Fuel poverty in London is defined as when a household has to spend more than a tenth of its income to ‘maintain an adequate level of warmth’ after housing costs. Using this measure, more than a quarter of London homes are living in fuel poverty.

Children growing up in poorly heated conditions are twice as likely to suffer from a variety of respiratory problems as other children, and Early Winter Deaths are three times higher in the coldest quarter of our housing stock compared to the warmest.

Before 2004 fuel poverty had been declining, largely due to a combination of falling prices, rising incomes and the installation of energy efficiency measures. However since 2004 energy prices have more than doubled and progress has been reversed.

To demonstrate how widespread the issue is, London Councils has modelled the impact of fuel poverty on four separate households – a lone parent, a ‘squeezed middle’ couple with two children, a lone pensioner and an extended family.

When London’s housing costs are factored in, all but the ‘squeezed middle’ couple live in fuel poverty, spending more than 10 per cent of their income on energy bills.

If transport and childcare costs are factored in – essential to all working parents – all four households face a real struggle to meet their fuel bills, and are forced to make some difficult decisions over which household basics they can afford.

London Councils has also explored what the introduction of the Universal Credit system in 2013 could mean for fuel poverty in the capital, concluding that it risks plunging even more families into fuel poverty.

This is because current proposals do not take London’s high childcare, housing and transport costs into account and would leave families in the capital with significantly reduced spending power.

Councillor Catherine West, Chair of London Councils’ Transport and Environment Committee, said:

“Fuel poverty is a real and growing danger to low-income families in the capital. With rising living costs and fuel bills, more households face a miserable winter fighting off the cold. This is one of the reasons why it is essential that the Universal Credit takes into account the unique pressures faced in the capital.

“While boroughs will do what they can to support families with advice and through energy efficiency schemes like RE:NEW, we also need OFGEM to bear down more aggressively on energy companies who are benefiting from lower wholesale prices.”

London Councils believes alleviating fuel poverty can best be approached by:

· Reducing household fuel prices – OFGEM should act more swiftly to ensure energy companies reduce their prices when they themselves enjoy lower wholesale prices.

Boroughs should also make sure low income households are aware of support, including registering for social tariffs or Warm home Discounts.

Local authorities and trusted third sector organisations could potentially go much further in the support they offer and consider a new scheme, based on the Dutch initiative ‘Met de Stroom Mee’ to ‘bulk-buy’ energy to achieve a lower unit price for low income households.

· Boosting household incomes by ensuring the Universal Credit system takes into account the higher costs of living in London.

· Improving the thermal performance of homes. London boroughs are already actively involved in supporting this work with the RE:NEW scheme and its partners.

The organisation, which represents the capital’s 33 local authorities, is backing recommendations from a recent Whitehall review which suggested that savings on operating costs could help to keep fares more affordable, and help find the money from efficiencies for much-needed investment in the railways.

Last October, the government announced it would raise the cap on controlled fares – meaning season tickets and off-peak returns – from one to three percentage points above July’s Retail Price Index (RPI), which was announced at 5% earlier this week.

This means that rail fares could go up by an average of 8 per cent – with some individual routes potentially seeing price rises of as much as 13 per cent.

If implemented, some commuters will see as much as £1,300 added onto the price of their season tickets.

Employers in the capital have previously warned that high rail fares may have an impact on jobs and the economy.   Train fares in the UK already surpass the rest of Europe with Londoners paying twice as much for season tickets than their European counterparts.

Higher fares will both add to pressures for wage inflation and reduce the pool of labour available for London businesses.

The organisation believes that such an increase will place an unnecessary burden on working families in and around London – many of whom may already be struggling to cope with increases in energy prices, changes to their benefits and wage freezes as a result of the current economic climate.

Transport Secretary, Philip Hammond said earlier this week that the extra money generated from fares would be invested in improvements including new carriages, line electrification and London’s Crossrail and Thameslink projects – and that investment would simply not have been possible without the difficult decision to increase fares.

Earlier this year, Sir Roy McNulty produced his report which recommended, among other points, that the Department for Transport should undertake a full review of fares policy and current fares structure.

He added that this should address the complexity, anomalies and regional imbalances in the system, along with the season ticket pricing and all the other relevant factors affected by regulation.

Chair of London Councils Transport and Environment Committee, Councillor Catherine West (PICTURED) said:

“London’s economy relies on its workforce and in the current economic climate, the last thing we should be doing is discouraging people from getting to work.

