504 TOTAL 24,753 44,988 5,953 13,986 89,680 Special needs Special needs 1,700 5,620 760 1,425 9,504 No special needs 23,053 39,368 5,194 12,561 80,176 TOTAL 24,753 44,988 5,953 13,986 89,680 Ethnicity of Head of household White 16,715 19,382 3,256 6,419 45,771 Mixed 1,266 1,267 619 882 4,034 Asian 2,584 16,682 1,232 2,672 23,169 Black 3,412 6,135 801 3,493 13,842 Other 776 1,522 45 520 2,863 TOTAL 24,753 44,988 5,953 13,986 89,680 Size of dwelling Av no. of rooms 4.1 4.5 3.5 3.2 4.1 Av floor space (m2) 93 98 74 67 90



PAGE 118

Table A1.3 Summary of dwelling/household characteristics and sub-area Sub-area Dwelling characteristic

Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Total

Tenure Owner-occupied (nm) 7,740 7,266 3,381 2,990 3,330 24,707 Owner-occupied (wm) 10,404 8,570 6,037 4,450 5,933 35,393 RSL 846 1,429 5,710 1,771 3,104 12,860 Private rented 4,781 3,327 3,752 3,575 3,505 18,939 TOTAL 23,772 20,591 18,880 12,785 15,872 91,900 Age of dwelling Pre-1919 1,505 466 10,388 3,668 9,619 25,645 1919-1944 16,359 15,862 3,620 6,587 3,485 45,912 1944-1964 1,617 1,758 1,613 639 613 6,241 Post-1964 4,291 2,505 3,259 1,892 2,155 14,101 TOTAL 23,772 20,591 18,880 12,785 15,872 91,900 Type of dwelling Mid terrace 2,191 1,337 1,474 754 459 6,215 End terrace 3,542 1,818 3,861 3,105 2,759 15,086 Semi-detached 9,641 10,720 1,612 2,578 1,703 26,255 Detached 807 1,700 0 314 739 3,561 Purpose-built flats 5,444 4,323 4,381 2,991 2,712 19,851 Converted flat 2,146 693 7,552 3,043 7,499 20,932 TOTAL 23,772 20,591 18,880 12,785 15,872 91,900 Household type Single pensioners 1,818 2,754 1,847 1,102 1,842 9,363 2 or more pensioners 2,238 1,050 1,074 481 906 5,749 Single non-pensioners 2,840 2,540 4,118 2,360 3,406 15,263 2+ adults, no children 9,755 7,494 7,442 5,485 6,014 36,189 Lone parent 1,129 727 932 533 255 3,576 2+ adults, 1 child 2,336 2,471 1,575 1,195 1,459 9,037 2+ adults, 2+ children 3,054 3,176 1,703 1,154 1,416 10,504 TOTAL 23,171 20,211 18,690 12,310 15,298 89,680 Special needs Special needs 2,890 1,998 1,803 1,065 1,748 9,504 No special needs 20,280 18,213 16,887 11,245 13,550 80,176 TOTAL 23,171 20,211 18,690 12,310 15,298 89,680 Ethnicity of Head of household White 8,842 9,496 9,652 7,243 10,539 45,771 Mixed 520 628 1,622 389 874 4,034 Asian 9,302 7,460 2,062 2,624 1,721 23,169 Black 3,789 2,238 4,915 1,688 1,212 13,842 Other 717 389 439 366 952 2,863 TOTAL 23,171 20,211 18,690 12,310 15,298 89,680 Size of dwelling Av no. of rooms 4.3 4.2 3.9 4.2 4.1 4.1 Av floor space (m2) 90 93 82 90 98 90



PAGE 119

Table A1.4 Summary of dwelling/household characteristics and type of dwelling Type of dwelling Dwelling characteristic

