§ Baroness Turner of Camdenasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will publish, for every housing authority in England and Wales, the rankings which underpinned their recent decision to reduce the maximum discount available to tenants under the right-to-buy scheme in 41 areas. [HL3440]
97WA
§ The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)On 22 January 2003, the Deputy Prime Minister announced that he intended to reduce the maximum discounts available to tenants under the right-to-buy scheme in 42 areas that were under the greatest housing market pressure, as evidenced by a high incidence of homelessness and high house prices.
Having considered representations from a number of local authorities and post-transfer housing associations, the Deputy Prime Minister decided to reduce the maximum discounts in 41 areas. This decision was implemented by the Housing (Right to Buy) (Limits on Discounts) (Amendments) Order 2003 (Statutory Instrument 2003 No. 498), which was laid before Parliament on 6 March 2003 and came into effect on 27 March 2003.
At the request of honourable Members opposite, this order was debated on 12 May 2003 in the other place by the Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation (Official Report, Commons Session 2002–03, Monday 12 May 2003, Cols. 003 to 026). During the debate my honourable friend the Member for Harrow East, agreed to publish information on how all housing authority areas ranked in terms of housing pressure.
98WA
Indicators used to determine which Local Authorities were under greatest housing pressure Each LA was originally ranked 1 (high) to 5 (low) according to its levels of homelessness and house prices.
A revised measure is also shown, which makes allowance for earned incomes. There are very few changes between the two measures.
Combined Indicators Homlessness Indicator House Price Indicator Affordability Indicator Original Using Income London Barking and Dagenham 2 2 3 — — Barnet 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Bexley 1 2 3 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Brent 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Bromley 1 1 2 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Camden 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure City of London 3 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Croydon 1 2 2 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Ealing 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Enfield 1 1 2 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Greenwich1 3 2 2 — — Hackney 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Hammersmith and Fulham 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Haringey 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Harrow 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Havering 3 2 2 — — Hillingdon 1 1 2 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Hounslow 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Islington 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Kensington and Chelsea 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Kingston upon Thames 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Lambeth 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Lewisham 1 2 2 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Merton 2 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Newham 1 2 2 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Redbridge 1 2 2 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Richmond upon Thames 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Southwark 2 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Sutton 1 1 2 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Tower Hamlets 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Waltham Forest 1 2 2 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Wandsworth 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Westminster 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure This information is set out below. It relates only to England. The order does not affect areas in Wales, which for right-to-buy purposes are subject to different arrangements administered by the National Assembly for Wales.
The areas are grouped according to the nine English regions—London, South East, East, South West, East Midlands, West Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber, North East and North West. Each area was ranked on a scale of 1 (high) to 5 (low) according to the levels of homelessness and house prices locally, and these rankings were used to determine the 41 areas under the greatest housing pressure. Subsequently, information relating to earned incomes became available, and the model was rerun to take account of affordability. The effects on individual areas of doing so were marginal. The revised rankings are also set out below.
My honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill) has today written to Mr Edward Davey MP and to the Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation to convey this information, and to Mr Philip Hammond MP and to Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP to clarify a separate point made during the debate about the costs of the right-to-buy. Copies of these letters have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
99WA100WA101WA
Indicators used to determine which Local Authorities were under greatest housing pressure Each LA was originally ranked 1 (high) to 5 (low) according to its levels of homelessness and house prices.
A revised measure is also shown, which makes allowance for earned incomes. There are very few changes between the two measures.
