Written evidence submitted by Inclusion London [DPH 017]

September 2023

1. Inclusion London is a London-wide user-led organisation which promotes equality for London’s Deaf and Disabled people and provides capacity-building support for over 70 Deaf and Disabled People’s Organisations (DDPOs) in London and through these organisations our reach extends to over 70,000 Disabled Londoners.  

2. Inclusion London facilitates a Housing Network of user-led organisations running housing campaigns and/or delivering housing advice to Deaf and Disabled people, and grassroots housing groups and coalitions. As part of this project, we fund 3 DDPOs who we support to run specific housing campaigns in London.[1]

3. We would welcome the opportunity to give oral evidence to the committee and facilitate oral evidence from Deaf and Disabled People.

Introduction

4. Inclusion London welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee’s (LUHC) inquiry into housing for Disabled People. The chronic shortage of accessible and adaptable housing in England has resulted in a significant unmet housing need for Disabled people. Living in an unsuitable home is a postcode lottery but all Disabled people should have the right to live in a home that meets our needs. We believe that more needs to be done by national government, local authorities and developers to ensure Disabled people across England have access to accessible and adaptable housing.

5. In England there are 9.8 million Disabled people and 1.2 million of these people live in London.[2] Around 1.8 million households in England have an identified need for accessible housing, of whom 580,000 are working age.[3] The existing housing stock across England is unfortunately often not accessible or adapted to meet disabled people’s requirements, with only 9% offering minimal accessibility features.[4] The shortage of wheelchair accessible housing is particularly acute, with 400,000 wheelchair users currently living unsuitable homes.[5] These are deeply worrying statistics given that a rapidly ageing population will see numbers of Disabled people continuing to increase – in England the number of people over 65 is expected to rise by over 50 per cent from 2010 to 2030.[6]

6. The Planning for the Future White Paper stated it will support the creation of ‘beautiful’ homes but makes no mention of the dire need for accessible homes.[7] Disabled people are struggling to find and adapt homes across all tenures because the supply of accessible homes in England is not meeting the demand. There is specifically a shortage of accessible social housing which Disabled people predominantly need due to the affordability and security of this tenure.[8] Disabled people spend years on waiting lists for an affordable, accessible home (up to 47 for a wheelchair accessible home), with many forced to rely on the private rented sector (PRS).[9] This is extremely concerning due to the lack of affordability in the PRS and the fact that as Disabled people we are more likely to experience poverty.[10]

7. Without robust national commitments and policies, Disabled people will continue to live in unsuitable housing, with disastrous consequences for us and society at large. Living in inaccessible properties means living in homes which are not built to allow us to use their facilities. Consequently, we are more reliant on the care system to assist us in our homes, less likely to be employed and must endure hospitals beyond discharge dates as our homes do not accommodate our basic needs.[11] Habinteg’s latest research reveals that for a working age wheelchair user, the benefit of living in a wheelchair user home is valued at £94,000 over ten years. This includes savings in public spending – NHS, local authority and welfare and revenue generation through taxes.[12] Building wheelchair accessible homes would alleviate pressure on services and offset national and local government expenses.

8. National government, local authorities and developers have a significant role in ensuring the delivery of suitable housing for Disabled people and access to accessible and adaptable housing. We believe that the Government needs to invest in building more social rented wheelchair accessible homes. However, the demand for social accessible homes cannot be solely met through new-builds - we must improve access to adaptations across all tenures.

9. In the first part of our submission, we analyse the key barriers present in our planning system that hinder the delivery of suitable housing for Disabled people and provide recommendations that can be implemented by national government, local authorities and developers to increase the supply of accessible and adaptable housing in England across all tenures.

10. In the second part of our submission, we explore the challenges Disabled people encounter when trying to get their homes adapted, including issues with the DFG framework, as well as the challenges we face in finding a suitable and affordable home in the PRS. We also provide recommendations that can be implemented to address some of these challenges.

The role of national government, local authorities, and developers in ensuring the delivery of suitable housing for people in England.

