So now it is offical. In 2012/13 England saw a NET loss of 35,000 social rented homes. This is the result of cuts in investment, a revamped right to buy and the switch of funding to the ‘affordable’ rent programme.
I have written previously on the opacity of the affordable rent programme and the struggle to obtain accurate data but, according to the latest UK Housing Review, housing providers have agreed to convert 100,00 social rented homes to affordable rent since 2010. Over this period, the number of new social rented homes built each year in England has fallen from 31,000 in 2009/10 to fewer than 8,000 last year and will probably be half of that figure by next year. Add 100,000 to the 27,000 homes lost through the right to buy since 2010 and subtract the new social rented homes provided over the same period and it leads to a net loss of 35,000 in 2012/13.
It vindicates everything the SHOUT campaign has been saying and makes even more urgent the case for a return to proper levels of invesment and an end to the laughably named “affordable rent” programe. Enough is enough.
Meanwhile, 75 percent of tenants who have taken up ‘affordable rent’ are reliant upon housing benefit, and will probably be stuck on benefits for a long time. Some don’t see this as a problem and accuse critics of affordable rent of being lazy and facile, but this ignores the fact that someone paying a social rent of £115 a week (the GLA average assumed figure for London) is much more likely to be able to get off benefits in the long run than someone who is paying a rent of £190 a week. We should be ashamed of putting in place a new housing product that is trapping people on benefits across large swathes of the country.
This highlights the fact that policies are not abstract notions; they have consequences on the ground. The Financial Times also reports on an L & Q estate in South London where neighbouring tenants in identical properties could be paying four different rents, ranging from £95 to £350 a week, from social rent at the lower end to market rent at the top end.
David Monague, L&Q’s chief executive summed up the absurdity of the situation:
‘The rent they pay depends on the home that is available on the day they reach the top of the waiting list,” he said. “It has nothing to do with their ability to pay, and we no longer understand what ‘affordable’ means in practice. We have created a mess.’
I took part in a live discussion on the Guardian website yesterday on the role of social housing, which generated quite a debate. One contributor, the CEO of a large London association, said this:
‘Social housing is now a damaged brand. Housing associations need to return to their roots – yes, housing those without work, but housing the low-to-average-waged, too. We need to reclaim our landlord role and control who we let to. For us we would give greater priority to those who work locally. We could house the local school’s teaching assistant and the local hospital’s health staff.’
I take issue with that first sentence. The notion of social housing being a ‘damaged’ or ‘failed’ brand has been prevalent on the right for decades, but some in our sector are now starting to repeat it. Boris Worrall writes about it here, and here Peter Hall suggests that we should scrap social housing altogether and move towards “affordable housing” where the default rent would be set at market rates, but then discounted according to individual incomes.
A fair argument?
To be fair to Boris, he supports the concept of social housing but has doubts about the brand. But putting rhetoric to one side for a moment, let’s look at a few facts.
- The number of households which have taken the trouble of registering on housing waiting lists has risen from 1.03m in 1997 to 1.7m in 2013. Any private brand with 4m potential customers would be pretty delighted, I think. A failed brand?
- According to recent English Household surveys, 81% of social renters said they were satisfied with their present accommodation and with their local area. Wouldn’t any commercial brand be chuffed with such a positive rating? (“Eight out of ten cats said they preferred Whiskas.”) A failed brand?
- The social rented sector also has the highest level of decent homes – 85%, compared to 80% for owner occupiers and 67% for the private rented sector. A failed brand?
Critics will counter this by pointing out that housing satisfaction levels are slightly higher for private renters (83%) and owners (91%). They will also argue that 86% of the population, according to the English Household Survey, would choose to buy ‘if they had a free choice’, although this drops to just 58% for local authority tenants and 61% for housing association tenants.
Who wants to be a millionaire?
But of course, most people, ‘if they had a free choice’ would like to be millionaires. It’s never going to happen for most, and perhaps we need to remind ourselves that the social housing sector deals with many of the poorest and most vulnerable people, whose chances of home ownership are becoming more remote by the day.
Surely our role is not to denigrate our product, but to talk it up?
That is why our role is becoming ever more critical. So the danger of describing your key product as ‘failed or ‘damaged’ is that it becomes self-fulfilling.
Surely our role is not to denigrate our product, but to talk it up? Social housing has a proud record, going all the way back to almshouses in the 12th century. Better space standards, higher levels of decent homes, lower rents, good quality management (in most cases). Millions want to buy into it, if they could only get the chance.