Mid terrace

End terrace

Semi-detached

Detached Purpose-built flats

Converted flat

Total

Tenure Owner-occupied (nm) 2,561 6,263 10,122 1,406 2,382 1,974 24,707 Owner-occupied (wm) 2,250 5,026 13,082 1,621 6,585 6,829 35,393 RSL 565 1,770 268 48 5,820 4,388 12,860 Private rented 839 2,027 2,783 485 5,064 7,741 18,939 TOTAL 6,215 15,086 26,255 3,561 19,851 20,932 91,900 Age of dwelling Pre-1919 1,422 5,811 1,439 492 744 15,738 25,645 1919-1944 3,591 6,918 23,177 2,360 4,902 4,963 45,912 1944-1964 607 269 1,357 448 3,392 168 6,241 Post-1964 595 2,087 282 260 10,814 63 14,101 TOTAL 6,215 15,086 26,255 3,561 19,851 20,932 91,900 Sub-area Area 1 2,191 3,542 9,641 807 5,444 2,146 23,772 Area 2 1,337 1,818 10,720 1,700 4,323 693 20,591 Area 3 1,474 3,861 1,612 0 4,381 7,552 18,880 Area 4 754 3,105 2,578 314 2,991 3,043 12,785 Area 5 459 2,759 1,703 739 2,712 7,499 15,872 TOTAL 6,215 15,086 26,255 3,561 19,851 20,932 91,900 Household type Single pensioners 536 1,546 2,142 342 2,639 2,157 9,363 2 or more pensioners 725 986 2,873 106 372 687 5,749 Single non-pensioners 772 1,085 2,333 158 5,293 5,622 15,263 2+ adults, no children 2,622 6,449 10,267 1,718 7,075 8,058 36,189 Lone parent 133 447 807 97 1,202 889 3,576 2+ adults, 1 child 332 1,776 2,848 447 1,740 1,894 9,037 2+ adults, 2+ children 1,040 2,708 4,340 519 1,068 829 10,504 TOTAL 6,160 14,996 25,611 3,387 19,390 20,136 89,680 Special needs Special needs 923 1,604 3,281 593 1,669 1,436 9,504 No special needs 5,237 13,392 22,330 2,794 17,721 18,700 80,176 TOTAL 6,160 14,996 25,611 3,387 19,390 20,136 89,680 Ethnicity of Head of household White 2,256 6,960 11,737 1,906 9,959 12,952 45,771 Mixed 251 1,021 250 169 1,239 1,105 4,034 Asian 2,624 4,256 9,710 977 3,278 2,324 23,169 Black 978 2,585 2,941 0 4,309 3,030 13,842 Other 50 173 974 335 605 725 2,863 TOTAL 6,160 14,996 25,611 3,387 19,390 20,136 89,680 Size of dwelling Av no. of rooms 4.9 4.9 5.0 6.0 2.9 3.2 4.1 Av floor space (m2) 106 106 112 162 59 64 90



PAGE 120

Table A1.5 Summary of dwelling/household characteristics and household type Household type

Dwelling characteristic

Single pensioners

2+ pensioners

Single non- pensioners

2+ adults,

no children

Lone parent

2+ adults, 1

child

2+ adults,

2+ children

Total

Tenure Owner-occupied (nm) 5,762 4,722 2,698 9,373 0 953 922 24,430 Owner-occupied (wm) 404 484 7,417 12,995 1,421 5,124 6,706 34,550 RSL 2,262 436 2,308 3,319 1,650 1,255 1,470 12,700 Private rented 935 107 2,840 10,502 504 1,705 1,407 18,000 TOTAL 9,363 5,749 15,263 36,189 3,576 9,037 10,504 89,680 Age of dwelling Pre-1919 2,611 1,316 5,632 10,285 333 2,559 2,017 24,753 1919-1944 4,000 3,910 5,418 18,611 1,997 4,527 6,524 44,988 1944-1964 767 294 1,331 2,044 131 691 695 5,953 Post-1964 1,984 229 2,882 5,249 1,114 1,260 1,268 13,986 TOTAL 9,363 5,749 15,263 36,189 3,576 9,037 10,504 89,680 Sub-area Area 1 1,818 2,238 2,840 9,755 1,129 2,336 3,054 23,171 Area 2 2,754 1,050 2,540 7,494 727 2,471 3,176 20,211 Area 3 1,847 1,074 4,118 7,442 932 1,575 1,703 18,690 Area 4 1,102 481 2,360 5,485 533 1,195 1,154 12,310 Area 5 1,842 906 3,406 6,014 255 1,459 1,416 15,298 TOTAL 9,363 5,749 15,263 36,189 3,576 9,037 10,504 89,680 Type of dwelling Mid terrace 536 725 772 2,622 133 332 1,040 6,160 End terrace 1,546 986 1,085 6,449 447 1,776 2,708 14,996 Semi-detached 2,142 2,873 2,333 10,267 807 2,848 4,340 25,611 Detached 342 106 158 1,718 97 447 519 3,387 Purpose-built flats 2,639 372 5,293 7,075 1,202 1,740 1,068 19,390 Converted flat 2,157 687 5,622 8,058 889 1,894 829 20,136 TOTAL 9,363 5,749 15,263 36,189 3,576 9,037 10,504 89,680 Special needs Special needs 2,697 1,512 516 2,780 114 749 1,136 9,504 No special needs 6,666 4,237 14,747 33,409 3,461 8,288 9,368 80,176 TOTAL 9,363 5,749 15,263 36,189 3,576 9,037 10,504 89,680 Ethnicity of Head of household White 6,378 3,704 10,256 18,235 1,103 3,194 2,900 45,771 Mixed 630 102 871 1,362 314 436 319 4,034 Asian 921 903 874 10,966 650 3,684 5,171 23,169 Black 1,131 921 2,824 4,651 1,451 1,125 1,740 13,842 Other 303 119 439 974 57 598 373 2,863 TOTAL 9,363 5,749 15,263 36,189 3,576 9,037 10,504 89,680 Size of dwelling Av no. of rooms 3.7 5.0 3.4 4.3 3.6 4.3 4.7 4.1 Av floor space (m2) 78 101 75 93 76 97 106 90



