Brighton & Hove, Eastbourne, Hastings, Lewes, Rother, Wealden. Private sector housing stock condition surveys

Brighton & Hove, Eastbourne, Hastings, Lewes, Rother, Wealden Private sector housing stock condition surveys Sub regional overview report FINAL REPORT Working in partnership with

Contents 1 Introduction... 3 1.1 Purpose of Report... 3 2 General characteristics of housing stock... 4 2.1 Characteristics of the dwelling stock... 4 2.2 Numbers of dwelling stock... 4 2.3 Construction date of dwelling stock... 4 2.4 Dwelling type profile... 5 2.5 Tenure... 7 2.6 Dwelling use and houses in multiple occupation... 9 2.7 Vacant Properties... 10 3 Decent homes & category 1 hazards... 12 3.1 Introduction... 12 3.2 Level of non decency... 12 3.3 Reasons for non decency... 13 3.4 Non decency by general characteristics... 14 3.5 Non decency at ward level... 15 3.6 Vulnerable households in decent homes... 16 3.7 Costs to achieve PSA7 targets... 17 3.8 Level of category 1 hazards... 18 3.9 Category 1 hazards by general characteristics... 19 3.10 Category 1 hazards at ward level... 20 3.11 Costs to rectify category 1 hazards... 21 4 Thermal Comfort and Energy Efficiency... 22 4.1 Introduction... 22 4.2 Thermal comfort failures... 22 4.3 SAP Ratings... 23 4.4 Thermal comfort failures by ward... 24 4.5 Fuel poverty... 25 4.6 Fuel poverty by ward... 26 4.7 Costs of works to deal with fuel poverty & energy efficiency.. 26 5 Disabled Facilities Grants... 28 5.1 Introduction... 28 Appendix A Survey details... 30 Background... 30 Nature of the condition surveys... 31 Comparative statistics... 31 Statistical Variance and Standard Deviation... 32 Presentation of figures... 32 2

1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of Report 1.1.1 The main purpose of the report is to provide a sub regional overview of private sector housing conditions. A report of this type, looking at private sector housing conditions across a sub-region, is unique, but likely to be the first of many as collaborative working is encouraged by government. 1.1.2 The five separate local authorities in East Sussex, and Brighton & Hove City Council have developed a strong partnership to tackle private sector housing issues. The collaborative venture is called Brighton & Hove, East Sussex Together (BEST), and has made joint funding bids to the Government Office of the South East. The formation of BEST reflects the close links between the partner authorities and the similarities in the nature of their districts. Partnership working has allowed a comprehensive approach to be adopted in formulating future strategy and funding bids. The six authorities are: Brighton and Hove City Council Eastbourne Borough Council Hastings Borough Council Lewes District Council Rother District Council Wealden District Council 1.1.3 All of the BEST authorities have had private house condition surveys undertaken by CPC Ltd (or its predecessor pps plc) in recent years. The condition survey in Lewes was undertaken in 2004 and was in fact updated by CPC in 2007 to reflect the changes implemented by the Housing Act 2004. All the other surveys were undertaken in 2006 or later. This report aims to summarise the findings across the whole BEST area and to compare the findings for individual authorities. 1.1.4 In addition, Building Research Establishment (BRE) stock projection reports have been used to permit more sophisticated analysis of the existing data. These reports use data from the national English House Condition Survey (EHCS) results together with detailed Census data down to ward level in sophisticated computer models to generate projections as to decency, proportion of hazards, fuel poverty, etc down to ward level. This report takes this process a stage further substituting the much more detailed information from the local house condition surveys undertaken by CPC (where the sampling rate is typically twelve times higher than the EHCS). The findings in respect of each indicator are set out in the relevant part of this Report. 3

2 General characteristics of housing stock 2.1 Characteristics of the dwelling stock 2.1.1 Before considering condition indicators such as non decency and the incidence of category 1 hazards, a brief description of overall dwelling characteristics is given. 2.2 Numbers of dwelling stock 2.2.1 Across the BEST area a total of 311,700 private sector dwellings were covered by the house condition surveys; this includes owner occupied and privately rented dwellings, but excludes council and housing association stock. The number of dwellings by authority is shown in the table below; Brighton and Hove is the largest authority by a substantial margin, with more than a third of the overall stock. Figure 1 Stock numbers by authority Authority Dwellings Percent Brighton and Hove 104,100 33.4% Wealden 58,300 18.7% Eastbourne 39,700 12.7% Rother 38,200 12.3% Lewes 37,000 11.9% Hastings 34,400 11.0% Total 311,700 100.0% 2.3 Construction date of dwelling stock 2.3.1 There is often a link between building age and non decency, category 1 hazards etc typically higher rates are associated with older properties. The table below shows the make up by construction date in each of the authorities. The chart illustrates in graphic format the proportions by age band in each authority. The figures for the available BEST area overall and the national averages are also shown. Figure 2 Construction date of the dwelling stock Authority Pre-1919 1919-1944 1945-1964 Post 1964 Hastings 46.7% 9.9% 10.4% 33.0% Brighton and Hove 39.8% 25.9% 13.1% 21.2% Eastbourne 27.0% 12.1% 13.4% 47.6% Rother 23.4% 17.3% 19.2% 40.2% Wealden 20.9% 11.5% 19.2% 48.5% Lewes 16.2% 14.8% 20.3% 48.7% BEST 30.6% 17.4% 15.6% 36.8% EHCS 2005 24.9% 18.5% 17.1% 39.5% 4