Of course there have been mistakes along the way, but this is the same for most brands. Many have had their ups and downs over the years. Social housing has a proud past and it can have a bright future, but we need to criticise it less and be better at shouting about it.
In the early 1920s, George Orwell was on a liner from England to Burma, (where he worked as a police oficer), when he saw one of the ship’s pilots scurrying along the deck carrying a half-eaten custard pie.
“At one glance I took in the situation—indeed, the man’s air of guilt made it unmistakable. The pudding was a left-over from one of the passengers’ tables. It had been illicitly given to him by a steward, and he was carrying it off to the seamen’s quarters to devour it at leisure. Across more than twenty years I can still faintly feel the shock of astonishment that I felt at that moment. It took me some time to see the incident in all its bearings: but do I seem to exaggerate when I say that this sudden revelation of the gap between function and reward — the revelation that a highly-skilled craftsman, who might literally hold all our lives in his hands, was glad to steal scraps of food from our table—taught me more than I could have learned from half a dozen Socialist pamphlets.”
This passage came into my mind as a result of two recent events. A few weeks ago I was the main speaker at an event for tenants’ groups in one of the home counties. Each of us received a “goody” bag upon arrival, containing some plastic knick knacks, a pen, a notepad. I can’t remember the exact contents, but I took out the one thing that I thought was worth having, an iPhone connector. Later in the day, I was chatting to a chap who had run his own scaffolding company, employing twenty people. He was a proud man, but had fallen on hard times and was now living on JSA of £68 a week, after deduction of council tax benefit. Almost without thinking, I offered him my bag. He was shocked. He couldn’t understand why I didn’t want it. To me this was just a bag of landfill, but to him it had real value. I’m not rich by any means, but it made me realise the gulf that exists between someone like me and someone struggling to survive on £68 a week.
A few days later I was in Manchester for the CIH conference. In the main exhibition hall the stands offered free pens, notepads and trinkets of all kinds. As in previous years, I was struck by the groups of tenants who were hoovering up the free gifts. Some of them were struggling to carry off four or five bags full of booty. Now I confess I have picked up a few pens at past conferences, but this was plunder on a semi-industrial scale. What happens to this stuff? Is it sold on at car boot sales or on ebay? Does it become Christmas presents for friends and relatives? I spoke to one tenant who told me that he collects items like pens and notepads to take back to his fellow tenants to keep them supplied for the year.
Both of these events unsettled me although I can’t put my finger on the exact reasons. I think partly it comes down to this: if you follow the audit trail, if you follow the money, nearly all of this “stuff” - indeed the whole conference, the alcohol, the meals, the hotel rooms, the expensive delegate passes, the train journeys - is ultimately funded by tenants’ rents, yet here were tenants gratefully hoovering up a few crumbs, so to speak, just like Orwell’s pilot. I wanted to shout, “You paid for it – it’s yours”.
The Manchester conference is a bubble, and outsiders are kept at arms length. Inside the bubble, money is often spent without any real awareness of how it will look from outside, but if the Manchester crowds could gain access perhaps they too would feel Orwell’s “shock of astonishment” and wonder how we can justify this expenditure. Perhaps some senior executives and well-off board members should experience what it is like to live on £68 a week.
I also attended the TPAS conference last week, speaking about SHOUT with the wonderful Alison Inman. We heard many stories of the fantastic achievements arising from resident scrutiny and involvement - millions of pounds in savings and staggering increases in customer satisfaction - nearly all achieved though the efforts of unpaid tenants. Again, Orwell’s comment about the gap between “function and reward” came to mind. Case studies like this one are plentiful. The first study, of a very large housing association, reveals that tenant scrutiny and involvement led to an increase in customer satisfaction from 59 percent to 100 percent within two years, which begs the question: why were unpaid tenants capable of doing something that highly paid executives had failed to do, and why are tenants not being properly remunerated for their achievements?
Some might describe this approach as both patronising and exploitative.
Metaphorically speaking, tenants should, like Orwell’s pilot, be equal partners in steering our ship, and be paid the going rate. That is the basis of co-regulation. They should not be scrabbling around for a few crumbs from the master’s table, crumbs that they paid for in the first place. The sections in the regulatory code about scrutiny and empowerment are quite clear and scrutiny panels are now almost as important as Boards. Their members should be paid accordingly. I’ve always felt that most housing providers pay lip service to genuine participation and that the real power, and the money, remains with executives and, in a very few cases, with boards.