Combined Indicators Homlessness Indicator House Price Indicator Affordability Indicator Original Using Income South East Adur 1 2 1 — Greatest pressure Arun 2 2 2 — — Ashford 3 2 2 — — Aylesbury Vale 3 2 2 — — Basingstoke and Deene 2 2 2 — — Bracknell Forest 4 1 2 — — Brighton and Hove 1 2 1 — Greatest pressure Canterbury 1 2 2 — — Cherwell 2 2 2 — — Chichester 3 1 1 — — Chiltern 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Crawley 2 2 2 — — Dartford 1 2 3 — — Dover 3 4 4 — — East Hampshire2 1 1 2 Greatest pressure — Eastbourne 1 3 3 — — Eastleigh 3 2 1 — — Elmbridge 2 1 1 — — Emsom and Ewell 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Fareham 2 2 1 — — Gosport 2 3 3 — — Gravesham 4 3 3 — — Guildford 2 1 1 — — Hart 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Hastings 2 4 4 — — Havant 1 3 3 — — Horsham 2 1 1 — — Isle of Wight 1 3 2 — — Lewes 3 2 2 — — Maidstone 1 2 2 — — Mid Sussex 2 1 1 — — Milton Keynes 1 3 3 — — Mole Valley 4 1 1 — — New Forest 1 2 1 — Greatest pressure Oxford 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Portsmouth 4 3 3 — — Reading 1 1 2 Greatest pressure — Reigate and Banstead 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Rother 2 2 2 — — Runnymede 3 1 1 — — Rushmoor 2 2 2 — — Sevenoaks 2 1 1 — — Shepway 3 3 3 — — Slough 1 2 2 — — South Bucks 3 1 1 — — South Oxfordshire 2 1 1 — — Southampton 3 3 3 — — Spelthome3 1 1 2 Greatest pressure — Surrey Heath 2 1 1 — — Swale 3 3 3 — — Tandridge 2 1 1 — — Test Valley 2 1 1 — — Thanet 3 4 3 — — The Medway Towns 1 3 4 — — Tonbridge and Mailing 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Tunbridge Wells 2 2 1 — — Vale of White Horse 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Waverley 2 1 1 — — Wealden 2 2 2 — — West Berkshire 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure West Oxfordshire 3 1 1 — — Winchester 4 1 1 — — Windsor and Maidenhead 4 1 1 — — Woking 2 1 1 — — Wokingham 2 1 1 — — Worthing 1 2 3 — — Wycombe 2 1 2 — — 102WA103WA
Indicators used to determine which Local Authorities were under greatest housing pressure Each LA was originally ranked 1 (high) to 5 (low) according to its levels of homelessness and house prices.
A revised measure is also shown, which makes allowance for earned incomes. There are very few changes between the two measures.
Combined Indicators Homlessness Indicator House Price Indicator Affordability Indicator Original Using Income East of England Babergh 3 3 3 — — Basildon 1 3 3 — — Bedford omitted 3 3 — — Braintree 3 2 2 — — Breckland omitted 3 3 — — Brentwood 4 1 2 — — Broadland 3 2 2 — — Broxbourne 1 2 1 — Greatest pressure Cambridge 3 1 1 — — Castle Point 2 2 3 — — Chelmsford 3 2 2 — — Colchester 2 3 3 — — Dacorum 4 1 2 — — East Cambridgeshire omitted 2 2 — — East Hertfordshire 3 1 2 — — Epping Forest 3 1 1 — — Fenland 3 4 4 — — Forest Heath 4 3 2 — — Great Yarmouth 3 4 4 — — Harlow 1 2 3 — — Hertsmere 3 1 1 — — Huntingdonshire 3 3 3 — — Ipswich 3 4 3 — — Kings Lynn and West Norfolk 4 4 3 — — Luton 3 3 4 — — Maldon 2 2 3 — — Mid Bedfordshire 3 2 3 — — Mid Suffolk 5 3 3 — North Hertfordshire 3 2 3 — — North Norfolk 3 3 3 — — Norwich 2 3 3 — — Peterborough 3 4 4 — — Rochford 2 2 2 — — South Bedfordshire 2 2 3 — — South Cambridgeshire 2 1 1 — — South Norfolk 4 3 3 — — Southend-on-Sea 3 3 4 — — St Albans 2 1 1 — — St Edmunsbury 4 3 3 — — Stevenage 2 2 3 — — Suffolk Coastal 1 3 2 — — Tendring 1 3 4 — — Three Rivers 3 1 1 — — Thurrock 4 3 4 — — Uttlesford 3 1 1 — — Watford 1 1 2 Greatest pressure — Wavoney 4 4 4 — — Welwyn Hatfield 2 1 1 — — South West Bath and North East Somerset 3 2 2 — — Bournemouth 2 2 2 — — Bristol 3 3 3 — — Caradon 3 3 3 — — Carrick 5 2 2 — — Cheltenham 3 2 3 — — Christchurch 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Cotswold 4 2 1 — — East Devon 3 2 2 — — East Dorset 2 1 1 — — Exeter 2 3 2 — — Forest of Dean 3 3 3 — — Gloucester 2 4 3 — — Isles of Scilly 2 2 1 — — Kennet 4 2 2 — — Kerrier 1 3 2 — — Mendip 1 3 2 — — Mid Devon 2 3 2 — — 104WA105WA
Indicators used to determine which Local Authorities were under greatest housing pressure Each LA was originally ranked 1 (high) to 5 (low) according to its levels of homelessness and house prices.
A revised measure is also shown, which makes allowance for earned incomes. There are very few changes between the two measures.