2.3.2 The most significant difference between the BEST area and the national position is the greater proportion of properties in the pre-1919 age band, attributable mainly to the high proportions of such dwellings in Brighton and Hove and in Hastings. Looking at the differences between individual authorities, it is clear that both Brighton and Hove and Hastings have significantly higher proportions of pre-1919 properties and in Brighton and Hove there are also a substantial proportion of properties built during the interwar period. Only 34.3% of Brighton s stock was built post war, contrasted with Lewes where 69.0% of the stock was built post war. The differences in stock makeup between the authorities are demonstrated clearly in the chart below: Figure 3 Construction date of the dwelling stock (chart) 100% 80% 60% 40% Post 1964 1945-1964 1919-1944 Pre-1919 20% 0% Hastings Brighton and Hove Eastbourne Rother Wealden Lewes BEST EHCS 2005 2.4 Dwelling type profile 2.4.1 The table and chart below indicate dwelling type by authority. Certain dwelling types are typically more likely to be associated with unsatisfactory housing conditions, in particular converted flats. The figures for the BEST area differ from the national averages in that there are substantially more converted flats (almost five times the national average) and more purpose built flats. There are lower proportions of semi-detached, detached houses and small terraced houses. 5

Figure 4 Dwelling type Hastings Brighton and Hove Eastbourne Rother Wealden Lewes BEST EHCS 2005 Converted flats 26.8% 23.8% 11.8% 8.6% 1.7% 3.6% 15.7% 3.3% Medium/large 21.3% 20.6% 18.1% 11.5% 8.0% 17.4% 16.4% 16.8% terraced house Semi detached 19.5% 17.5% 16.6% 13.9% 24.5% 18.5% 18.6% 29.1% house Detached house 10.8% 6.5% 11.8% 27.7% 33.2% 25.2% 16.4% 21.0% Bungalow 9.3% 7.7% 12.3% 20.4% 22.1% 25.1% 13.4% 9.2% Low rise purpose 6.1% 11.5% 16.9% 11.5% 3.8% 8.2% 10.0% 7.8% built flats Small terraced 5.5% 5.8% 8.6% 5.0% 6.7% 1.5% 6.2% 12.1% house High rise purpose 0.6% 6.6% 3.8% 1.3% 0.0% 0.4% 3.3% 0.7% built flats Figure 5 Dwelling type (chart) 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% High rise purpose built flats Small terraced house Low rise purpose built flats Bungalow Detached house Semi detached house Medium/large terraced house Converted flats 0% Hastings Brighton and Hove Eastbourne Rother Wealden Lewes BEST EHCS 2005 2.4.2 As the chart above illustrates very clearly, the stock profile in Hastings and Brighton & Hove is radically different from the other authorities, with greater numbers of converted flats and medium/large terraced houses. Eastbourne follows the pattern, but to a lesser degree. This 6

2.5 Tenure clearly reflects the building and subsequent decline in popularity of large properties in the proximity of the seafront. 2.5.1 Tenure again is generally linked closely to housing conditions. Lower levels of owner occupation and higher levels of private renting tend to be associated with lower proportions of satisfactory housing. The proportion of social housing is important in terms of providing access to affordable housing. The relative proportions by area contrasted with the BEST area and national averages are shown in tabular and graphic format below. Figure 6 - Tenure Hastings Brighton & Hove Eastbourne Rother Lewes Wealden BEST EHCS 2005 Owner occupied 60% 62% 66% 78% 78% 85% 70% 71% Privately Rented 24% 23% 19% 12% 10% 7% 17% 11% Housing Association (RSL) 16% 5% 6% 10% 4% 2% 6% 8% Local Authority 0% 10% 8% 0% 8% 5% 6% 10% 2.5.2 Although the rate of owner occupation is broadly similar, the Brighton and East Sussex Together area differs from the national averages in having a significantly higher proportion of privately rented housing and a significantly lower proportion of social housing. 2.5.3 Looking at the individual authorities, the proportions of privately rented housing are striking in Hastings and Brighton, and to a lesser degree Eastbourne. The levels of owner occupation are correspondingly lower. The high rate of private renting is consistent with the elevated proportions of converted flats. This does have significant implications in terms of private sector housing policy. The tenure patterns are demonstrated clearly in graphic format:- 7

Figure 7 Tenure (chart) 100% 80% 60% 40% Local Authority RSL Privately Rented Owner occupied 20% 0% Hastings Brighton & Hove Eastbourne Rother Lewes Wealden BEST EHCS 2005 2.5.4 The low levels of social housing in Wealden, Rother and Lewes would appear to have implications in terms of access to affordable housing. 2.5.5 The map below has been prepared using the BRE stock modelling maps modified using house condition survey data as referred to in Part 1. It shows clearly the concentrations of privately rented stock down to ward level. Figure 8 Proportions of privately rented stock by ward 8