It seems to me that the gap between “function and reward”, between executives and tenants, between the haves and the have-nots, is not much different now than it was on Orwell’s boat to Burma.
The recent announcement by Kris Hopkins that “nearly 200,000 affordable homes have been delivered since April 2010” left many housing folk exchanging puzzled glances, if you can do such a thing on Twitter. It was a claim repeated by Eric Pickles during his stumbling Manchester speech. To be precise, Hopkins’ statement claimed that 197,792 new affordable homes had been delivered over the past four years.
The CLG’s own housebuilding statistics reveal that output by housing associations and councils over this period had been just 93,950 homes, ranging from 18,480 to 28,780 each year. So why the difference?
Dig deeper, and you find that the CLG also produces another set of statistics on affordable housing supply, (“Affordable housing starts and completions”), provided by the HCA/GLA, which paint a very different picture, as the table below shows.
|Homes provided by housing associations & councils (CLG statistics)||Homes built by private enterprise (CLG statistics)||Homes provided with HCA/GLA funding (HCA/GLA statistics provided by CLG)||Total housing output|
So the CLG figures show that housing associations and councils produced 21 percent of total output over this four year period whilst the HCA/GLA figures show that “affordable housing” amounted to almost double that - 40.5 percent of total output.
Of the 180,725 homes provided by HCA/GLA funding 51 percent were social rent, 15 percent affordable rent, 3 percent intermediate rent and 31 percent affordable home ownership.
The solution to this mismatch of figures can be found in the small print. The CLG figures classify properties according to the developer (“Tenure reflects the tenure of the developer building the house rather than the intended final tenure”) so properties acquired from private developers under planning deals will be classified as having been built by private enterprise. In addition, the affordable housing statistics include homes provided under a wide range of programmes, including the accelerated Land Disposal programme, mortgage rescue, traveller pitch funding, Kickstart, Empty Homes and and the Economic Assets programme. It is questionable whether some of these represent new supply or just a switch from one tenure to another. What’s more, the HCA/GLA figures provided by the CLG do not match the figures on the HCA website. The affordable housing summary for 2012/13 also states that, “In 2012-13, 86 per cent of total affordable home delivery was reported by the HCA or the GLA, a reduction from 89 per cent in 2011-12” which suggests that the figures are not comprehensive. I’m afraid life is too short to dig any deeper into this, but for me it does indicate an increasing degree of fuzziness between private and social housing provision. Nonetheless, the HCA/GLA figures are still 17,000 short of Kris Hopkins’ figure of 197,792. Where are these missing “affordable” homes to be found? Do they include Help to Buy or other home ownership initiatives?
Assuming the HCA/GLA figures tell most of the story, what this indicates is that over four out of every ten newly built homes in the last four years were provided by the social housing sector, during a period when annual supply has been less than half of the required figure. Housebuilders have already admitted that a target of 200,000 homes a year is “impossible” and these figures show that they would need to double production to get anywhere close to this target, something that most commentators believe is unachievable. If that is the case it makes the argument for state intervention even more compelling, and this appears to be the conclusion that Sir Michael Lyons is coming to.
This week’s gathering in Manchester could be a defining moment for social housing. Over the past year, the sector has started to change from being a navel-gazing, back-slapping, introverted industry into something better. Whether it’s engaging with bigots on twitter over reality TV shows, or coming up with smart new communication ideas, housing people are coming out of their bunker and engaging with the wider world. Paul Taylor’s Power Players’ list has highlighted the growing importance of social media, and the creation of campaigns like Council Homes Chat and SHOUT have drawn in a fresh generation of people who are prepared to stand up for social housing.
But the past year has also seen the rise of a potentially dangerous schism in the sector. We’ve arrived at a crossroads and some people are heading off in different directions. It reminds me of Robert Frost’s poem The Road Not Taken where a traveller is confronted by a choice of two roads. Let’s call them Market Road and Traditional Road. Heading down Market Road are those who are keen to embrace an increasingly commercial approach. They see “affordable rent” as the “only game in town” and are pushing into private lettings, market sale and even buying up private companies to expand their portfolio. They believe that a world without grant is possible and, in some cases, that social rented housing is a failed brand that creates dependency. Heading down Traditional Road, are groups like Placeshapers and SHOUT who want the sector to stick to its core principles and to defend and promote its primary product, social rented housing.