PAGE 121

Table A1.6 Summary of dwelling/household characteristics and households with special needs Special needs Dwelling characteristic

Special needs No special needs Total

Tenure Owner-occupied (nm) 4,601 19,829 24,430 Owner-occupied (wm) 2,593 31,957 34,550 RSL 1,226 11,474 12,700 Private rented 1,085 16,915 18,000 TOTAL 9,504 80,176 89,680 Age of dwelling Pre-1919 1,700 23,053 24,753 1919-1944 5,620 39,368 44,988 1944-1964 760 5,194 5,953 Post-1964 1,425 12,561 13,986 TOTAL 9,504 80,176 89,680 Sub-area Area 1 2,890 20,280 23,171 Area 2 1,998 18,213 20,211 Area 3 1,803 16,887 18,690 Area 4 1,065 11,245 12,310 Area 5 1,748 13,550 15,298 TOTAL 9,504 80,176 89,680 Type of dwelling Mid terrace 923 5,237 6,160 End terrace 1,604 13,392 14,996 Semi-detached 3,281 22,330 25,611 Detached 593 2,794 3,387 Purpose-built flats 1,669 17,721 19,390 Converted flat 1,436 18,700 20,136 TOTAL 9,504 80,176 89,680 Household type Single pensioners 2,697 6,666 9,363 2 or more pensioners 1,512 4,237 5,749 Single non-pensioners 516 14,747 15,263 2+ adults, no children 2,780 33,409 36,189 Lone parent 114 3,461 3,576 2+ adults, 1 child 749 8,288 9,037 2+ adults, 2+ children 1,136 9,368 10,504 TOTAL 9,504 80,176 89,680 Ethnicity of Head of household White 5,202 40,570 45,771 Mixed 169 3,865 4,034 Asian 2,828 20,341 23,169 Black 718 13,125 13,842 Other 588 2,275 2,863 TOTAL 9,504 80,176 89,680 Size of dwelling Av no. of rooms 4.4 4.1 4.1 Av floor space (m2) 93 90 90



PAGE 122

Table A1.7 Summary of dwelling/household characteristics and ethnicity of the head of household Ethnicity of the head of household Dwelling characteristic

White Mixed Asian Black Other Total

Tenure Owner-occupied (nm) 14,368 906 6,576 2,580 0 24,430 Owner-occupied (wm) 15,757 1,442 11,794 4,053 1,504 34,550 RSL 4,817 1,278 1,483 4,968 154 12,700 Private rented 10,830 407 3,317 2,241 1,205 18,000 TOTAL 45,771 4,034 23,169 13,842 2,863 89,680 Age of dwelling Pre-1919 16,715 1,266 2,584 3,412 776 24,753 1919-1944 19,382 1,267 16,682 6,135 1,522 44,988 1944-1964 3,256 619 1,232 801 45 5,953 Post-1964 6,419 882 2,672 3,493 520 13,986 TOTAL 45,771 4,034 23,169 13,842 2,863 89,680 Sub-area Area 1 8,842 520 9,302 3,789 717 23,171 Area 2 9,496 628 7,460 2,238 389 20,211 Area 3 9,652 1,622 2,062 4,915 439 18,690 Area 4 7,243 389 2,624 1,688 366 12,310 Area 5 10,539 874 1,721 1,212 952 15,298 TOTAL 45,771 4,034 23,169 13,842 2,863 89,680 Type of dwelling Mid terrace 2,256 251 2,624 978 50 6,160 End terrace 6,960 1,021 4,256 2,585 173 14,996 Semi-detached 11,737 250 9,710 2,941 974 25,611 Detached 1,906 169 977 0 335 3,387 Purpose-built flats 9,959 1,239 3,278 4,309 605 19,390 Converted flat 12,952 1,105 2,324 3,030 725 20,136 TOTAL 45,771 4,034 23,169 13,842 2,863 89,680 Household type Single pensioners 6,378 630 921 1,131 303 9,363 2 or more pensioners 3,704 102 903 921 119 5,749 Single non-pensioners 10,256 871 874 2,824 439 15,263 2+ adults, no children 18,235 1,362 10,966 4,651 974 36,189 Lone parent 1,103 314 650 1,451 57 3,576 2+ adults, 1 child 3,194 436 3,684 1,125 598 9,037 2+ adults, 2+ children 2,900 319 5,171 1,740 373 10,504 TOTAL 45,771 4,034 23,169 13,842 2,863 89,680 Special needs Special needs 5,202 169 2,828 718 588 9,504 No special needs 40,570 3,865 20,341 13,125 2,275 80,176 TOTAL 45,771 4,034 23,169 13,842 2,863 89,680 Size of dwelling Av no. of rooms 4.0 3.8 4.5 3.8 4.4 4.1 Av floor space (m2) 89 75 98 83 108 90