2.6 Dwelling use and houses in multiple occupation 2.6.1 All the surveys with the exception of Lewes were carried out after the new definition of house in multiple occupation under the Housing Act 2004 had come into effect. All the surveys sought to identify, in addition, the numbers of higher risk HMOs (3 or more storeys, 5 or more residents in more than one household) which are subject to he mandatory licensing regime. 2.6.2 It is well recognised that, in general terms, housing conditions in HMOs tend to be appreciably worse than in single household dwellings. It is important for all local authorities to focus on HMOs but especially so when they occupy a significant proportion of their stock. 2.6.3 Again, information is shown in tabular and graphic format below: Figure 9 Building use Brighton and Hove Hastings Eastbourne Rother Lewes Wealden BEST Licensable HMO 1.0% 1.0% 0.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% Other HMO 9.0% 7.1% 2.7% 2.3% 0.9% 0.3% 4.5% Converted flat 18.0% 20.8% 7.9% 6.0% 2.5% 1.7% 10.6% Purpose built flat 17.3% 6.7% 19.6% 12.2% 9.7% 3.6% 12.3% House 54.7% 64.5% 69.3% 79.3% 86.9% 94.5% 72.0% 2.6.4 Equivalent figures on a national basis are not shown but the national proportion of HMOs overall is approximately 2%. The average rate in the BEST area at 5% is more than double the national figure. Again Brighton and Hastings stand out as radically different to the other authorities. In Brighton 10% of the stock are HMOs, with 1% of the stock subject to mandatory licensing. There are also elevated proportions of converted flats, again typically associated with less satisfactory housing. To an extent, Eastbourne follows the Brighton and Hastings pattern but to a much lesser extent. 9

Figure 10 Building use (chart) 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% House Purpose built flat Converted flat Other HMO Licensable HMO 0% Brighton and Hove Hastings Eastbourne Rother Wealden Lewes BEST 2.7 Vacant Properties 2.7.1 Given the current pressure for affordable housing (particularly in the South East), minimising the incidence of long term vacant private sector homes is a key priority for local authorities. At any one time, there will be empty homes as a natural feature of the housing market (properties awaiting sale, letting, renovation, etc). The national figure is around 3.1%. 2.7.2 What are of concern are long term vacant properties (six months or more). The national figure is around 1.5%. The figures across the BEST area are 3.3% and 1.1%, the average number of long term vacant properties being lower than the national figure. However, the chart below, of the figures by authority, does not show the picture is consistent. The area with the highest proportion of both vacant properties and long term vacant properties is Hastings, where the rate of long term vacant properties is appreciably higher than the national average. In all other authorities, the rate of long term vacant properties is below the national average. 10

Figure 11 Vacant properties 8.0% 7.0% 7.2% 6.0% Total vacants 5.0% Long term vacants 4.0% 3.5% 3.9% 3.3% 3.0% 2.6% 2.5% 2.3% 2.4% 2.0% 1.0% 1.1% 1.0% 0.9% 0.6% 0.9% 1.1% 0.0% Hastings Brighton Eastbourne Rother Wealden Lewes BEST 11

3 Decent homes & category 1 hazards 3.1 Introduction 3.1.1 This part will look at stock condition in terms of non decency, the numbers of vulnerable households in decent homes and the incidence of category 1 hazards. 3.2 Level of non decency 3.2.1 As indicated in Part1, the Decent Homes Standard contains four broad criteria - that a property should: A - be above the legal minimum standard for housing, and B - be in a reasonable state of repair, and C - have reasonably modern facilities (such as kitchens and bathrooms) and services, and D - provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort (effective insulation and efficient heating). 3.2.2 Prior to the introduction of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System in April 2006, the minimum legal standard was that a property should be fit for human habitation. It is now that a property should be free from category 1 hazards. The figures given below for individual authorities have used the HHSRS as the first criterion for the standard. 3.2.3 At national level, the change has had a very substantial impact on the level of non decency. The English House Condition Survey 2006 is the first to incorporate the results based on both fitness and HHSRS. The full 2006 EHCS report is still awaited. However, headline figures from the survey have been released and these indicate that the overall rate of non decency has risen from 26.8% to 36.8% (26.4% to 37.5% in the private sector only). 3.2.4 The table shows that the overall rate for the BEST area at 33.2% is the below the revised national average (based on HHSRS as the first criterion). The rate is highest in Hastings, the only authority where non decency is at a higher level than the national average. In all cases, the rates are above the previous (2005) national average of 27.1% (fitness standard). 12

Figure 12 Non decency by authority 50% 40% 38.8% 35.0% 33.8% 33.0% 33.2% 36.3% 30% 29.4% 28.8% 20% 10% 0% Hastings Brighton and Hove Rother Lewes Wealden Eastbourne BEST EHCS 2006 3.3 Reasons for non decency 3.3.1 Prior to the recent change from fitness to the HHSRS, poor thermal comfort was almost always the most common reason for failing the Decent Homes Standard. In many cases, now, as nationally, the most common reason for failure is the presence of a category 1 hazard. 3.3.2 The table below sets out the reasons for failure by authority: Figure 13 Reasons for failure of the decent homes standard Hastings Brighton and Hove Category 1 hazard dwellings 20.7% 18.5% 13.5% 16% 14.0% 13.1% 16.4% In need of repair 12.1% 7.7% 6.7% 10.3% 7.0% 7.3% 8.5% Lacking modern facilities 4.2% 4.4% 3.7% 1.9% 1.0% 2.2% 3.1% Poor degree of thermal comfort 18.9% 16.9% 23.5% 17.0% 18.0% 16.7% 18.0% Rother Wealden Lewes Eastbourne BEST 3.3.3 Across the BEST area as a whole, thermal comfort remains the most common reason for failing the Decent Homes Standard. This is also the case for all of the authorities except Hastings and Brighton; here, as 13