This divergence of views resulted in some terse exchanges during the year, starting with Mick Kent’s open letter to ministers which led to responses like this and this. Tony Stacey for Placeshapers made a powerful case against “affordable rent” (or AR,as he calls it) and in support of traditional community-based housing providers. The sector has “sleepwalked into acquiescence” he said.
Brendan Sarsfield from Family Mosaic sprang to the defence of the Market Roaders, which prompted this response from Steve Hilditch at Red Brick. Just a couple of weeks ago, a senior official at the GLA accused the opponents of affordable rent of being lazy and facile which also prompted this tart response from Steve Hildtich. Mick Kent even returned to the fray to suggest that public subsidy is a drug that we could wean ourselves off. And on it goes.
I am involved with SHOUT, so I clearly favour the Traditional Road. I think there comes a point where “partnership” with bad policies starts to look self-defeating, and if we are being required to sell the family silver in order to build a few “unaffordable’” homes then it is time to say no. It’s not an easy decision, because housing providers have a moral duty to build homes, but they have to be the right homes, at the right price, and in the right places, and not just part of a numbers game. With thousands of homes being lost to the revamped right to buy and “converted” away from social rent, and a new product called affordable rent to buy (that will replace grants with loans) lurking around the corner, it must surely be time to say “enough is enough”.
My view is that Market Road leads to the cliff edge. I have cited in the past the example of the mutual building societies who believed, foolishly, that they could prosper in the big, bad banking world. They were wrong and few of them now exist. Over the next few years some housing associations may decide to become private entities, with the aim of competing in the wider property world, but I believe they too would soon be swallowed up as a result of shareholder pressure. The losers would be tenants.
This growing divide within the sector is troubling. A divided sector is easier both to control and to ignore, and it is something that the NHF or and other trade and professional bodies should be very concerned about. At the very least, we should be able to agree on a common set of values, principles and actions that will help to protect social rented housing in the long term.
No doubt there will be heated debate and argument over the next few days, but this reflects the fact that the sector faces some difficult choices. I would urge those who are heading down Market Road carefully to consider that the “Road Not Taken” may be the better alternative in the longer run. Take a deep breath and consider your history. Ten years from now, it would be good for the sector to be able to look back and repeat Robert Frost’s words: “Two roads diverged…and I/ I took the one less traveled by/ And that has made all the difference”.
The official launch of SHOUT takes place in Westminster later today. Social Housing Under Threat was formed back in January and has been described by Steve Hilditch as the “most important campaigning initiative in this Parliament.”
The keynote speakers will be former housing minister John Healey MP and Councillor Gary Porter, vice-chairman of the Local Government Association. Lord Adebowale, Lib Dem MP John Leech and Natalie Bennett, leader of the Green Party, are all scheduled to speak. This cross-party approach is important, because SHOUT aims to appeal across the political spectrum and to show that placing social rented housing at the heart of a sensible housing policy makes political and financial sense.
Political sense because the stability and community created by the best social rented housing should appeal to both “One Nation” Tories and the Labour left. Political sense because the social rented sector has by far the lowest proportion of non-decent homes and is a destination tenure for millions of people, unlike the private rented sector, and happy tenants make happy voters. Political sense because providing homes that are truly affordable allows more people to escape from a life on benefits and will “make work pay”. Financial sense because the housing benefit bill is almost £25 billion and rising, and making a long-term switch of tax pounds from propping up high rents to bricks and mortar will save money in the long run. Financial sense because every affordable home built generates an additional £108,000 in the economy and creates 2.3 jobs. Financial sense because 40 per cent of the Housing Benefit bill now goes to private landlords, and the average PRS tenant claims £23.41 more per week in housing benefit than the average social housing tenant.
The founding members of SHOUT - Alison Inman, Aileen Evans, Tom Murtha, Steve Hilditch, Kate Murray, Andy Rynham, Tony Stacey, Martin Wheatley, Kevin Gulliver, Tim Morton - are respected figures in the sector, and they all share a belief that social housing has a proud track record and that it is being unfairly maligned and eroded. They believe that social rented housing can play a significant role in reducing homelessness and creating a nation that is more at ease with itself. They all believe that social housing is not ours to dispose of, but should be passed on to future generations in a better state than we found it. This is clearly not happening at present, because over a million homes have been lost to right to buy over the past few decades, wthout replacement, and the flow is increasing as a result of the re-invigorated right to buy and the “conversion” of homes to affordable rent. One of the key themes of the manifesto being launched today is that “enough is enough” - it’s time to consider alternative options to present policies.