Accessibility standards

11. Local authorities and developers are not building enough accessible homes to keep up with demand.[13] Current accessibility building standards, particularly Part M of the Building Regulations for England and Wales, have produced generally inaccessible homes especially for wheelchair users. To deliver accessible and adaptable housing, the Government must ensure accessibility standards set out in Part M of the Building Regulations enable the delivery of accessible homes.

12. Current English accessibility regulations only require new-build homes are built to M4(1) - the lowest accessibility standard.[14] Over half of all Disabled people in the UK with housing accessibility needs find it ‘difficult’ or ‘very difficult’ to take baths or showers.[15]

13. In July 2022, we  welcomed the Government’s commitment to raise the minimum standard of accessibility to M4(2) for all new homes -  it is a significant step towards tackling the chronic shortage of accessible homes in England. [16] However, we are disappointed that the Government hasn’t yet consulted on technical changes to the Building Regulations and has not yet provided a timeline for the introduction of the new regulatory baseline. Continued delays only mean a poorer quality of life for hundreds of thousands of Disabled people living in unsuitable housing.

Accessible Housing Targets

14. Additionally, we are disappointed that the Government rejected the option to mandate a minimum proportion of homes built to M4(3) wheelchair-accessible housing standards despite the significant need for such housing.

15. Statistics show local authorities are failing to produce enough wheelchair accessible housing to meet the population’s needs. In fact, 104,000 Disabled people are on council waiting list for accessible and adaptable homes. Despite this, only 1.9% of homes are planned to be built to M4(3) standards between 2020-2030[17] and over half of all local plans in England set no accessibility standards.[18]

16. Conversely, the London Plan prescribes that 90% of all new-build homes should be built to M4(2) standards and 10% should be built to M4(3) standards.[19] Although all homes planned in the capital should be built according to London Plan policies, in 2020, only 74% of London’s local plans set out accessibility standards. Nonetheless, London offers better chances of finding new accessible or adaptable homes and having accessible housing targets in place still does result in a higher proportion of M4(2) and M4(3) homes being planned and built for Disabled Londoners than in England as a whole.[20]

Recommendations:

17. We strongly urge the government to execute its commitment to raise the accessibility standards of all new homes, making M4(2) the national baseline for all new-build properties.

18. The Government should revise the NPPF, explicitly requiring all local plans to include a specific policy and target for new wheelchair accessible and adaptable M4(3) of at least 10%.

Understanding of accessible housing standards

19. Whilst we acknowledge the success of London’s higher accessibility standards and housing targets in delivering suitable housing for Disabled people, even in London there are still barriers within the planning system hindering the delivery of accessible and adaptable homes.

20. Firstly, there is a lack of technical understanding of accessible housing standards in the construction, design, planning and regulatory professions. This causes the construction of some homes that, despite their intended accessibility, do not deliver the Building Regulations’ requirements or functions.[21] Local authorities often lack the expertise or capacity to check that developers’ detailed designs meet the standards for accessibility that they claim to. Only 32% of councils in England report that developers are normally fully compliant with accessibility requirements but only 3% of councils took action against developers on accessibility grounds.[22] Consequently, Disabled people move into new-build properties which are advertised as accessible but fall short in meeting our needs.

Viability Assessments

21. Viability assessments are a huge barrier to the delivery of suitable housing for Disabled people. These assessments allow developers to adjust affordable and accessible housing requirements if their proposal is projected to yield less than a 20% profit. Local authorities lack the expertise and resources to challenge technical viability assessments and many feel that current planning policy favours developers.[23] As the planning system relies on local authorities to ensure that the new-build houses reflect the needs of the local population, we are concerned that they are not given resources to achieve this. In fact, 57% of councils agree it can be difficult to get developers to build accessible homes.[24]

Data Collection

22. We are also concerned about the inadequacy of data collection and monitoring practices of local authorities in assessing the local demand for accessible housing. Standards and targets alone are not sufficient, and councils need to collect good quality data about Deaf and Disabled people and their needs in their local authority areas to be able to plan, build and allocate the right kind of housing to people. Regrettably, only 12% of councils rate their data on Disabled people's housing requirements as 'good' or 'very good’.[25]

Allocation Systems

23. Whilst improving the standards, targets and implementation of accessible and adaptable homes is integral to providing suitable homes for Disabled people, if allocations systems do not work these homes will not reach those who need them.