PAGE 123

A1.3 Overcrowding and under-occupation

The survey estimates that 10.0% of private sector households are overcrowded and 23.8% are

found to under-occupying their dwellings. The standards used to check for overcrowding/under-

occupation were as follows:

• Overcrowding: each household was assessed as to the number of bedrooms required. Any

household without enough bedrooms to sleep persons was deemed to be over-crowded.

• Under-occupation: households with more than one spare bedroom are deemed to be under-

occupied.

Full details of the bedroom standard used can be found in the Housing Needs Survey report.

The table below shows characteristics of overcrowded and under-occupying households. The table

shows that households in the private rented and RSL sectors are most likely to be overcrowded as

are households living in 1945-1964 housing. White households are least likely to be overcrowded

and most likely to under-occupy their dwelling.


PAGE 124

Table A1.8 Summary of dwelling/household characteristics and overcrowding/under-occupation Overcrowding/under-occupation Dwelling characteristic

Overcrowded Neither overcrowded nor under-occupied

Under-occupied Total

Tenure Owner-occupied (nm) 916 11,567 11,947 24,430 Owner-occupied (wm) 3,020 23,938 7,592 34,550 RSL 1,965 10,152 583 12,700 Private rented 3,044 13,763 1,194 18,000 TOTAL 8,945 59,420 21,315 89,680 Age of dwelling Pre-1919 2,666 16,998 5,089 24,753 1919-1944 3,777 27,240 13,971 44,988 1944-1964 947 3,704 1,302 5,953 Post-1964 1,555 11,478 953 13,986 TOTAL 8,945 59,420 21,315 89,680 Sub-area Area 1 2,636 15,264 5,271 23,171 Area 2 1,506 12,541 6,164 20,211 Area 3 2,264 13,547 2,879 18,690 Area 4 1,384 8,010 2,915 12,310 Area 5 1,154 10,057 4,086 15,298 TOTAL 8,945 59,420 21,315 89,680 Type of dwelling Mid terrace 620 3,041 2,500 6,160 End terrace 1,171 8,968 4,857 14,996 Semi-detached 1,620 13,757 10,234 25,611 Detached 566 1,212 1,609 3,387 Purpose-built flats 2,457 16,051 882 19,390 Converted flat 2,511 16,392 1,233 20,136 TOTAL 8,945 59,420 21,315 89,680 Household type Single pensioners 0 5,213 4,150 9,363 2 or more pensioners 39 1,474 4,236 5,749 Single non-pensioners 0 10,697 4,566 15,263 2+ adults, no children 3,983 25,387 6,819 36,189 Lone parent 701 2,648 227 3,576 2+ adults, 1 child 2,058 6,726 252 9,037 2+ adults, 2+ children 2,164 7,275 1,065 10,504 TOTAL 8,945 59,420 21,315 89,680 Special needs Special needs 912 5,634 2,959 9,504 No special needs 8,033 53,786 18,356 80,176 TOTAL 8,945 59,420 21,315 89,680 Ethnicity of Head of household White 3,241 28,459 14,072 45,771 Mixed 580 2,731 723 4,034 Asian 3,404 16,365 3,401 23,169 Black 1,456 9,884 2,502 13,842 Other 264 1,981 618 2,863 TOTAL 8,945 59,420 21,315 89,680 Size of dwelling Av no. of rooms 3.8 3.8 5.2 4.1 Av floor space (m2) 86 82 116 90



PAGE 125

The following tables and figures show various stock condition variables by over-crowding and

under-occupation. Generally the results suggest that the main difference is between dwellings

which are under-occupied and other homes. There is not generally much difference (in terms of

conditions) between those which are overcrowded and those classified as ‘OK’. Notably, under-

occupied dwellings show low levels of unfitness (and hazards) but also a poor average energy

efficiency rating.