nationally, the most common reason for failure is the presence of a category 1 hazard. The high level of failures for thermal comfort in Rother is notable. As nationally, lacking modern facilities and amenities is the least common reason for failure. 3.4 Non decency by general characteristics 3.4.1 The chart below shows non decency by tenure and authority. As nationally, the rate in the BEST area overall is higher in the privately rented sector at 38.8% compared with 30.5% in the owner occupied sector. This pattern is repeated across the area; the rates in the privately rented sector in Hastings and Rother being particularly high at 49.0% and 47.2% respectively. Figure 14 Non decency by tenure and authority 60% 50% 49.0% 47.2% Owner occupied Privately rented 46.8% 40% 30% 34.7% 34.2% 36.9% 28.0% 31.8% 31.7% 28.6% 39.2% 23.0% 29.3% 30.5% 38.8% 34.6% 20% 10% 0% Hastings Brighton and Hove Eastbourne Rother Wealden Lewes BEST EHCS2006 3.4.2 With non decency and construction date, it is usual for the highest rates to be found in pre-1919 properties and this is the case in the BEST area overall as shown in the chart below. The pattern is followed in four authorities but in Brighton and in Eastbourne the highest rates are found in properties built during 1945 1964. 3.4.3 With build type (no graphic), one pattern that is apparent from individual results is that, where high rise purpose built flats are present, in almost all cases the highest rate of non decency is found in such flats, followed generally by low rise purpose built flats and then converted flats. The strong association with purpose built flats is generally because of the heating systems present. This phenomenon is particularly observable in Eastbourne and Brighton & Hove s elevated non decency rates in the 1945 to 1964 stock, which have a high proportion of such dwellings. 14

Figure 15 Non decency by construction date and authority 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 52.0% 28.5% 29.1% 25.8% 30.9% 31.9% 43.9% 40.7% 29.2% 35.0% 37.9% 24.6% 41.7% 34.5% 27.9% 31.7% 48.6% 34.8% 28.8% 20.1% Pre-1919 1919-1944 1945-1964 Post 1964 30.4% 20.7% 24.5% 22.2% 35.2% 31.6% 33.2% 26.6% 10% 0% Hastings Brighton and Hove Eastbourne Rother Wealden Lewes BEST 3.5 Non decency at ward level 3.5.1 The map below has been prepared using the BRE stock modelling maps modified using house condition survey data as referred to in Part 1. It shows clearly the concentrations of non decency down to ward level. Figure 16 Non decency at ward level 15

3.6 Vulnerable households in decent homes 3.6.1 As indicated in the introduction to this report, up until the Comprehensive Spending Review in October 2007, one of the key private sector housing indicators was Public Service Agreement 7 (PSA7). This required local authorities to take steps to ensure that specified percentages of vulnerable private sector households were living in decent homes. Vulnerable households are those in receipt of income or disability related benefit. The percentage for the next stage of the target was 70% to be achieved by 2010. 3.6.2 However, it is likely that the current Regional Housing bodies will continue to apply targeting in respect of vulnerable households in decent homes when making capital allocations. Furthermore, the percentage of vulnerable households in decent homes in the private sector remains part of CLG s Departmental Strategic Objectives (DSO2, 2.7) 3.6.3 The table below summarises the position across the BEST area. Across the area, 38.8% of vulnerable households are living in non a decent home, which means that the proportion of such households in decent homes is 61.2%. Accordingly, 4,892 homes occupied by vulnerable households need to be made decent by 2010 for the nominal target to be met. 3.6.4 Only one authority, Wealden, has already met the target. The authorities where most progress needs to be made are Hastings and Brighton, a finding which is consistent with all other indicators referred to so far. Figure 17 Performance against PSA7 targets Area Vulnerable households in non decent dwellings Percent vulnerable households in non decent dwellings Shortfall for vulnerable occupiers Hastings 3,120 46.0% 1,080 Brighton and Hove 9,400 42.5% 2,770 Eastbourne 3,340 37.4% 660 Lewes 1,800 34.6% 240 Rother 2,170 34.1% 260 Wealden 1,730 28.1% -118 BEST 21,560 38.8% 4,892 3.6.5 The map below has been prepared using the BRE stock modelling maps modified using house condition survey data as referred to in Part 1. It 16

shows clearly the performance against the PSA7 target down to ward level. Figure 18 PSA7 at ward level 3.7 Costs to achieve PSA7 targets 3.7.1 The table below shows the total costs and average cost per dwelling to achieve the PSA7 targets: Figure 19 PSA7 costs Shortfall 2010 target Average cost per dwelling ( k) Total cost ( m) Brighton and Hove 2770 3,810 10.6 Hastings 1080 3,040 3.3 Rother 260 2,800 0.7 Eastbourne 210 2,540 0.5 Lewes 240 1,480 0.4 Wealden 0 N/A N/A 3.7.2 Again, Brighton and Hove and Hastings show the highest figures, both in terms of actual numbers and in terms of average cost per dwelling. 17