Private housebuilders are now saying that Ed Miliband’s target of 100,00 homes a year is impossible. This makes the case for an enhanced public role in housing provision even more compelling. By increasing investment, raising borrowing caps, putting in place robust planning agreements, and ensuring that new towns and garden cities contain a high proprtion of social rented homes we could achieve 100,000 social rented homes a year.
SHOUT does not suggest that social rented housing on its own is the answer to the nation’s housing ills, but it should be a significant element in a smart housing policy. Let’s hope that SHOUT’s message makes an impact upon the political classes.
*”Shout, shout, Let it all out” - Tears for Fears 1984.
I’m old enough to remember when Denis Healey had to turn back at Heathrow to grovel before the IMF and agree to spending cuts of £2.5 billion in order to secure a £2.3 billion loan. Back then, the IMF was the enemy, but villains can become heroes and the latest IMF report on the UK economy makes you wish that they still had the power to call the shots.
The IMF analysis is concise and the remedies are excellent: it warns of house price inflation spreading out from London and says that the relentless increase in mortgage to income ratios makes households more vulnerable to income and interest rate shocks. Whilst giving faint praise to Help to Buy (it has “played a role in unlocking mortgage credit for lower-income borrowers from other sources”) it warns that the programme should be modified or withdrawn if prices continue to rise. The IMF highlights “key inefficiencies” in the UK system, including constraints on brownfield and greenfield developments, tax policies that discourage the most economically-efficient use of property (I assume they mean Council tax - more on this below) and “underdeveloped rental markets with relatively short lease terms” - an attack on the short termism and instability of our private rented sector. The report says that political consensus will be required if reforms are to be effective. Most tellingly, the IMF says that “imbalances in the housing market should be addressed through supply-side remedies. Fundamentally, house prices are rising because demand outstrips supply. The UK has a secular problem with inadequate housing supply, associated with planning restrictions and compounded by depressed housing starts since the financial crisis.” Three cheers for that.
Interestingly the IMF also calls for more means testing of social benefits - a dig at the fact that over 50 percent of the welfare bill goes to older people and that a significant percentage of it - state pension, bus passes, TV licences, winter fuel allowances - are universal benefits, something I wrote about here.
In a related story, the EU has also called on the UK government to reform the “regressive” council tax system (I also wrote about that here), boost supply and reform help to Buy. Three cheers for that, too.
Not surprisingly, the response from the press and many politicans to this courteous advice from abroad has been curmudgeonly at best. The notion of Johnny foreigner offering advice on how we run our internal affairs had the popular press foaming at the mouth. Even Vince Cable said that “we don’t need the EU to tell us what’s going on here”.
This Little England mentality does us few favours. Both the IMF and the EU Commission have vast experience of dealing with a huge number of differing economies. Surely they have some understanding of what works and what doesn’t. Could we not at least credit them with having views that are valid and worth considering? In housing terms, it’s like being offered good, free advice by a respected consultant. You might decide to ignore it, but at least give it a fair hearing.
In the hot summer of 1858 the Thames stank. Over the past forty years, London’s population had trebled and the capital’s infrastructure was creaking. Sewers had been run by local commissioners and there was little co-ordination between districts. Factories, slaughterhouses and breweries discharged their effluent into the Thames and its tributaries, but new-fangled flush toilets had also been installed in many of London’s smarter homes, and they were now emptying their waste into the capital’s 200,000 cesspits, causing them to overflow into the surface water drains that fed into the river. Day after day London’s temperature reached 90 degrees and no rain fell to flush away the mephitic effluent. Each day, 90 million gallons of sewage poured into the Thames. It was estimated that one fifth of the river’s volume was raw sewage. The smell was unspeakable. In the Houses of Parliament the blinds were coated with chlorine and zinc, and tons of lime were spread upon the Thames foreshore, but MPs and peers were forced to abandon their sessions.
The episode became known as The Great Stink.