Table A1.9 Repair costs by overcrowding and under-occupation



repair cost Overcrowding/ under-occupation

Repair cost per dwelling £ £ per sq. m Overcrowded £1,318 £2,626 £3,595 37.2 OK £1,084 £2,438 £3,886 30.6 Under-occupied £1,185 £2,980 £4,053 26.9 TOTAL £1,131 £2,586 £3,897 30.3


Table A1.10 Overcrowding/under-occupation and unfitness

Unfitness Overcrowding/ under-occupation

Unfit housing Not unfit housing



group Overcrowded 433 8,512 8,945 4.8% 11.0% OK 3,207 56,213 59,420 5.4% 81.5% Under-occupied 297 21,018 21,315 1.4% 7.5% TOTAL 3,937 85,743 89,680 4.4% 100.0%



PAGE 126

Figure A1.1 SAP rating by overcrowding/under-occupation

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Under-occupied

OK

Overcrowded

% of dwellings

0 to 1920 to 3940 to 5960 to 7980+

47

54

55

0 20 40 60

Average (mean) SAP


Table A1.11 Non-decent homes and overcrowding/under-occupation

Percent of dwellings in group that: Dwelling characteristic

Non decent Fail fitness Fail disrepair Fail

modernisation Fail thermal

comfort Overcrowded 31.1% 4.8% 6.1% 1.5% 26.6% OK 30.4% 5.4% 9.8% 1.5% 23.1% Under-occupied 29.9% 1.4% 4.5% 1.9% 27.9% All households 30.4% 4.4% 8.1% 1.6% 24.6%



PAGE 127

Figure A1.2 Overcrowding/under-occupation and HHSRS

16.9%

31.1%

26.7%

4.4%

6.5%

6.3%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Under-occupied

OK

Overcrowded

% with hazard

MandatoryDiscretionary



PAGE 128

APPENDIX A2 UNFITNESS AND SAP LEVELS IN LONDON

PAGE 129


The tables below provide information on unfitness levels by region derived from the 2001 EHCS

and unfitness levels for individual London Boroughs (excluding Council rented properties)

derived from analysis of H.I.P. submissions for 2003.

Table A2.1 Unfitness levels by region

Region Total unfit dwellings Total dwellings % unfit

North East 24,000 1,074,000 2.2% Yorkshire & Humberside 105,000 2,207,000 4.8% North West & Merseyside 125,000 2,919,000 4.3% East Midlands 73,000 1,841,000 4.0% West Midlands 125,000 2,151,000 5.8% South West 94,000 2,119,000 4.5% Eastern 70,000 2,327,000 3.0% South East 97,000 3,428,000 2.8% London 172,000 3,076,000 5.6% All 885,000 2,114,0000 4.2%

Source: English House Condition Survey, 2001 Regional Report


PAGE 130

Table A2.2 Summary of unfitness levels across London at 2003 (excluding the Council rented sector)

London Borough Total dwellings Unfit dwellings % unfit

Barking & Dagenham 71,822 4,020 4.0% Barnet 131,029 6,601 5.4% Bexley 92,748 5,500 5.9% Brent 104,346 12,787 13.6% Bromley 130,069 6,368 4.9% Camden 91,917 10,344 15.5% Croydon 137,798 10,029 8.1% Ealing 120,346 6,201 5.6% Greenwich 94,847 8,618 11.0% Hackney� 90,046 N/A N/A Hammersmith & Fulham 77,436 8,232 11.3% Haringey� 94,693 N/A N/A Harrow 82,235 2,901 3.7% Havering 95,257 3,249 3.8% Hillingdon 100,235 4,972 5.4% Hounslow 88,218 9,915 10.4% Islington 86,321 7,313 7.6% Kensington & Chelsea 88,570 4,862 4.0% Lambeth 118,447 12,866 11.7% Lewisham 111,105 5,731 6.9% Merton 77,069 8,005 11.4% Newham 94,920 18,094 23.1% Richmond upon Thames 76,574 4,503 5.9% Southwark 115,801 4,290 3.9% Sutton 76,636 3,158 4.5% Tower Hamlets 86,717 4,887 3.3% Waltham Forest 94,014 9,660 7.2% Westminster 113,759 5,885 5.5%

Source: H.I.P. 2003

NOTE: � These Councils do not show number of unfit dwellings on the H.I.P form

The following table provides information on the average SAP rating for individual London

Boroughs (excluding the Council rented and RSL rented sectors) derived from analysis of H.I.P.

submissions for 2003.