3.8 Level of category 1 hazards 3.8.1 The new risk assessment based Housing Health and Safety Rating System came into effect on the 1 April 2006 replacing the former housing fitness standard. It covers a range of 29 hazards which could impact upon the health and safety of householders or their visitors. If individual hazards are identified, the likelihood of harm occurring and the harm outcomes are assessed and a formula used to give a numerical score. If the score is 1,000 or higher, the hazard is rated as a category 1 hazard and a Local Housing Authority has a statutory duty to take the most appropriate course of action in respect of that hazard. 3.8.2 The recent EHCS Headline Report indicated that nationally category 1 hazards occur at a rate of 23.5% in the private sector. This contrasts with a rate of 3.9% for unfitness (both HHSRS and fitness were assessed when the EHCS 2006 was undertaken). The full EHCS report is still awaited. Condition surveys undertaken by CPC across the country where both HHSRS and fitness were assessed typically show that category 1 hazards occur at a significantly higher rate than unfitness, although rates as high as the national figure are not commonly encountered. 3.8.3 The chart below shows the incidence of category 1 hazards across BEST area. The overall rate is 16.4%, lower than the national average. Across the area, as might be expected from earlier indicators, the highest rates are found in Hastings and Brighton respectively. Figure 20 Category 1 hazards by authority 25.0% 23.5% 20.0% 20.7% 18.5% 15.9% 16.4% 15.0% 14.0% 13.5% 13.1% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Hastings Brighton and Hove Wealden Lewes Rother Eastbourne BEST EHCS (2006) 18

3.8.4 The reasons for failure of the HHSRS are consistent across the area. The most common reason (as nationally) is excess cold (varying from between 51% to 67%) followed by falling on stairs etc (varying from 21% to 32%). The next most common reason is falling on level surfaces, with mould growth also significant in Hastings and Brighton. 3.9 Category 1 hazards by general characteristics 3.9.1 The chart below shows category 1 hazards by tenure and authority. As with non decency, and as is the case nationally, a higher rate is found across the BEST area in privately rented properties (22.1%) as opposed to owner occupied properties (15.0%). The pattern is repeated across all authorities, with the difference particularly high in Wealden and Lewes. Figure 21 Category 1 hazards by tenure and authority 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 18.2% 26.8% 17.4% 21.3% 14.9% 27.7% 12.5% 20.1% 12.4% 25.5% Owner occupied Privately rented 12.1% 16.2% 15.0% 22.1% 22.4% 30.5% 10% 5% 0% Hastings Brighton and Hove Wealden Rother Lewes Eastbourne BEST EHCS 2006 3.9.2 The chart below shows the incidence of category 1 hazards by construction date and authority. Typically category 1 hazards tend to be associated with pre-1919 properties as such properties will have solid walls increasing the chances of an excess cold hazard along with stairs which are more likely to be steep or have other inherent faults. This is the case with the BEST area overall, where category 1 hazards occur at a rate of 24.5%. The pattern is generally repeated with exceptions in Eastbourne and Lewes. In Wealden, the high proportion of pre 1919 dwellings in the rural stock create category 1 hazards and in Hastings, Rother and Brighton & Hove the high rate of flat conversion contributes to pre 1919 hazard rates. Neither of these issues are strongly associated with Eastbourne and Lewes. 19

Figure 22 Category 1 hazards by construction date and authority 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 31.3% 8.0% 13.2% 11.8% 23.2% 18.1% 18.5% 10.0% 16.0% 22.6% 16.7% 7.9% 23.0% 15.8% 10.2% 8.5% 29.7% 14.3% 16.0% 10.3% 22.4% 26.1% 13.5% 6.2% 24.5% 18.0% 15.3% 9.1% Pre 1919 1919-1944 1945-1964 Post 1964 5% 0% Hastings Brighton and Hove Eastbourne Rother Wealden Lewes BEST 3.9.3 With build type, there were limited associations; in Hastings, Eastbourne, Wealden and Lewes the rate of category 1 hazards was highest in converted flats (an association which is commonly found), in Brighton it was in detached houses and in Rother in bungalows. In the case of Brighton & Hove detached houses have a far older age profile than in the other authorities, contributing to issues such as excess cold failures. Bungalows also tend to have very few post 1964 dwellings, but also have the highest external exposure, relative to their size, resulting in more excess cold failures. 3.10 Category 1 hazards at ward level 3.10.1 The map below has been prepared using the BRE stock modelling maps modified using house condition survey data as referred to in Part 1. It shows clearly the concentrations of category 1 hazards down to ward level. 20

