§ 31. Mr. KirkwoodTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he proposes to reduce levels of homelessness.
§ Mrs. RoeI refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 2 December last, at column 927.
§ Mr. Chris SmithTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list each scheme selected for an additional allocation of housing investment programme funds, under the homelessness initiative promoted by his Department's Estate Action team(a) during 1986–87 and (b) during 1987–88; how many units of accommodation each scheme will bring into use for homeless households; when these units will be available for letting; and whether they will provide permanent, or temporary accommodation for homeless households;
(2) if he will list each scheme submitted for additional housing investment programme resources, under the homelessness initiative promoted by his Department's Estate Action team (a) during 1986–87 and (b) during 1987–88; and if he will list the criteria used by his Estate Action team in selecting (i) which schemes should receive additional resources, (ii) which authorities should receive additional resources and (iii) what additional resources each authority should receive.
§ Mrs. RoeThe local authorities which have so far received additional allocations under the Estate Action homelessness initiative, the amount of their allocations and the numbers of dwellings brought into use for the homeless are as follows.
The criteria used in assessing the bids submitted by some 40 local authorities are based on the initiative's stated objective of bringing vacant council dwellings back into use at reasonable cost.
749W
Local Authority Estate Number of units brought back into use £ Allocation 1986–87 £ Allocation 1987–88 Gooseley Lane 23 250,000 — Rushmoor Maitland Road 23 165,000 — Sheffield Various 37 110,000 180,000 Slough Manor Park 1 9,100 — South Tyneside Tyne Dock 16 167,000 55,000 Stockport Adswood and Gorsey Bank 25 87,500 — Thamesdown Latton Close 14 67,425 — Tower Hamlets Ocean 40 — 314,000 Wakefield Airedale 16 60,000 90,000 Walsall Various 101 314,000 — Westminster Queens Park 241 515,000 — Beachcroft House 29 Woodspring Several 14 18,982 — York Several 12 77,000 62,700
§ Mr. Chris SmithTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list each scheme selected for additional housing investment programme resources in 1987–88 under the initiative announced by this Department on 30 November 1987, to enable local authorities to provide additional accommodation to meet the needs of the homeless; how many units of accommodation each scheme will provide; when these units are likely to be available for letting; and whether they will provide temporary or permanent accommodation for the homeless;
(2) if he will list each scheme submitted for additional housing investment programme resources in 1987–88, to enable local authorities to provide additional accommodation to meet the needs of the homeless, under the initiative announced on 30 November 1987; and if he will list the criteria which his Department used in selecting (a) which schemes should receive additional resources, (b) which authorities should receive additional resources and (c) what additional resources each authority should receive.
§ Mrs. RoeIn making these allocations through the Department's regional offices account was taken of proposals put forward by authorities. The objective was to enable schemes to go ahead this year which would reduce reliance on bed-and-breakfast accommodation or would otherwise benefit the homeless. Preference was given to those authorities with the most serious homelessness problems as indicated by the number of households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, the number for which authorities had accepted responsibility, and the proportion of council lettings taken up by the homeless.
It is for authorities to decide how to use their allocations. However, the proposals put forward mainly related to bringing empty council dwellings back into use or to the acquisition of properties for use as hostels for the homeless.
Table 1 lists the authorities given allocations and their estimates of the extra dwellings or hostel places that would result. In total these estimates amount to nearly 2,800 extra dwellings/places.
Table 2 lists the authorities which applied but did not receive allocations.
