The spare bedroom: a luxury we can no longer afford?

According to the welfare minister Lord Freud, a spare room in our homes is " a luxury the country can no longer afford ". The government's policy overhaul to tackle under-occupany of social homes will, by its own admission, affect 670,000 social tenants when it is introduced in 2013 – and a further 90,000 by 2020. The proposal will mean that tenants who are deemed to be "under-occupying" their properties will have their housing benefit cut by between £3 and £34 a week – an amount they can either choose to find themselves or seek alternative accommodation. On average, tenants are expected to lose £13 a week. The government hopes to shave around £490m off the annual housing benefit bill and free up accommodation for the 1.8 million families on housing waiting lists. The changes will still allow for one bedroom for each person or couple, but children aged nine or under are expected to share with one other child, and children up to 15 to share with one other of similar age of the same sex. Although there is widespread agreement that change is needed around under-occupation, many have concerns. Harriet Woodcock, spokesperson for Riverside housing association , said: "We don't want people under-occupying because it's not fair on those people who want a property – but that's in an ideal world, and this isn't an ideal world. The issue we have with this is how we get there, not the principle." Disabled tenants The housing sector is now bracing itself for the unintended effect the policy will have on disabled people and carers, who make up 72% of under-occupying households . This group, for whom a spare room is often a neccessity rather than a luxury, will also be subject to new rules meaning they could lose their home or be forced to find the cash to make up the difference between housing benefit and weekly rent. Hilary Burkitt, head of research at Affinity Sutton fears the effect of the changes on households with a disabled family member could be devastating. "We're looking at a lot of people who have disabilities, and in those cases the private rented sector isn't a viable alternative. We know that one in five people live in properties which have been adapted for their needs – that just isn't feasible in the private rented sector." Andy Tate, policy officer at the National Housing Federation , believes the changes show the government has failed to understand the importance of homes and communities. "Social landlords are already doing much to make better use of stock and encourage tenants to consider downsizing to smaller homes," he said. "These cuts will harm families, many of them with disabilities, damage neighbourhoods and create huge upheaval among some of the most vulnerable people in the country." Unequal impact Housing experts have warned that the policy is badly targeted, as areas which have high instances of overcrowding also have the lowest levels of under-occupancy. The shift could adversely affect those in the north of England, which has more tenants with spare rooms. The government's own impact assessment acknowledges another problem: in areas where under-occupany is most widespread there are not enough smaller homes for people to move into. This is a major concern for tenants, who may find themselves forced into private rented accommodation while the social housing sector struggles to build enough new homes. Woodcock warns that attitudes towards benefit claimants in the private sector may make moving difficult, especially as suitable homes are scarce. "Where do tenants go? There is such a shortage of houses you have no guarantee where those people will be, so effectively you're telling people they have to move out of their area from their family connections or make it more difficult for them to look after grandchildren, go to work or look after elderly parents", she says. Private rented sector Housing professionals worry about moving vulnerable groups into private accommodation because they fear poor standards and a lack of flexibility will fail to meet their clients' needs. On the private rented sector, the government offers a mixed message. The impact assessment suggests that reducing housing benefit for those who under-occupy will allow those waiting in private or temporary accommodation – which may be more expensive – the chance to move into more appropriate homes. Yet three paragraphs later , the paper cites the private sector as an alternative for those who need to leave their homes as a result of the policy change. "Individuals may have to look further afield for appropriately sized accommodation or move to the private sector," it says. The guidance is confusing for providers faced with advising tenants of their best option. Questions remain over whether the financial and social cost of the policy will be worth the £490m saving the Department for Work and Pensions claims it will make – equal to the cost of just over one week's housing benefit bill. What should the government do with this money and effort instead? According to Woodcock: "build more homes". This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. Join the housing network for more like this direct to your inbox ---