For years, MPs had been dithering about the problem. They knew something had to be done but the political will was lacking and the (modest) costs were felt to be too high. MPs from outside London argued that Londoners alone should pay and those who were not affected by the problem paid little attention. Some politicians passed the buck. Lord John Manners, the Commissioner of Works (and therefore responsible for London’s sewers), stated that, “The River Thames was not in his jurisdiction”. A letter to the Times attacked the government’s tardiness. “If it is not technically their business now, they can easily make it so. Parliament is absolute”. (my emphasis).
Cholera epidemics had killed 14,000 Londoners in 1849 and another 11,000 in 1853. Typhoid and cholera were believed to spread through airborne particles (the ‘miasma’), but John Snow, a doctor in Soho, proved that they were the result of sewage leaking into the drinking water supply. And yet still nothing was done.
Finally, the politicians could stand it no more. Within eighteen days a Bill to improve London’s sewers was drafted, debated and passed into law. The cost to Londoners would be 3 pence in the pound for 40 years (that’s a tax of 1.25 percent in today’s money). The brilliant engineer Joseph Bazalgette was appointed to design and build the new network of sewers, which would take effluent down to Barking Creek and out to sea. This included two massive interceptor sewers that were built directly on the Thames foreshore. Above them he built roads and gardens - the Thames embankment that now stretches from Chelsea to Tower Bridge. More importantly, he calculated the size of his sewers by working out a generous daily allowance of sewage for each Londoner - and then doubled it. 260 million baked Staffordshire Blue bricks and the strongest available mortar were used. The overall cost was £3 million, but thousands of lives were saved and the quality of life of millions of Londoner’s improved immeasurably. The water supply ceased to be polluted and cholera and typhoid were virtually eradicated. As a result of this far-sighted investment in bricks and mortar Bazalgette’s sewers are still in use today, 150 years later.
For me, there are several lessons from this episode that are relevant to today’s housing crisis. First, to deal with such a major problem you need a clear vision of how things could be better, and a plan of how to get there. Second, often it is only a few far-sighted individuals who understand the scale of the problem and the solutions that are required, and many naysayers and reactionaries often emerge to argue against them. Third, a crisis on this scale requires a co-ordinated and strategic approach - a piecemeal patchwork of provision is doomed to fail. Finally, investing in high quality bricks and mortar and doing a proper job that will last for generations saves money, and lives, in the long term and adds to the sum of human wellbeing. I know that readers of this blog will understand the analogies I am making.
Bazalgette’s sewers are taken for for granted now, but they only exist because Parliament finally did the right thing and a far-sighted engineer did a sound job. Few people know much about the battles of the past that created our modern world, and some people think that history has stopped, but it never stops. No doubt the mid-Victorians looked back at the seventeenth century with scorn and distaste for its barbarism and corruption, and viewed their own age as enlightened and progressive. But we look back at the mid-Victorians with scorn and distaste for their toleration of disease and poverty. In equal measure, I have no doubt that people in the year 2164 will look back at us with scorn and distaste and wonder how it was possible that one of the richest countries in the world was unable to perform the simple task of properly housing its people.
Our task is to make politicians understand their historical role and to make them comprehend that the housing crisis is made in Westminster. Policy follows politics and politicians are often slow to react to changes in society. The reactionaries and the naysayers often win the day and sometimes politicians will only act when they are personally affected by a problem.
“Parliament is absolute”. Perhaps we need to create another Great Stink to make Parliament do the right thing.
The election result is staggering, but let’s get it into perspective. UKIP control no councils and they have no MPs. In the EU election they took first place with 27.5 per cent of the vote but in the local elections they came third with 17 per cent, and only 35 per cent of the electorate bothered to vote, (thanks Russell Brand, good shout).
UKIP’s victory is clearly a major protest vote (and it’s not just about immigration), but it would be foolish to ignore the sentiments that underlie it. I think it unlikely that Nigel Farage will hold the balance of power next year, because winning seats under first past the post rather than PR is a different matter altogether, but UKIP will undoubtedly influence the policies of the main parties between now and the election. The Conservative government (the LibDems are now sleeping partners) will talk tough on immigration and will continue to tighten up on welfare and other benefits for migrants, even if this is in breach of EU rules. This may or may not be enough to appease the electorate. Labour will have to think again about offering a referendum.