PAGE 131

Table A2.3 Summary of average SAP rating across London at 2002 (excluding the Council and RSL rented sectors)

London Borough Average SAP rating

Barking & Dagenham 55 Barnet 54 Bexley 50 Brent 49 Bromley 49 Camden 40 City of London 56 Croydon 43 Ealing 42 Enfield 48 Greenwich 54 Hackney 50 Hammersmith & Fulham 40 Haringey 48 Harrow 49 Havering 46 Hillingdon 51 Hounslow 49 Islington 49 Kensington & Chelsea 53 Kingston upon Thames 48 Lambeth 54 Lewisham 46 Merton 47 Newham 50 Redbridge 50 Richmond upon Thames 47 Southwark 53 Sutton 46 Tower Hamlets 49 Waltham Forest 31 Wandsworth 49 Westminster 58

Source: H.I.P. 2003


PAGE 132

APPENDIX A3 STATISTICAL ISSUES

PAGE 133


A3.1 Sampling errors

Estimates of dwelling and household characteristics produced from a sample survey may differ

from the true population figures because they are based on a survey rather than a complete census.

This is known as sampling error, and it is important to know the extent of this error when

interpreting the results.

The size of the sampling error depends on the size of the sample. In general, the smaller the

sample size the larger the potential error. For example, in this survey, estimates for dwellings in

the private rented sector will be subject to a larger sampling error than owner-occupied dwellings.

A way of taking account of sampling error is to calculate a confidence interval for an estimate. This

is an interval within which it is fairly certain the true percentage figure lies. This section explains

how 95% confidence intervals can be calculated for the key survey estimates – and comes from

standard statistical theory for large samples.

The 95% confidence interval for a percentage estimate p, is given by the formula:

p+/-1.96×se(p)

where se(p) represents the standard error of the percentage and is calculated by:

se(p)=√(p(100-p)/n) (n is the unweighted sample size)

Estimating standard errors for results based on a simple random sample, which has no

stratification, are fairly straightforward. However samples in stock condition surveys are rarely

simple random ones so the standard errors could be corrected using a sample design factor. The

design factor is calculated as the ratio of the standard error with a complex sample design to the

standard error that would have been achieved with a simple random sample of the same size.

Overall, design effects were assumed to be small and so no adjustment has been made in the

example below (this is also the position taken by the 2001 EHCS).

A 95% confidence interval for a percentage may be calculated using the equations above. The

width of the confidence interval depends on the value of the estimated percentage and the sample

size on which the percentage was based.


PAGE 134

Example:

The estimated number of unfit dwellings is 5,292 or 5.8%. This percentage is based on the core

sample of dwellings of 1,003. Using the equations above it is found that the margin of error

based on this information is 1.4% giving a confidence interval of between 4.4% and 7.2%. In

terms of the total number of dwellings (based on an estimated number of dwellings of 91,900)

this is a confidence interval of 1,329, hence the estimate of the accuracy of the 5,292 figure is

+/- 1,329 or between 3,963 and 6,621.

A3.2 Non-response and missing data

Missing data is a feature of all stock condition surveys: mainly due to the difficulty in accessing

parts of a dwelling. For all missing data in the survey standard statistical imputation procedures

were applied. In general, throughout the survey the level of missing data was minimal.

Non-response can cause a number of problems:

• The sample size is effectively reduced so that applying the calculated weight will not give

estimates for the whole population

• Variables which are derived from the combination of a number of responses each of which

may be affected by item non-response (e.g. calculating repair costs where a particular

element was not included) may exhibit high levels of non-response

• If the amount of non-response substantially varies across sub-groups of the population

this may lead to a bias in the results

To overcome these problems missing data was ‘imputed’. Imputation involves substituting for the

missing value, a value given by a suitably defined ‘similar’ household, where the definition of

similar varies depending on the actual item being imputed.

The specific method used was to divide the sample into subgroups based on relevant

characteristics and then ‘Probability Match’ where a value selected from those with a similar

predicted value was imputed. The main sub-groups used were tenure, dwelling age, and building

type.