Figure 23 Category 1 hazards at ward level 3.11 Costs to rectify category 1 hazards 3.11.1 The table below shows the costs associated with dwellings where there is a category 1 hazard. The costs shown are both those just to rectify the hazard and comprehensive costs, where work considered necessary over the next ten years is included. Figure 24 - Costs where there is a category 1 hazard Remedial action only m Average cost per dwelling k Compr. costs m Avg cost per dwelling k Brighton and Hove 52.3 2,720 119 6,210 Wealden 24.9 2,690 82 8,850 Hastings 4.6 1,280 24 6,540 Rother 2.2 1,090 14 6,780 Lewes 5.4 1,070 36 7,080 Eastbourne 2.2 1,060 17 8,440 3.11.2 Again, the figure for Brighton and Hove is the highest, followed by Wealden. In the case of Wealden the concentration of HHSRS failures in the rural stock and averaged across a smaller number of failing dwellings is likely to have affected the figures. 21

4 Thermal Comfort and Energy Efficiency 4.1 Introduction 4.1.1 The individual reports considered a range of issues relating to the energy efficiency of dwellings within the partner authority areas. Energy efficiency is an area of increasing concern to central Government and to all authorities because of the clear health implications of inadequate dwelling temperature and because of the adverse effects of climate change. Fuel poverty in particular is being targeted under the new performance monitoring regime. 4.1.2 Concern over energy efficiency is being heightened by the recent substantial rises in fuel costs which are likely to have a very serious impact on lower income households. It is generally accepted that fuel prices are unlikely to reduce significantly if at all from the levels currently prevailing. 4.1.3 This overview report will focus on two main areas: Failures of the thermal comfort criterion of the Decent Homes Standard Fuel poverty 4.2 Thermal comfort failures 4.2.1 Criterion D of the Decent Homes Standard requires that dwellings provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort (effective insulation and efficient heating). Failure of the thermal comfort criterion, and consequently the work required to remedy that failure, is based on the combination of heating system type and insulation present within a dwelling. The requirements vary with the type of fuel and can be summarised as follows: For dwellings with gas/oil programmable heating, cavity wall insulation (if there are walls that can be insulated effectively) or at least 50mm loft insulation (if there is a loft space) is an effective package of insulation. For dwellings heated by electric storage heaters/ LPG/ programmable solid fuel central heating a higher specification of insulation is required: at least 200mm of loft insulation (if there is a loft) and cavity wall insulation (if there are walls that can be insulated effectively). All room heater systems are considered to fail the thermal comfort standard as do all dwellings where there is no permanent heating system. 22

4.2.2 The table below illustrates the numbers of dwellings in each authority that fail the thermal comfort criterion, such failures as a proportion of the stock in each and the estimated average cost per dwelling to rectify the failures. Figure 25 Thermal comfort failures by authority Area Number of dwellings failing criterion D % of stock failing criterion Average cost per dwelling to remedy Rother 9,000 23.5% 1,230 Hastings 6,500 18.9% 1,800 Lewes 6,660 18.0% 800 Wealden 9,900 17.0% 1,280 Brighton and Hove 17,600 16.9% 1,210 Eastbourne 6,600 16.7% 1,190 BEST 56,260 18.0% 1,240 4.3 SAP Ratings 4.3.1 The Standard Assessment Procedure or SAP is a government rating for energy efficiency. The calculation of SAP takes into account the construction of the main building elements (walls, roof, windows, etc) the type of heating system and heating controls, the type and extent of insulation to building elements, type of fuel, etc. It gives a good gauge of heating affordability at a particular dwelling. 4.3.2 The SAP rating is given as a figure on a scale between 0 100. the current national average is 46 and the figure for the broad regional group (London and the South East) is 50 (EHCS 2005). 4.3.3 The table below shows mean SAP ratings by authority, with the figures also showing the mean SAP rating by tenure. It is not possible to show a mean SAP rating for the BEST area overall. 4.3.4 It should be noted that the Eastbourne figure was prepared using an earlier version of SAP the scale of which ran from 0 120. This accounts for the figure being substantially higher than the other authorities. An approximation of the figure on the 0-100 scale would be 51 (owner occupied stock 50 and privately rented stock 52). In all cases, it may be noted that the differences between the tenures are minimal or indeed non existent in some cases. 4.3.5 The area with the highest mean SAP rating is Wealden, as would be expected given the age profile of its stock (almost 68% of its stock was 23

built post war). As would be anticipated, the area with the lowest figure is Hastings, where almost 47% of the stock was built before 1919. The figure for Brighton and Hove (where almost 40% of the stock was built before 1919) at 51 is above both national and regional averages. This appears to be reflecting the considerable take up of Warm Front grants and other initiatives lead by the Council to improve energy efficiency (Brighton and Hove had the second highest take up by monetary value of Warm Front grants for part of 2007 out of 142 authorities in the south East Region). Figure 26 SAP rating by authority and tenure Authority Overall Owner occupied Privately rented Eastbourne* 61 60 62 Wealden 55 55 53 Rother 52 51 52 Brighton and Hove 51 51 52 Lewes 48 48 48 Hastings 46 46 46 4.4 Thermal comfort failures by ward 4.4.1 The map below has been prepared using the BRE stock modelling maps modified using house condition survey data as referred to in Part 1. It shows clearly the concentrations of thermal comfort failures down to ward level. Figure 27 Thermal comfort failures by ward 24