750W751W
Table 1 Authorities given additional allocations Region and Local Authority Allocation £ '000 Dwellings/Places Northern Durham 60 5 Gateshead 40 2 Hartlepool 300 15 Langbaurgh 90 5 Middlesbrough 84 10 Newcastle 300 15 North Tyneside 74 4 South Tyneside 51 14 Yorks and Humberside Barnsley 280 40 Bradford 80 20 Kirklees 200 20 Sheffield 400 32 Wakefield 100 8 York 40 2 East Midlands Ashfield 50 6 Derby 267 12 East Lindsey 40 4 Leicester 295 38 Nottingham 150 45 Northampton 198 13 Eastern Aylesbury 55 33 Colchester 190 6 Ipswich 30 6 Luton 111 10 Milton Keynes 159 10 Peterborough 165 5 St. Albans 150 8 Southend 400 18 Thurrock 40 3 South West Bath 150 6 Bristol 200 40 Isles of Scilly 160 2 Kennet 115 8 North Dorset 210 7 Poole 100 8 Purbeck 125 9 South Somerset 80 6 Weymouth and Portland 160 10 West Midlands Birmingham 325 71 Cannock Chase 18 4 Dudley 40 3
Region and Local Authority Allocation £'000 Dwellings/Places North Shropshire 10 8 Redditch 22 9 Sandwell 100 26 South Herefordshire 55 6 South Shropshire 50 6 South Staffordshire 50 6 Stoke-on-Trent 50 4 Walsall 130 22 Wolverhampton 200 40 Wrekin 50 8 North West Blackburn 180 90 Blackpool 100 10 Bolton 40 20 Bury 70 5 Carlisle 100 8 Chester 80 5 Chorley 70 6 Congleton 40 5 Hyndburn 50 10 Manchester 1,000 400 Rochdale 160 18 Stock port 50 10 Tameside 100 6 Wigan 60 60 Greater London Brent 1,300 52 Camden 960 118 Greenwich 1,275 81 Hackney 1,300 145 Hammersmith 800 75 Haringey 910 137 Islington 800 129 Lambeth 900 83 Lewisham 900 88 Newham 1,255 141 Tower Hamlets 1,150 110 Wandsworth 750 32 Westminster 1,300 50 South East Brighton 300 6 Canterbury 240 18 Crawley 150 14 Dover 200 6 Gillingham 275 14 Gravesham 70 7 Guildford 200 6 Hastings 113 10 Lewes 15 3 Medina 250 8 Newbury 150 6 New Forest 400 20 Reading 235 13 Slough 330 8 South Oxford 25 2 Wealdon 200 5 Woking 47 3 Table 2
Authorities who applied but did not receive additional allocations:
Region and Local Authority
Northern
- Alnwick
- Derwentside
- Easington
- Stockton
Yorkshire and Humberside
- Beverley
- Calderdale
- Craven
- Doncaster
- Harrogate
752 - Leeds
- Ryedale
East Midlands
- Lincoln
- Mansfield
- Oadby/Wigston
Eastern
- Braintree
- Cambridge
- Chelmsford
- Hertsmere
- Maldon
- North Bedfordsh
- Norwich
- South Norfolk
- Stevenage
- Waveney
Greater London
- Barking
- Barnet
- Bromley
- Ealing
- Harrow
- Hillingdon
- Hounslow
- Kensington
- Merton
- Redbridge
- Richmond
- Southwark
- Sutton
- Waltham Forest
South East
- Adur
- Cherwell
- Fareham
- Horsham
- Oxford
- Portsmouth
- Rochester
- Southampton
- South Wight
- Tunbridge Wells
- Winchester
- Worthing
South West
- Bournemouth
- Caradon
- Carrick
- Cheltenham
- Exeter
- Gloucester
- Kerrier
- Mendip
- North Wilts
- Penwith
- Restormel
- Sedgemoor
- South Hams
- Stroud
- Taunton Deane
- Teignbridge
- Torridge
- West Dorset
- Wimborne
- Woodspring
- West Wiltshire
West Midlands
- Malvern Hills
- Nuneaton
- Worcester
North West
753W
- Nil
§ 43. Mr. Matthew TaylorTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action his Department has taken to assist young homeless people during the United Nations International Year of Shelter for the Homeless.
§ Mrs. RoeYoung people like others stand to benefit from the proposals in the current Housing Bill for increasing the supply of rented accommodation. Further specific steps taken during 1987 include the funding of the Housing Corporation's investment in hostels and other shared housing; the introduction of a new mixed-funding programme for housing association schemes for young job-movers; leaflets produced to encourage householders to take in lodgers and grants given to CHAR, First Key and other voluntary bodies for advice and assistance to the homeless. My Department has also been helping fund the
Outcome of planning appeals: Buckinghamshire district councils Local authority Appeals received Appeals decided Appeals allowed Appeals dismissed Appeals withdrawn Aylesbury vale 1984 62 42 11 31 8 1985 72 57 25 32 10 1986 84 69 28 41 13 Q1, 2 and 3 1987 76 48 17 31 7 South Bucks 1984 69 50 12 38 6 1985 79 62 25 37 6 1986 80 63 24 39 12 Ql, 2 and 3 1987 77 57 25 32 20 Chiltern 1984 81 47 19 28 13 1985 70 76 35 41 9 1986 97 69 34 35 13 Ql, 2 and 3 1987 101 65 29 36 11 Milton Keynes 1984 25 21 5 16 4 1985 25 24 15 9 2 1986 31 25 8 17 1 Ql, 2 and 3 1987 33 12 6 6 8 Wycombe 1984 91 52 21 31 16 1985 105 79 21 58 25 1986 177 119 50 69 30 Ql, 2 and 3 1987 117 97 37 60 20 Note: Milton Keynes Development Corporation—No record of appeals during 1984, 1985, 1986 or 1987.