APPENDIX A4 THE HAZARD SCORING PROCEDURE

PAGE 135


A4.1 Introduction

The scoring procedure, based on the surveyor’s assessment of the dwelling, provides a numerical

Hazard Score for each of the hazards identified at the property. The higher the score, the greater

the severity of that hazard. The highest Hazard Score for an individual dwelling indicates the most

serious hazard at that dwelling. A comparison of the Hazard Scores for a number of dwellings

provides a means of grading those dwellings from the most dangerous to the safest.

A4.2 Generating hazard scores

A formula is used to generate a Hazard Score. For this formula:

(a) The likelihood is expressed as a ratio;

(b) A weighting is given to each Class of Harm; and

(c) The spread of health outcomes is indicated as a percentage.

The Hazard Score is the sum of the products of the weightings for each class of harm which could

result from the particular hazard, multiplied by the likelihood of an occurrence, and multiplied by

the set of percentages showing the spread of harms.

Class of harm weightings

The weightings given to each Class of Harm reflect the degree of incapacity associated with each

Class as shown in the box below.

Box A4.1 Weightings give to each of the four classes of harm Class of harm Weighting

I Extreme II Severe III Serious IV Moderate

10,000 1,000 300 10


PAGE 136

Spread of health outcomes

While there will be a most likely health outcome, there could also be a possibility of other

outcomes, which may be less and/or more serious.

For example, it may be judged that there is a 60% chance that a vulnerable person falling to the

ground out of a window on the second floor will suffer serious fractures (Class II). It may also be

considered that there are other possible outcomes – a 10% chance of death (Class I), a 20% chance

of concussion or sprains (Class III) and a 10% chance of severe bruising (Class IV). Another

example is a fall out of a window on the fifteenth floor where it may be judged that there is a 100%

chance of death (Class I).

The formula

An example of a Hazard Score using the formula is shown in the box below. In this example, the

likelihood of an occurrence has been judged to be 1 in 100, with a 60% chance of a Class IV

outcome, a 30% chance of a Class III outcome and a 10% chance of a Class II outcome.

Box A4.2 Formula for calculating a hazard score Class of harm weighting Likelihood 1 in Spread of harm (%) I 10,000 ÷ 100 × 0 = 0 II 1,000 ÷ 100 × 10 = 100 III 300 ÷ 100 × 30 = 90 IV 10 ÷ 100 × 60 = 6 Hazard score = 196

A4.3 To score a hazard Likelihood

To score a hazard, the surveyor judges the likelihood of the occurrence resulting in a Class I to IV

Harm to a vulnerable person over the following twelve months. For stairs, the surveyor

determines the likelihood of a fall occurring which would result in a Class I to IV Harm to a

vulnerable person. This involves taking account of such matters as the going, the presence or

absence of handrails, the state of repair of the treads and the available lighting. For dampness, the

surveyor determines the likelihood of the dampness causing Class I to IV Harm to a vulnerable

person over the next twelve month period, taking into account the extent and degree of the

dampness and its position.


PAGE 137

Assessing likelihood is not determining that there will be an occurrence. The likelihood that there

will be an occurrence over the next twelve months also means that it may not happen. Even where

it is judged that there is a very high likelihood, such as a 1 in 10 probability, it is accepted that the

likelihood of no occurrence is nine times greater than that of an occurrence.

Spread of outcomes

Next, the surveyor judges the most likely and other possible health outcomes to a vulnerable

person from an occurrence.

In the case of a fall while using stairs, determining the spread of outcomes should take account of

any secondary hazards such as a window or other glazing at the base of the stairs. It will also be

influenced by factors such as the position of any fault which could result in a fall. If the occurrence

happens at the base of the stairs there will be only a short distance to fall, but if the person is at the

top there will be the full length of the stairs to fall.

Judging the extent to which individual features may increase or reduce the likelihood of an

occurrence and the severity of the outcome is a matter of professional expertise. This is particularly

so where disrepair may increase the risk of an occurrence. Guidance to inform professional

judgement is given in the Profiles of Hazards.

While there is some information on the contribution individual features may make to hazards, it is

limited. It relies on injuries or other health outcomes resulting from occurrences being reported by

General Practitioners, hospitals or identified in research surveys. The surveyor indicates the spread

of the Classes of Harm likely to result from an occurrence using percentages, giving the highest to

the most likely outcome.


PAGE 138

APPENDIX A5 UPDATING THE SURVEY

PAGE 139


A5.1 Introduction

Updating of surveys is an important issue: surveys cost a lot of money and so cannot be repeated

very frequently. A number of issues arise in relation to getting the most out of the survey database

once it has been created, and during the period until another full survey requires to be done. This

chapter summarises the Guidance and comments on this specific case.