“We welcome the need for investment in the railway network but increasing fares at a risk to London’s workforce is not the way to go about things.  The government should instead have a full review of fares policy to ensure that these improvements can be made out of savings instead of increased fares for commuters.”

The organisation, which represents the capital’s 33 local authorities, has expressed fears that the removal of these planning rules will lead to a plethora of low quality homes in the capital – with no regulation to determine whether they are big enough, environmentally friendly or suitable for people with disabilities.

Although London Councils firmly supports the need for more homes in London, it believes that the lack of homes is not because of the planning system itself – around 170,000 homes in the region already have planning permission but have not been built. 

170,000 homes in the region already have planning permission but have not been built

London Councils believes that the government should instead look into the reasons for this lack of house-building, before attempts to alter existing planning guidance are made.

Because commercial land is cheaper than residential land, suspending these planning rules would create an incentive to turn businesses into homes – but it would also remove the responsibility of developers to ensure the needs of local residents are met.

Currently, getting planning permission often requires developers to pay for vital infrastructure to support the extra number of people moving into an area as a result of their developments.

Taking away this obligation would mean that communities miss out on this supporting infrastructure which includes roads, schools and health facilities.

Boroughs would also struggle to plan longer term infrastructure locally – like planning for the number of school places an area might need.  Turning offices into homes would create a demand in places never thought to have enough residents to support the need of a school.

Local economies would also feel the strain as turning offices into homes would significantly reduce the number of jobs available in local areas, especially in important but low value industries.

London Councils Executive Member for Planning, Councillor Chris Roberts said:

“Of course there is a huge demand for more homes in the capital but it must be recognised that people have very different needs from businesses.  Changing an office into a home is not just about changing the layout of a building or adding some new furniture.

“Planning regulations are in place for a reason – to ensure that any new homes are fit for purpose, and also to make sure that residents moving into an area have access to the facilities -  like schools, health centres and roads – that they need to go about their daily lives.”

Londoners take it for granted that their streets get properly cleaned, but would feel considerably less safe and expect a rise in anti-social behaviour if the services were to be severely cut back, according to new research.

Local authorities in England spend £885 million a year on street cleansing, and in London alone the bill for street cleansing is £263 million. Due to government cut-backs, London Councils and Keep Britain Tidy wanted to find out if Londoners think the street cleansing service, which includes clearing litter and tackling issues such as fly-tipping, dog fouling and graffiti, is still a priority or whether they think it should be cut back in favour of other public services.

The research shows that, although Londoners are likely to report that other aspects of social spending should be prioritised over street cleansing, the majority agree that changes to current service delivery will cause a deep sense of dissatisfaction among service users.

London Councils and Keep Britain Tidy believe this is because residents take services that perform well – and under the radar – for granted.

A representative sample of London residents were asked what they thought would be the likely consequences of stopping street cleansing services in their local area. 59 per cent believe that stopping street cleansing services would lead to an increase in anti-social behaviour. 53 per cent believe property prices would fall and 51 per cent of Londoners think that residents would feel less safe in their local areas.

Chair of London Councils Transport and Environment Committee policy sub group, Councillor Nilgun Canver said:

“Despite government cutbacks, no local authority in London is advocating cutting street cleansing services completely. It is important to note that many Londoners continue to help out in the current economic climate.

“We can see that Londoners are happier living in their areas than people in other parts of the country and we want need their support to help things stay that way. By reporting environmental crimes like fly-tipping, fly-posting and dropping chewing gum or getting involved in litter-picking events, Londoners are doing their bit and this helps us to tackle enviro-crime”.

Keep Britain Tidy’s Insight Manager Sally Lewis comments:”In these times of austerity, it is increasingly important that we work to understand how people prioritise public services. However, we must be careful not to assume that this prioritisation correlates with an acceptance of any real changes in service delivery.

Street cleansing is an important aspect of what makes an area a great place to live, work and play. The Londoners we spoke to during the research were quick to recognise this when we talked about the implications of any cuts to the current level of service. “The good news for those with an interest in the Big Society a halt in street cleansing services would lead to residents taking more responsibility for their local areas.

The research also looks at how changing resident priorities on public sector spend impact on the ways in which Londoners would like authority bodies to address local environmental quality.

The research focuses on the results of five focus groups, conducted with residents from across Greater London. The findings are complemented by a short series of quantitative queries include on a regularly conducted London-wide online survey.

Residents were told they were in charge of the London budget for the next six months and were supplied with a budget to spend over ten service areas accordingly.

The services were prioritised as follows: education, health, policing, investments in the future, housing, transport, welfare, community safety, street cleansing and environmental services.