24. Local authority properties are often not correctly categorised. 69% of local authorities in England cannot estimate what percentage of their social and affordable housing is accessible.[26] Consequently, Disabled people are offered unsuitable properties, while accessible properties are often allocated to those who do not require them. One local authority de-installed 56 wet rooms each costing £10,000 in 2016 because non-disabled residents did not require them.[27]

Recommendations:

25. The Government should adequately resource local authorities to enable them to challenge viability assessments, where needed, and ensure they are not used to prevent or reduce the number of accessible and adaptable new-build housing.

26. The Government should require local authorities to consistently use accessible housing registers to ensure accessible social housing is available to those who need it. It should also develop a standardised and robust methodology for LAs to collect data about Disabled people and their housing needs. This methodology should be included in a government’s planning guidance to all LAs in England.

1. Data should include the number of people living in the area, their impairments, accessibility needs and other requirements that Disabled people might have, such as living close to their support networks, being close to accessible public transport as well as medical and social care support services.

27. The Planning Inspectorate should challenge any local authority if their plan fails to set specific requirements for the delivery of a proportion of all new homes to meet M4(2) and M4 (3) standards.

28. Revise the NPPF to incorporate an explicit, clear definition of accessible housing. The term ‘accessible’ is used inconsistently in the NPPF. The definition should reference Part M of the Building Regulations ensuring that the adaptability and accessibility of new-build homes is interwoven throughout the NPPF to avoid misinterpretation.[28] Accessible homes should be considered as a key element to the planning framework in a parallel way to affordable housing.

29. The NPPF should explicitly require that Disabled people are consulted during the pre-application phase of new local plans to guarantee meaningful engagement.
1. Hammersmith and Fulham’s Disability Forum Planning Group (DFPG) is a best practice example of this. DFPG is a user-led group of Disabled residents, using the social model of disability to advise the local planning authority on development proposals and actively challenge proposals that fall short of accessibility standards. Their engagement extends to commissioning inclusive training for residents and planning officers.[29]

The role of national government in ensuring Disabled residents have access to accessible and adaptable housing.

Top of Form

Adaptations and Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs)

30. Housing adaptations are essential for Disabled people to live independently, particularly in existing homes. DFGs should support Disabled people across various tenures to secure necessary adaptations, yet the reality is that DFGs often fail to do so.

31. Disabled people wait too long for assessments and installations of adaptations, even minor ones. Alarmingly, 67% of councils fail to complete vital home adaptations within the mandated 12-month deadline.[30] Such waiting times do not only compromise safety in our homes but also likely to contribute to a deterioration of our physical and mental health.

32. Moreover, in some local authority areas some professionals appear unaware of the housing needs of people with sensory impairments, learning difficulties or autism spectrum disorders which often leads to OTs rejecting requests for adaptations from this cohort of people.

33. Disabled people’s access to adaptations through DFG is a postcode lottery due to the maximum grant amount being set at £30,000 in England and the arbitrary nature of the means-test. The maximum grant amount has remained unchanged since 2008,[31] forcing many Disabled people in need of expensive adaptations to fundraise for vital housing adaptations[32] and nearly 80% of local authorities in England and Wales to use their discretionary powers to top up funding.[33]

34. Means tests are a significant barrier for those who need adaptations and particularly penalise working Disabled people, leaving us ineligible and facing the extra costs alone. The means test slows down the process of securing an adaptation through DFG and discourages Disabled people from completing their applications. A 2018 review found that a quarter of those who drop out of applying for DFGs do so as a result of the means test.[34]

35. Issues with DFGs prevent Disabled people from living safely and independently in our homes. Living in inaccessible homes means that we are stuck in hospital beyond discharge dates as our homes are not equipped for our needs. This puts more pressure on the NHS and the care system and negatively impacts our quality of life.

