Se conoció el oficio GCPJ 00017/2017 de fecha 21 de junio de 2017, suscrito por Leonardo Recio Tineo, Consejero, el cual dice textualmente:

In 2000, the Government produced the first comprehensive review of housing in twenty-three years, a Green Paper titled ‘Quality and Choice: A decent home for all’ (DETR 2000). The paper identified three major housing challenges; firstly to improve the conditions of, and provide opportunity for the minority who face severe problems; secondly to reduce the difficulties encountered when selling and buying a home and thirdly to do so without undermining and impairing what was perceived to be a successful system. Mullins and Murie (2006) claimed that this Paper was more notable for continuity than any revolutionary changes it proposed. One of the main policies adopted from the Paper was in relation to the provision of decent homes; a new fitness standard that all social housing had to meet by 2010 and later extended to 2012. This policy was supported by changes to the Housing Benefit system and choice based lettings. The intention was to give households a greater incentive to optimise their standard of housing and avoid a ‘take it or leave it’ approach.

2.2.2.2.1 Definition of Decent Homes Standard

A Government Spending Review endorsed the proposals set out in the Green Paper ‘Quality

& Choice’ in July 2000 and described the target for England and Wales as being to:

‘Ensure that all social housing meets set standards of decency by 2010, by reducing the number of households living in social housing that does not meet these standards by a third between

18

2001 and 2004, with most of the improvement taking place in the most deprived local authority areas’ (DETR 2000, p.53).

To be able to deliver Decent Homes (DH), social landlords were required to quantify the level of non-decent properties in their housing stock, invest in a strategy to meet this, and monitor their progress towards making all of the noncompliant properties decent by December 2012. According to McCarthy (2003), the Decent Homes Standard (DHS) addressed the issues associated with an ageing housing stock in the UK, and also, through the standard, the housing and health links. With properties that meet the minimum standard generally present no problems. Some properties are old but in good condition and other properties may be in poor condition but not old and either way these properties may not fail the standard. However, these properties will deteriorate unless essential maintenance is planned and implemented; therefore, there is a clear issue for the future management of the housing stock as an asset.

2.2.2.2.2 Decent Homes Criteria

ODPM (2000a) defines DH as one which is ‘wind and weather tight’ and ‘warm and has

modern facilities’. A general description of what constitutes decency was necessary to ensure

consistency between social landlords in interpreting and applying the standard. According to the ODPM (2000a), a decent home is one which meets the following four criteria:

i. It meets the current statutory minimum standard for housing. Dwellings falling below this standard are those defined as unfit under section 604 of the Housing Act 1985 (as amended by the 1989 Local Government and Housing Act).

ii. It is in a reasonable state of repair - dwellings can fail to meet this criterion if either: a. One or more of the key building components are old and, because of their

condition, need replacing or major repair; or

b. Two or more of the other building components are old and, because of their condition, need replacing or major repair.

iii. It has reasonably modern facilities and services. Dwellings, which fail to meet this criterion, are those that lack three or more of the following:

• A reasonably modern kitchen (20 years old or less) • A kitchen with adequate space and layout

• A reasonably modern bathroom (30 years old or less) • An appropriately located bathroom and WC

• Adequate insulation against external noise (where external noise is a problem) • Adequate size and layout of common areas for blocks of flats

• A home failing to meet two or less of the above is still classed as decent and therefore it is not necessary to modernise kitchens and bathrooms if a home passes the remaining criteria.

19

iv. It provides a reasonable degree of thermal comfort - This criterion requires dwellings to have both effective insulation and efficient heating.

According to the ODPM (2000a) the application of the DHS carries some discretion, and social landlords should bear in mind the following:

• DH verses long term sustainability. Decisions on which homes to invest in must be made in the context of the long-term demand for the stock;

• Works need not be limited to the DHS;

• Failure to meet the DHS is a trigger for action; however, where tenants do not want the work or the property is to be demolished, work may not necessarily need to be carried out;

• Work should not be done against a tenant's wishes, and should be delayed until the property next becomes void.

It should be added that the term ‘a reasonable degree of thermal comfort’ is very ambiguous and according to the National Energy Action (NEA, 2010) the recommended insulation standards are considered to be totally inadequate. Furthermore, there is:

• No provision for the improvement of properties that are not constructed with cavity walls or have no loft space.

• Decency Standard suggests that 50mm of loft insulation should be considered

“effective”.

This is despite the facts that some 20% of local authority properties have no external wall cavity to receive thermal insulation and that 35% of dwellings in social ownership have no loft space to insulate. Moreover, the current building regulations require the provision of external walls to comply with minimum ‘U’ values to reduce the heat loss in all properties and minimum levels of loft insulation presently set at a minimum of thickness of 300mm or equivalent, NEA (2003). The flow chart shown in Figure 2.1, shows a DH checklist to assist any housing organizations in implementing their strategy.

Tackling poor quality properties in low demand areas will generally resort to an issue of cost. This is especially the case when housing authorities are struggling to fund acceptable levels of repair and improvements to their dwellings in order to meet the Decent Homes Standard. According to HACAS Chapman Hendy (2004) case studies, social housing providers commented on the problems of funding, which had reached the end of is acceptable life expectancy. Questions were put as to whether investments should be expended at all, and if they were, could funding be secured given the limited market value of the property?

20

Figure 2.1: Decent Homes Check List

Source: TAIT (2003)

There is evidence to suggest that whilst some organisations are struggling to finance the DHS, many are of the opinion, that the standard is limited.