Combined Indicators Homlessness Indicator House Price Indicator Affordability Indicator Original Using Income North Cornwall 4 3 2 — — North Devon 4 3 2 — — North Dorset 4 2 1 — — North Somerset 2 3 3 — — North Wiltshire 1 2 2 — — Ponwith 2 3 2 — — Plymouth 2 4 4 — — Poole 2 2 1 — — Purbeck 2 2 1 — — Restormel 2 3 3 — — Salisbury 2 2 1 — — Sedgemoor 4 3 4 — — South Gloucestershire 1 2 3 — — South Hams 3 2 2 — — South Somerset 2 3 3 — — Stroud 5 3 3 — — Swindon 2 3 3 — — Taunton Deane 2 2 2 — — Teignbridge 1 3 2 — — Tewkesbury 4 2 2 — — Torbay 1 3 3 — — Torridge 4 3 2 — — West Devon 3 3 2 — — West Dorset 3 2 2 — — West Somerset 3 3 2 — — West Wiltshire 2 3 3 — — Weymouth and Portland 2 3 3 — — North East Alnwick 5 4 4 — — Berwick-upon-Tweed 5 5 4 — — Blyth Valley 5 5 5 — — Castle Morpeth 5 4 4 — — Chester-le-Street 5 5 5 — — Darlington 5 5 5 — — Dorwentside 5 5 5 — — Durham 4 5 5 — — Easington 4 5 5 — — Gateshead 5 5 5 — — Hartlepool 5 5 5 — — Middlesbrough 5 5 5 — — Newcastle upon Tyne 5 5 5 — — North Tyneside 5 5 5 — — Redcar and Cleveland 3 5 5 — — Sedgefield 4 5 5 — — South Tyneside 5 5 5 — — Stock ton-on-Tees 5 5 5 — — Sunderland 3 5 5 — — Teesdale 5 5 4 — — Tynedale 2 4 4 — — Wansbeck 5 5 5 — — Wear Valley 4 5 5 — — North West Allerdale omitted 5 5 — — Barrow-in-Furness 5 5 5 — — Blackburn with Darwen 4 5 5 — — Blackpool 4 5 5 — — Bolton 5 5 5 — — Burnley 2 5 5 — — Bury 5 5 5 — — Carlisle 5 5 5 — — Chester 4 3 4 — — Chorley 4 4 5 — — Congleton 5 4 4 — — Copeland 5 5 5 — — Crewe and Nantwich 5 4 5 — — Eden 3 4 3 — — Ellesmere Port and Neston 4 4 4 — — 106WA107WA
Indicators used to determine which Local Authorities were under greatest housing pressure Each LA was originally ranked 1 (high) to 5 (low) according to its levels of homelessness and house prices.
A revised measure is also shown, which makes allowance for earned incomes. There are very few changes between the two measures.
Combined Indicators Homlessness lndicator House Price Indicator Affordability Indicator Original Using Income Fylde 1 4 4 — — Halton 5 5 5 — — Hyndburn 5 5 5 — — Knowsley 5 5 5 — — Lancaster 5 5 5 — — Liverpool 4 5 5 — — Macclesfield 4 3 3 — — Manchester 3 5 5 — — Oldham 5 5 5 — — Pendle 5 5 5 — — Preston 4 5 5 — — Ribble Valley 4 4 4 — — Rochdale 5 5 5 — — Rossendale 5 5 5 — — Salford 5 5 5 — — Sefton 5 4 4 — — South Lakeland 3 3 3 — — South Ribble 2 4 4 — — St Helens 4 5 5 — — Stockport 5 4 4 — — Tameside 4 5 5 — — Trafford 4 3 3 — — Vale Royal 4 4 4 — — Warrington 4 4 — — West Lancashire 5 4 4 — — Wigan 5 5 5 — — Wirral 5 5 5 — — Wyre 3 4 4 — — Yorkshire and the Humber Barnsley 5 5 5 — — Bradford 5 5 5 — — Calderdale 5 5 — — Craven 4 4 4 — — Doncaster 5 5 5 — — East Riding of Yorkshire 4 4 4 — — Hambleton omitted 3 2 — — Harrogate 2 3 3 — — Kingston upon Hull 5 6 — — Kirklees 4 5 5 — — Leeds 4 4 4 — — North East Lincolnshire 5 5 5 — — North Lincolnshire 5 5 5 — — Richmondshire 3 3 4 — — Rothcrham 3 5 5 — Ryedale omitted 3 2 — — Scarborough 4 4 4 — — Selby 4 4 4 — — Sheffield 4 5 5 — — Wakefield 5 5 5 — — York 2 3 3 — — East Midlands Amber Valley 4 4 4 — — Ashfield 5 5 5 — — Bassetlaw 5 5 5 — — Blaby 5 3 3 — Bolsover 4 5 5 — — Boston 3 4 4 — — Broxtowe 2 4 4 — — Charnwood 4 4 4 — — Chesterfield 4 5 5 — — Corby 4 5 5 — — Daventry 5 3 3 — — Derby 5 4 5 — — Derbyshire Dales 4 3 3 — — East Lindsey 3 4 4 — — East Northamptonshire 2 4 4 — — Erewash 3 4 4 — — Gedling 1 4 4 — —
Indicators used to determine which Local Authorities were under greatest housing pressure Each LA was originally ranked 1 (high) to 5 (low) according to its levels of homelessness and house prices.
