Affordable housing is a subject that has been in people's hearts for years and more recently on the lips of politicians in Westminster . It is a subject that everyone has an opinion about. What we hope will happen today is that we will have a chance to hear a range of opinions but also that we will explore practical solutions – ways forward – because it is an issue which we need to tackle fast and now.

The Peak District Rural Deprivation Forum, for those of you unfamiliar with our work, was founded in 1992 to campaign on and raise awareness of rural poverty and deprivation, the often hidden side of the Peak District. Within our work we have co-ordinated a series of working groups which address particular issues within rural deprivation. The Affordable Housing Working Group, which has organised this conference, is one such group.

The group was established in 2001 following a conference at which one of the agreed action points was to continue to meet together and campaign on affordable housing. In 2001 it was a vital issue and in recent consultations across High Peak and Derbyshire Dales it was an issue of concern to over 40% of respondents.

The Affordable Housing Working Group is made up of local residents and housing professionals and the national park authority. The aim of the group is to work together to both explore practical solutions to affordable housing but also to influence policy. We decided that a conference is timely as affordable housing is a hot issue with strategies being developed at national and local levels, with various schemes being developed by housing associations and private developers across the Peak District and with the ever increasing cost of both rented and private housing increasing exponentially.

We wanted to start this conference by listening to why affordable housing is such an important issue and why it is needed. We are really pleased to welcome three local people who have bravely offered to share their experience of being in housing need:

•  Virginia Heywood, from Bradwell (focus on having to leave tied accommodation and impact of local occupancy clause)

•  Melanie Hodgkinson from Butterton (focus on being single mother on benefits, different occupancy clauses between Derbyshire and Staffordshire and cost of rented accommodation)

•  Lisa Blackburn from Hartington (focus on young women moving back into the area but unable to afford housing gas a key worker (Police Officer), issues about planning regulations to build new houses for local use rather than holiday homes)

(Transcripts of these speeches will be written up)

Sharing information

The following are examples of the information and ideas shared at the morning workshops. The workshops at the conference were:

1. Filling empty houses : Chris Curtis, Strategic Housing Officer, High Peak and Derbyshire Dales Joint Strategic Housing Service: a look at the thorny issue of empty houses – what are the rules and what can we do about it.
2. Building affordable housing: Matthew Dick, Director of Operations and Gerald Taylor, Chief Executive, Dales Housing: what is involved in building affordable housing? A look at some of the issues
3. Working in partnership: Janice Wigley, Parwich Village Action Group: the importance of community involvement ­– a look at the successful local scheme to build affordable housing
4. Land use : John Davies, Vice Chair of Eyam Community Sports Association: a community scheme for multi-purpose use of quarry land, including affordable housing and sports facilities
5. Not in my back yard: Alison Clamp, Area Manager, Midlands Rural Housing: tackling local opposition to affordable housing
6. Planning: Lauren Dempsey, Community Planner, East Midlands Planning Aid Service and Malcolm Reid, Community Planner, West Midlands Planning Aid Service: understanding and getting involved in the planning process – a chance to explore the issues
7. Settlements: Ian Fullilove, Peak District National Park Authority: maintaining sustainable communities - what makes a sustainable community? How do we work together to develop and sustain our communities.

The workshops were also used to draw up a number of action points to share with other participants. These action points were then prioritised and discussed in the afternoon session.

Working in Partnership with the local community
the example of building affordable housing in Parwich, Derbyshire

 Janice Wigley from the Parwich Village Action Group spoke about the School House development and the role of the village action group. The group has built 3 three-bedroom houses for local people. The group won the UK Housing Award 2004 for the best community led initiative and have been nominated for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Sustainable Community Award. The rent per house is £72 per week and the properties play a significant role in making and keeping Parwich a living working village.

Five years ago the Peak Park and the Parish Council held an open meeting in the village, and from this an Action Group was set up. Residents were surveyed, and five key issues were identified, including play equipment and the environment and village maintenance. The top priority, screaming out for attention was affordable housing.

Since then the housing sub group, which was made up initially of three people who were really keen to work on the issue, has done very well. The village had a potential asset in the form of the old school house, which had formerly been occupied by the head teacher of the village school. It had subsequently been rented out and later still became vacant and was in a state of disrepair. The site had been given to the school and a house built on it in the 1950s by the Parwich Oddfellows, and was owned by the Derbyshire Dales, with the school acting as landlord. The group wanted to buy the land and house, and by luck a new village resident with planning experience and skills joined them. The group approached several housing associations and chose to work with Nottingham Community Housing Association, as they were enthusiastic about the project and helpful to the group. The Association negotiated with the local authority over the land purchase.

The main ‘blips' were with the building. The group was offered a free gift of random stone by a local quarry, but due to restraints imposed by the Peak Park , which insisted on only builders from the approved list undertaking this type of work, they had to turn down the offer. The group had been disappointed that, in their view, the Peak Park had ‘no room for compromise'. The result is buildings which have a less satisfactory finish and are less typical of the village.

The housing was allocated to families and couples who have lived in the village or had major associations [such as parents] with it in the last ten years. There were already ten one bedroom flats in the village, suitable for single people or couples without children. The group hopes to build more affordable housing in the future, and make it possible for a range of housing needs to be met in the village.

Janice stressed the importance of the local action group in the face of critical local opinion or negativity towards the plans. The group members took on a mediation role, and worked towards compromise. The attitude and role of the parish council can also be crucial. Determination in the face of obstacles, and productive partnership were also important features of the development's success.