So what part did housing play in the election outcome and what does it mean for our sector? Well, UKIP’s housing policy is quite simple: stop unfettered immigration and the housing crisis disappears. You can read it here on pages 8 and 9, (they would also scrap the bedroom tax). I’ve spent the last few years reading thousands of readers’ comments beneath housing stories in the popular press and the ‘No immigration, No housing crisis’ argument predominates. The concern about ‘concreting over the countryside’ (a house needs to be built every seven minutes due to immigration, say UKIP) has widespread appeal for older homeowners – exactly the people who tend to oppose new homes. Immigration and housebuilding are inextricably linked in the minds of millions of voters and this is something we simply cannot ignore.
But UKIP also received mass support in poor white working class areas, with significant numbers of renters and social housing tenants voting for them them in places like Rotherham and Great Yarmouth where they won nine and ten seats respectively. In his recent debate with Nick Clegg, Farage said that surges in European immigration had “left the white working-class effectively as an underclass”. He knows where to get votes.
This recent ipsos-mori report contains useful data on public perceptions of immigration. It shows that White Britons living in the “Superdiverse” and “Cosmopolitan London/periphery” areas are least likely to want a reduction in immigration, whilst those living in “Northern manufacturing and industrial towns” and areas of “low migration” want to see immigration reduced the most. This helps to explain the paradox of the London results - our capital has the worst housing crisis but gave the lowest level of support to UKIP, just 17 per cent of the vote compared to 34.5 per cent in the Eastern region. Overall, many Londoners appear to appreciate the benefits of immigration and many have shared in the wealth it has created.
Surprisingly, the ipsos-mori report also shows that many foreign-born residents want curbs on further immigration, with longstanding residents having stronger feelings on the matter than new arrivals. 70 per cent of immigrants who arrived before 1970 feel immigration should be reduced, compared to 37 percent of those who arrived between 2001 to 2005 and 28 percent of those who arrived after 2006. There is also some evidence that immigration does suppress wages at the lower end of the labour market. Again, findings like these cannot be ignored.
Someone once said that introducing facts into the immigration debate is like teaching a pig to sing - it’s a waste of time and it annoys the pig. Nonetheless, to balance some of the rhetoric, we could start by noting the following points:
- On average, the OBR says immigrants make a positive economic contribution, putting more into the public purse than they take out. They are more likely to be young working people and they will pay our pensions.
- 26 per cent of health professionals in the UK are migrant workers and one Government minister has said that the NHS would collapse without them.
- Migrants are far more likely to live in the Private Rented Sector and there is no evidence that they take an unfair share of social housing.
- Polls show that people over-estimate the proportion of the foreign born population in the UK – according to ipsos-mori the public believe 31 percent are foreign born when the true figure is 13 percent.
- 2.34 million EU migrants are living here but 1.8 million UK citizens live in the EU. The EU allows free movement of people, which benefits Britons wanting to live over there as much as EU nationals wanting live over here.
The UK housing sector cannot afford to ignore the immigration debate because there is a danger that UKIP’s rhetoric will undermine our entire case about housing supply. We need better research and a better understanding of the net costs and benefits of immigration and the impacts upon housing markets.
Meanwhile, the next twelve months are going to be very interesting.
A new analysis by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners shows that this is nonsense.
If you recall, the last government decreed that 60 per cent of all new homes should be provided on brownfield sites, including back gardens. In reality, that meant a significant number of new homes were provided as a result of “garden grabbing”. The ward in Cambridge where I live saw a steep rise in inappropriate development on back gardens. The population grew by over a thousand between 2001 and 2011, putting undue pressure on schools and other services. Many parents are now having to drive their children to distant schools because the local ones are full. I’m not against a policy of densification but it has to be proportionate and sustainable. That was neither.
The NPPF ended this restrictive policy and gave local authorities the power to set their own rules on both brownfield (para 53) and gardens (para 110). In a previous blog I argued that brownfield on its own would never be enough to meet our housing needs. The NLP analysis confirms this and estimates that it could provide even fewer homes than I estimated – I came up with a figure of 1.5 million, their estimate is just over 1 million. This means that brownfield land can provide just 30 percent of the 3.5 million homes that need to be built over the next fifteen years, (although the actual requirement for new homes is much higher when you consider the deficits that have built up over the past decade or more).
One of the weaknesses of the countryside campaigners’ argument about brownfield is that they take a simplistic view of the national picture and just match the number of sites against the number of homes required. Yet brownfield sites are often not where people want to live, or cannot be sustainably developed, or have a local amenity value that should be protected, or they would be better developed for uses other than housing. The regional picture is very varied: brownfield sites could meet about 47 percent of identified housing needs in London and 63 percent in the north west, but in the north east and the south west this falls to 18 percent and 20 percent respectively.