4.5 Fuel poverty 4.5.1 A household is considered to be in fuel poverty if 10% of household income is spent on energy costs in order to maintain adequate warmth. In Fuel Poverty in England: The Government s Plan for Action published in 2004, the government set a target for the total eradication of fuel poverty by November 2016. Further action to tackle fuel poverty is currently under consideration by the Government given the recent substantial increases in fuel prices. 4.5.2 The table below shows the extent of fuel poverty by authority. The figure for Lewes is appreciably higher than those for the other authorities; reflecting to an extent the fact that the survey work was undertaken at a different time period. With the other authorities, the figures are generally of the same order, with Eastbourne the only authority with a figure significantly above the BEST area average. The proportion of households with incomes below 20k was found to be 57%, compared with the 2004/2005 national figure of 48%, and obviously the level of fuel poverty in a district is linked inextricably with prevailing income levels. Figure 28 Fuel poverty by authority 16% 14% 13.9% 12% 11.2% 10% 8.6% 8% 6% 6.1% 5.0% 5.5% 5.7% 6.2% 4% 2% 0% Hastings Brighton and Hove Rother Lewes Wealden Eastbourne BEST England 25

4.6 Fuel poverty by ward 4.6.1 The map below has been prepared using the BRE stock modelling maps modified using house condition survey data as referred to in Part 1. It shows clearly the concentrations of fuel poverty down to ward level. 4.6.2 As with variations by authority variations at ward level will be reflecting the fact that incomes vary significantly and especially at ward level grouping by income levels does tend to occur some localities are less affluent than others. Fuel poverty is clearly directly related to income and the general income levels prevailing in an locality have an marked effect upon the extent of fuel poverty. Figure 29 Fuel poverty by ward 4.7 Costs of works to deal with fuel poverty & energy efficiency 4.7.1 The table below indicates the costs involved firstly in rectifying fuel poverty in owner occupied dwellings and secondly the costs involved in generally bringing all properties to all properties to modern standards of insulation. In both cases, an average cost per dwelling figure is shown to allow for the substantial differences in size between authorities. 4.7.2 Interestingly, it may be noted that the highest average cost per dwelling to rectify fuel poverty is found in Rother. As might be expected, the next highest cost is found in Hastings. The figure for Brighton and Hove may again be reflecting the progress made with the Warm Front and other energy efficiency initiatives. 26

Figure 30 Cost of remedial works energy efficiency Authority Fuel poverty ( m) Average cost per dwelling ( k) General energy efficiency improvements ( m) Average cost per dwelling ( k) Rother 6.7 3,800 79 2,100 Hastings 5.2 2,960 74 2,130 Wealden 8.9 2,530 147 2,520 Brighton and Hove 6.5 2,400 193 2,080 Eastbourne 6.6 2,360 68 1,800 Lewes 5.9 1,600 44 1,154 27

5 Disabled Facilities Grants 5.1 Introduction 5.1.1 The Regulatory Reform Order 2002 gave local authorities considerably more discretion to set their own frameworks for offering financial assistance for the repair, improvement and adaptation of dwellings. However, the requirement to offer mandatory Disabled Facilities Grants in certain circumstances remains and in practice the budget for such grants is generally the largest item in a local authority s private sector housing capital allocation. 5.1.2 The individual reports gave information on the proportion of households where there was one or more members with a disability. They also projected the potential cost implications in respect of offering mandatory grant aid. 5.1.3 The table below shows the numbers and percentages of households where there is a person(s) with a disability by authority: with with Numbers Per cent households Rother 6,400 16.8% Eastbourne 6,400 16.1% Lewes 6,100 15.9% Wealden 8,500 14.6% Brighton and Hove 14,100 13.5% Hastings 4,400 12.8% Figure 31 - Households a person(s) a disability 5.1.4 The proportions do not differ to any major degree between the authorities; the highest proportion is found in Rother closely followed by Eastbourne and Lewes. Brighton and Hove and Hastings show the lowest proportions. 5.1.5 The table below considers the potential cost of disability adaptations. It should be noted that the survey asked householders for their view on the work required; the work deemed necessary and appropriate following an assessment by an Occupational Therapist could very significantly from this. Nevertheless, the figures do give a good indication of the scale of future demand and expenditure. All figures were prepared prior to the recent changes in the DFG regime. 28

5.1.6 The figures show the actual number of adaptations required (there may be two or more adaptations required in some households), the total estimated cost of such adaptations and the total estimated cost after means testing. For comparison purposes, the average cost per adaptation has been shown. In addition, the total means tested cost per authority has been divided by the numbers of dwellings in that authority to give a figure which is intended to indicate the rank the significance of the projected costs having regard to the size of the authority (obviously the authorities vary substantially in size). Figure 32 DFG cost implications Number adaptations required Adaptations cost ( m) Cost after means testing ( m) Average cost (means tested) per adaptation ( ) Average cost by overall number of dwellings ( ) Eastbourne 5,600 17.5 7.3 1,300 180 Rother 3,850 11.2 6.4 1,660 170 Wealden 5,300 16.6 7.8 1,470 130 Brighton and Hove 6,950 21.7 12.0 1,730 120 Hastings 4,200 11.7 3.0 710 90 Lewes 2,800 5.3 N/A N/A N/A 5.1.7 As would be expected from the table showing the proportions of households with a person(s) with a disability, Eastbourne and Rother head the table when it is ranked by the average means tested cost by overall number of dwellings. With regard to the average cost per adaptation, the highest figure was noted in Brighton and Hove and the lowest by a significant margin in Hastings. The average figure for Hastings if the total cost is not discounted to allow for the effect of means testing ( 2,800) is not significantly lower than those for Eastbourne, Rother, Wealden and Brighton and Hove ( 3,100, 2,900, 3,100 and 3,100 respectively). This indicates that the effect of means testing is appreciably greater in Hastings, linked to the prevalence of low incomes. 29