A5.2 The Guidance

Volume 3 of the ODPM Guide ‘Collecting, Managing and Using Housing Stock Condition

Information’ (August 2000) summarises the reasons for updating a survey:

• To add in extra surveys undertaken for a particular area (such a priority scheme area) and

add the data in

• Alter some of the data in the light of new survey work (e.g. changes to windows) NB This

would only be likely to occur with a public sector survey, since systematic changes of this

kind do not generally occur in the private sector

• It is desired to update the cost schedule or the incomes

• to monitor progress targets

This is quite a mixed bag of reasons. The first is quite easily achieved. The second is unlikely to

arise in a private sector survey. The third is feasible, but a major task. The fourth is reasonably

straightforward in that a sample of the original sample could be resurveyed to check to what

extent the indicated improvements have been made.

Volume 2 of the same Guide provides further detail. In paras 8.27-8 the issue of longitudinal

sampling is discussed. This involves returning to the original sample systematically to investigate

how the properties are changing. It is pointed out that there will be inevitable shrinkage of the

database due to the non-response in the follow up survey. Longitudinal surveys are an excellent

idea, but rather expensive to pursue, and so few councils have considered them. There is detailed

discussion in this volume of the Guide as to how best to manage longitudinal surveys. This mainly

affects national surveys, which have a larger budget than local authority ones, and is not further

discussed here.


PAGE 140

In para 8.37 it is suggested that follow-up surveys should be concentrated upon areas of interest,

which is sensible practice. It is pointed out (8.38) that further surveys need not bother with some of

the initial data (such as date of construction for example) thus cutting down the cost. Some follow-

up work can be done without necessarily revisiting the property (some more simple information

could be obtained by postal survey or telephone survey).

The Guide (Vol. 2) also considers the interval between surveys. It points out that the national

surveys are at 5 yearly intervals (para 8.41) since that is regarded as the minimum period which

will show measurable change. Local circumstances will indicate if there is any need to do local

authority surveys any more or less frequently than this. A five year interval seems to be normal:

the introduction of Best Value and Business Planning has meant that monitoring outcomes has

become even more important (para 8.45).

The final issue discussed is the updating of ‘cloned’ records, where missing data has been imputed

or empty records filled by reference to other information within the database (para 8.47). This is a

sensitive subject: there is a respectable aspect to such imputation, as when the relatively small

number of cases where income data are missing is repaired by reference to similar types of

household already present in the database. However the field of private sector condition surveys

has seen a much more serious problem, arising where consultants have carried out wholesale

cloning of records and have, in effect, carried out relatively few internal surveys. This problem still

persists, and tends to give the respectable aspect of cloning a bad name too.

A5.3 Updating in the context of this survey

In relation to the data in this survey there are a few points which can usefully be made:

(i) Updating of the general results is only possible through a new survey, which will

necessarily be in several (e.g. five) years time. There is really nothing which can, cost

effectively, be done about that.

(ii) As the Guide says, it may be worth following up particular sub-areas if there is some issue

(such as Neighbourhood Renewal) in view

(iii) It is possible, but quite laborious, to change the cost schedule and update such variables as

income. Unless there have been quite considerable changes in these, however, it is

probably not justified to do so

(iv) Changes in Government Guidance, e.g. the introduction of a statutory HHSRS, may

require re-analysis of the dataset. This cannot be predicted with any certainty, since major

changes to the statutory framework normally take many years to get done.


PAGE 141

(v) Reworking of the existing dataset for more modest reasons than major changes in

Government guidance are always possible. The data are provided to the Council with

training in how to manipulate them. Fordham Research is always ready to provide

reasonable amounts of backup guidance on such re-analysis and modest amounts of

technical analysis without further charge, in the interests of ensuring that the data remain

as useful as possible for as long as possible.

A5.4 Summary

There are a number of suggestions in Government advice about the updating of Stock Condition

surveys. Unfortunately many of them are either not applicable to private sector surveys or difficult

to undertake in a cost-effective fashion. The best advice is for Local Authorities to carry out such

surveys every five years or so – this can be done in the knowledge that factors affecting stock

condition (unlike housing need) are unlikely to change significantly in short periods of time.


PAGE 142

APPENDIX A6 STOCK CONDITION SURVEY FORM

PAGE 143



PAGE 144

2003 private sector stock condition survey 2003 private sector st… · a domestic energy audit...

Documents