36. Another significant issue in making adaptations generally is obtaining consents.  We have come across individuals who struggled to obtain consents from freeholders and landlords, including social landlord adaptations to common parts and to their homes. The provision of the Equality Act must be strengthened.  Adaptations to common parts of buildings are also a big issue. Although we fully support the commencement of Section 36 of the Equality Act 2010[35], we are concerned that if the financial and managerial burden of carrying out the adaptations and restoring to pre-existing state is placed on Disabled people, those new provisions will make little difference. We believe putting financial burden on Disabled people for making adaptations to common parts is discriminatory and contradicts the Social Model of Disability.  For more information see our response to the 2022 consultation.[36]

Recommendations

37. The Government should proceed with the proposed consultation on the DFG means test and maximum grant amount.[37] The DFG system should be reformed so it can be fit for purpose.

38. There should be more training and guidance for local authorities to ensure they have sufficient resources to assess the need for DFGs for all types of impairments.

39. National Government should fund reasonable adjustments to common parts of buildings. This funding should be non-means-tested and the funding for each individual case should be based on need.

Private Rented Sector (PRS)

40. Deaf and Disabled people are over-represented in social housing due to the affordability and security of this tenure. Notably, nearly 1 in 4 (24.9%) Disabled people aged 16 to 64 years in the UK rent social housing compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (7.9%) non-disabled people.[38] However, the shortage of social housing has meant that renting privately has become the only option for many Disabled people. Finding a suitable home in the PRS is extremely challenging for Disabled people.

41. Disabled people do not know whether advertised properties in the PRS have any accessibility features as properties lack classification in terms of accessibility. In fast-paced rental markets like London where rising rents, competition between potential tenants attending mass viewings and bidding wars are prevalent – there is no incentive for landlords to prioritise accessibility or information about it.[39]

42. Whilst 18.8% of Disabled people live in the PRS, only 6% of DFG’s go to private renters.[40] This predominantly occurs because landlords are reluctant to allow adaptations. Landlords are required to provide a letter stating the tenant will live in the property for at least 5 years, which is almost never provided given the average length of a tenancy agreement in England is 12 months and that many buy-to-let mortgages specify a 12-month maximum tenancy.[41]

43. In addition, many landlords lack knowledge on funding options and maintenance responsibilities for adaptations. When landlords do allow adaptations, some exploit these changes to argue for rent increases which tenants cannot afford to pay. Also, the insecure nature of PRS tenancies deters tenants from requesting adaptations due to fears of being evicted through Section 21.

44. Given the increasing reliance of Disabled people on private rentals, urgent measures are needed to address the challenges in securing adaptations within this tenure.

45. Affordability and accessibility are inextricably linked and a critical concern within the PRS. There is no point having an accessible home that is not affordable. A mere 5% of properties on Zoopla can be covered by housing benefit. This is due to local housing allowance (LHA) being frozen since April 2020.[42] This disproportionately impacts Disabled people, who are more likely to be on low-income or unemployed and face on average extra costs of £975 per month.[43] Additionally, the properties that are covered by LHA are more likely to be hazardous, in a state of disrepair and less energy efficient.[44] Such issues have specifically worsened the living conditions of Disabled people who experience mental distress and those who are not able to regulate their body temperatures.[45]

Recommendations:

46. The Government has proposed the introduction and enforcement of the Decent Homes Standard (DHS) in the PRS in England. While we welcome this commitment, we believe that the Standard should be reviewed and incorporate higher accessibility standards. We recommend that the Government uses the DHS to ensure that all homes in the PRS become at least M4(2): Accessible and adaptable dwellings.

47. The Government has proposed the introduction of a Property Portal in the PRS and a legal requirement for landlords to register themselves and their properties on the database.  We recommend that the Property Portal is leveraged to require landlords to record the accessibility level of their property as this would help embed accessibility into the PRS. [46]

48. The Government should unfreeze LHA to ensure it reflects market rents so that Disabled people in the PRS aren’t forced to choose between eating and paying their rent.

September 2023