Building affordable housing

This workshop, led by Gerald Taylor and Matthew Dick of Dales Housing, highlighted a number of issues both for action and for changes in legislation. They suggested a number of interesting issues and solutions:

Housing needs surveys

There is a vital need for more frequent Housing Needs Surveys to identify local need for affordable housing. There was uncertainty about the frequency of surveys, who funded them and whether or not local councils could fund their own. It was felt that this was a priority so that if a piece of land is identified the local needs are always to hand and are up to date.

Incentives to sell suitable land

On the identification of suitable sites there was much discussion on smaller landowners (farmers, etc.,) who may have a site but be reticent to let it go for affordable housing at less than market value. In order to encourage the release of such land it was felt that legislation could be amended to allow for a ‘trade off'. For example, if a farmer had a plot of land but was unwilling to release as he may lose out financially, offer an incentive by allowing him to build or have a plot on his land for a member of his family.

An alternative suggestion was that government/planners be able to offer some kind of sweetener (incentive) for the release of suitable land as why should a land owner subsidise affordable housing by releasing land cheaply?

Buy to demolish?

Buy to demolish and rebuild affordable housing. Alternatively housing associations could build smaller properties and agree to let those living in larger properties, which are no longer suitable, to move into these and thus release larger properties for families (this assumes a housing association would but a larger property)

Compulsory purchase of empty houses

Empty properties should be possessed for use as affordable housing, providing that great sensitivity is used in determining why they are empty and the status of the owners. The use of compulsory purchase orders should be encourage.

Legislative control on utilities providers

There should be some legislative control over the utilities providers. Their costs are so often extortionate so that the funding from the Housing Corporation, etc., does not cover the full cost of the build.

Change the local occupancy clause

There was a great deal of concern about the local occupancy clause. They felt that the clause had in some way outlived its usefulness in its present form. Whilst it was recognised that the clause was introduced to ensure affordable housing was protected, it was felt that the local occupancy areas are far too small. It was suggested that the area should be widened, for example to the national park boundaries or to the local council boundaries.

There is further information to come from the other workshops which will be forwarded as soon as possible.

Points for action

The following action points were prioritised by conference delegates:

• Make planning more supportive by
• Speed, not pushing things to appeal
• Consistency of decision making
• Permission for homes not holiday homes
• Flexibility about definition of a settlement
• Make use of existing sites such as empty or under used buildings to develop affordable housing
• Needs to be closer working of grass roots level with local community to raise awareness of the process of providing affordable housing
• Affordable housing must be part of a community plan (an essential part) and integrated into the villages' aspirations.
• Incremental empty properties tax
• More guidance at planning stage on whom to speak to when and what about.
• Lobby against the proposed self-investment pension plans.
• Identify alternative funding partners other than government, for example local trusts, private trusts, charities and large employers.

The above action points were then discussed in the afternoon with the aim of identifying practical ways forward. PDRDF and the Affordable Housing Working Group will be looking at ways in which it can take the actions forward. This includes submitting evidence to the Affordable Rural Housing Commission and to the Commission for Rural Communities.

Action points identified in the seven morning workshops

Empty properties workshop

1. Incremental empty property tax
2. Identify reasons for empty properties (what? Why? Where?) and create a register
3. Increase public debate on the issue
4. Re visit local plans including the idea of asset transfers.

Building affordable housing

1. Needs to be closer working of grass roots level with local community to raise awareness of the process of providing affordable housing
2. Change in planning policy to allow a local land owner to provide plots for affordable homes in exchange for a guaranteed nomination to house a family member
3. Review the local occupancy conditions to make it wider, for example to the national park boundaries
4. Review what is counted as public subsidy, for example allow more flexibility in use of S106 monies as government ‘sweetener' to persuade land owners to release sites
5. Issuing of government guidance to utilities (water, highways, gas, transport etc) to relax current regulations for affordable homes/sites.

Working in partnership with the local community

1. Make use of existing sites such as empty or under used buildings to develop affordable housing
2. Make planning more supportive by:

• Speed, not pushing things to appeal
• Consistency of decision making
• Permission for homes not holiday homes
• Flexibility about definition of a settlement

1. Definition of affordable: approach form the point of view of tenant or purchaser, not developer, so that it is affordable for income of £6-12 per hour
2. Identify alternative funding partners other than government, for example local trusts, private trusts, charities and large employers.

Land use: multi-purpose developments

1. Affordable housing must be part of a community plan (an essential part) and integrated into the villages' aspirations
2. How do you get groups involved and working together to change aspirations into reality?
3. Seize the opportunity if land becomes available
4. Openness of consultation process.

Not in my back yard: challenging local opposition

1. Positive publicity for affordable housing to counter NIMBYs
2. Professionals to work at being open and approachable
3. Lobbying for affordable housing to influence national and local government legislation
4. Reduce building costs, increase energy efficiency, planners should be more willing to accept lower cost buildings.

Planning: how to get involved

1. Provide education on planning for young people (GCSE?)
2. Provide community engagement training for planners
3. Provide more guidance on who to speak to, when and about what
4. PDRDF to spread word and input into consultations such as the Regional Spatial Strategy (September 2006) and the PDNPA Core Strategy (March 2006).

Settlements

1. Campaign to influence planers to take more account of the effect of their decisions on local residents
2. Add onto PDRDF's website a page devoted to housing that sets out a simple way of disseminating information about all forms of affordable housing
3. PDRDF to look into how a community land trust could work and to act as a community land trust champion
4. Lobby against the proposed self-investment pension plans.

Conclusion

The above action points will be taken forwarded by a number of agencies, including local communities, housing providers, local authorities and the national park. An important point reiterated throughout the conference was the importance of working together to bring about change and the ultimate aim of more affordable housing in the Peak District.