A revised measure is also shown, which makes allowance for earned incomes. There are very few changes between the two measures.
Combined Indicators Homlessness Indicator House Price Indicator Affordability Indicator Original Using Income Harborough 3 2 3 — — High Peak 2 4 4 — — Hinckley and Bosworth 4 4 4 — — Kettering 4 4 4 — — Leicester 5 4 4 — — Lincoln 5 4 4 — — Mansfield 2 5 5 — — Melton 3 3 3 — — Newark and Sherwood 3 4 4 — — North East Derbyshire 5 5 4 — — North Kesteven 4 4 3 — — North West Leicestershire 4 4 4 — — Northampton 4 4 4 — — Nottingham City 5 5 5 — — Oadby and Wigston 4 4 4 — — Rushcliffe 2 2 3 — — Rutland 5 2 2 — — South Derbyshire 5 4 4 — — South Holland 3 4 4 — — South Kestoven 4 4 4 — — South Northamptonshire 3 2 2 — — Wellingborough 4 4 4 — — West Lindsey 1 5 5 — — West Midlands Birmingham 5 4 4 — — Bridgnorth 3 2 3 — — Bromsgrove 2 2 3 — — Cannock Chase 4 4 4 — — Coventry 5 4 4 — — Dudley 4 4 4 — — East Staffordshire omitted 4 4 — — Herefordshire 2 3 3 — — Lichfield 4 3 3 — — Malvern Hills 4 2 2 — — Newcastle-under-Lyme 5 5 5 — — North Shropshire 2 4 4 — — North Warwickshire 5 4 4 — — Nuneaton and Bedworth 5 4 4 — — Oswestry 4 4 4 — — Redditch 5 4 3 — — Rugby 5 3 4 — — Sandwell 5 5 4 — — Shrewsbury and Alcham 2 3 3 — — Solihull 3 2 2 — — South Shropshire 3 3 1 — — South Staffordshire 4 3 3 — — Stafford 4 4 4 — — Staffordshire Moorlands 1 4 5 — — Stoke-on-Trent 5 5 5 — — Stratford-on-Avon 3 2 2 — — Tamworth 3 4 4 — — Telford & Wrekin omitted 4 4 — — Walsall 5 5 4 — — Warwick 4 2 2 — — Wolverhampton 4 5 5 — — Worcester 3 3 3 — — Wychavon 3 2 3 — — Wyre Forest 1 4 3 — — Note: There were eight authorities which had no or a negligible number of social lettings.
These authorities were omitted from the analysis as these data were considered to be unreliable.
108WA109WA
- 1 Greenwich was added to the list of areas under housing pressure at the request of the borough.
- 2 East Hampshire was excluded from the original list because of a data problem. As it was a marginal case, it was not added at a later stage.
- 3 Spelthorne and Christchurch were not included on the final list at the request of these districts.
Combined Indicators Original Using Income London No changes Barnet Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Bexley Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Brent Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Bromley Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Camden Greatest pressure Greatest pressure City of London Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Croydon Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Ealing Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Enfield Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Hackney Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Hammersmith and Fulham Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Haringey Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Harrow Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Hillingdon Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Hounslow Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Islington Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Kensington and Chelsea Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Kingston upon Thames Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Lambeth Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Lewisham Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Merton Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Newham Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Redbridge Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Richmond upon Thames Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Southwark Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Sutton Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Tower Hamlets Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Waltham Forest Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Wandsworth Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Westminster Greatest pressure Greatest pressure South East 5 areas with changed status Chiltern Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Epsom and Ewell Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Hart Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Oxford Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Reigate and Banstead Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Tonbridge and Mailing Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Vale of White Horse Greatest pressure Greatest pressure West Berkshire Greatest pressure Greatest pressure Reading Greatest pressure — Spelthorne Greatest pressure — Adur — Greatest pressure Brighton and Hove — Greatest pressure New Forest — Greatest pressure East of England 2 areas with changed status Watford Greatest pressure — Broxbourne — Greatest pressure South West No change Christchurch Greatest pressure Greatest pressure