Appendix A Survey details Background Section 3 of the Housing Act 2004 places a duty on local housing authorities to keep housing conditions in their area under review. The information from house condition surveys is used by local authorities in preparing statistical returns, when considering future housing strategy and in preparing funding bids. In particular, the information is relevant to setting a local framework for the delivery of financial assistance following the Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) (England and Wales) Order 2002. The Housing Act 2004 made a number of important changes to the framework for statutory enforcement. Again, house condition surveys provide valuable information in respect of local authority duties and powers relating to: The new Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The compulsory licensing of higher risk houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) (three or more storeys, five or more tenants and two or more households). Discretionary powers relating to selective licensing of private landlords and empty dwelling management orders. References will be made throughout this report to data based on the HHSRS as the new system now has replaced the former fitness standard. The Decent Homes Standard has been a key element in the Government s housing policy since 2001. This non statutory standard contains four broad criteria - that a property should: A - be above the legal minimum standard for housing, and B - be in a reasonable state of repair, and C - have reasonably modern facilities (such as kitchens and bathrooms) and services, and D - provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort (effective insulation and efficient heating). If a dwelling fails any one of these criteria it is considered to be non decent. A detailed definition of the criteria and their sub-categories are described in the ODPM guidance: A Decent Home The definition and guidance for implementation June 2006. Up until the Comprehensive Spending Review in October 2007, one of the key private sector housing indicators was Public Service Agreement 7 (PSA7). This gauged the ability of vulnerable households to access decent housing. Local authorities have been working to ensure that at least 70% of vulnerable 30

occupiers are living in decent homes by the year 2010 (this target is described in more detail in Part 3 of this report). Whilst the PSA7 target will no longer exist in its current form from April 2008, there are strong indications that it will continue, in different format, as an indicator for Communities and Local Government (CLG). It is also apparent that some Government Regional Offices will continue to monitor the level of vulnerable occupiers living in decent homes, and that this may be a factor in funding allocations. Nature of the condition surveys All house condition surveys are sample surveys. Typically a nominal sample of 2,000 dwellings will be drawn with actual inspection rate of approximately 50%. The actual sample size varied between the six partner authorities, the smallest being 900 and the largest 1,250. In most cases, only owner occupied and privately rented properties were included (the surveys in Brighton and Hove and in Eastbourne also covered Registered Social Landlord (RSL) properties). Where RSL properties were included in a survey, consideration of conditions in that sector were dealt with in a separate chapter of the report. All surveys used Building Research Establishment (BRE) stock modelling maps to predict the areas where higher rates of non decency could be anticipated; this allowed stratification and higher sampling rates in those areas. Each of the condition surveys undertaken obtained and analysed information on the following areas: general characteristics of the dwelling; condition of the internal and external fabric; provision of amenities; compliance with the HHSRS; age and type of elements; energy efficiency measures; compliance with the Decent Homes Standard and socio-economic information about the household (where occupied) this is not The methodology set out Guidance Manual published by CLG on survey design and implementation was followed in all six condition surveys. Comparative statistics Comparisons to the position for all England are drawn from the 2005 English House Condition Survey (EHCS), published by the Government and available as a download document from the Communities and Local Government website. The headline results from the 2006 EHCS have been published as these illustrate the significant impact of the change from the former fitness standard but these results are partial only. The full results are due to be published later this year. 31

Figures have also been calculated for average values across the Brighton and East Sussex Together area as a whole. Statistical Variance and Standard Deviation By definition, sample surveys are seeking to give an accurate representation of a larger number of dwellings than those surveyed. The total to be represented is referred to in statistical terms as the population, and in the case of this overview report the population is the private sector dwellings across the Brighton and East Sussex Together area. Because any figure from a survey is based on a sample, it will be subject to some degree of variation. This statistical variance can be expressed in terms of confidence limits and standard deviation. Standard deviation is the amount by which a given figure may be inaccurate either above or below its stated level. Confidence limits state that if the entire survey process were repeated, out of how many of these repetitions would there be confidence in staying within the variation. Traditionally, and in the case of this report, 95% confidence limits have been used, which state that if the survey were carried out 100 times, in 95 cases the standard deviation would be a given amount. It should be borne in mind, therefore, that the figures in this report are estimates, and it is for this reason that figures are rounded, as described below. More detail on the calculation of standard deviation is given in the appendices. Presentation of figures Due to the nature of statistical variation, as outlined above, it is not necessary to quote each individual figure to the nearest dwelling, as this implies a spurious level of accuracy. As with the English House Condition Survey (EHCS), figures in this report are either quoted to the nearest 100 dwellings or 10 dwellings, dependent upon the size of any given figure. Percentages within the report are only quoted to no more than one decimal place for the same reason. 32