What’s more about a fifth of brownfield sites outside London are in rural locations – old wartime aerodromes etc. Unless these can be turned into self-sufficient communities the danger is that they will become distant dormitories that create yet more commuting, which means they will not be sustainable in national planning terms. Better by far to create compact urban extensions to existing settlements. In addition, a significant proportion of sites (520) are in the green belt and any future development is likely to be fiercely opposed.
All of this means that it will become even more important to identify suitable greenfield and green belt sites that can accommodate sustainable development in order to meet future housing needs. Brownfield land on its own is simply not enough, and the next time Simon Jenkins and his pals suggest that it is, tell them they are just plain wrong.
At last, housing professionals are starting to come out of their bunker and challenge some of the prejudice and misinformation that exists about social housing. Campaigns like Council Homes Chat and SHOUT have inspired more housing folk to engage with the bigots and the ignorant on twitter and in the comments pages. For too long the affordable housing sector has lived within a rather complacent cocoon, but one of the things I’ve learned over the years is that we should never underestimate the level of ignorance about housing among the wider population. Even nominally intelligent people often seem clueless or impervious to rational thought when it comes to housing, and the rise of UKIP means that immigration often dominates the housing debate.
Which means that there has never been a greater need for well written reports and clever publicity that can get the housing message across to a wider public, something I wrote about nearly two years ago. Currently, some of the best output is coming from Shelter. Not only do they provide some of the clearest analysis of the breadth and scale of the housing crisis, with well thought out solutions, but they are also have the knack of distilling complex data into easily digestible images and soundbites. Who can forget their £50 chicken, for example?
Shelter’s latest report ‘Building the homes we need – A programme for the 2015 government’ - is a fine example. Produced with KPMG it sets out a clear summary of the consequences of the housing crisis – a huge housebuilding deficit, widening social inequality, homelessness, soaring house prices and rents, a decline in savings and pension provision, the rising HB bill – and then proceeds to a forensic analysis of the causes of the crisis. This covers landbanking, blockages in the planning system, the decline of small housebuilders, the opaqueness of land ownership and land transactions, finance and investment.
The report quotes from the Treasury’s recent statement committing £100 billion to major infrastructure investment. ‘…infrastructure equips a country for future economic growth, and is often a pre- requisite for economic expansion to occur.’ It not only ‘creates the need for additional material to be produced and services to be employed, leading to job creation across the relevant parts of the supply chain …but allows the economy to function more efficiently’ in the long-term. This could have been written about housing investment, and the report makes a strong argument that housing should be treated as infrastructure in its own right, since every pound spent on construction generates £2.09 of economic output, and 92 percent of all housing investment stays in the UK, with 56 pence of each pound returning to the exchequer, of which 36 pence is direct savings in tax and benefits. This is a strong argument in favour of switching investment from housing benefit to bricks and mortar, something the SHOUT campaign is calling for.
Despite UKIP, it seems we could also learn a few things from our European neighbours. The report notes that 80 percent of Austrian homes are procured by self builders, compared to just 10 percent in the UK – the lowest in Europe. The building industry is increasingly becoming a ‘too big to fail’ cartel, dominated by big beasts, (in London just 23 firms were responsible for 70 percent of all homes built in the year to June 2012). Given the recent history of the banking crisis this should be ringing alarm bells in Whitehall.
Some of the key proposals in the report include:
- Doubling the level of investment in the affordable homes programme, witih a better mix of tenures including truly affordable homes.
- Relaxing green belt rules and allowing swaps of green belt land at the margins – something I have been writing about for a long time!
- Making the planning system more pro-active.
- Improving the level of data on land ownership and land costs so that land transactions are more transparent.
- Building five garden cities.
- Helping small building firms obtain finance and providing sites for small builders.
- Introducing a new National Housing Investment Bank to finance affordable house building.
- Putting housing centre stage in City Deals.
- Raising council borrowing caps.
It’s hard to disagree with any of that. On planning, the report argues against a fundamental reform of the system due to the political cost (i.e. the nimby vote) but proposes new Home Zones, based on a Dutch model that has seen the construction of 90 urban extensions in recent years. These would be based on joint ventures, led by public-led development corporations and would provide investment and tax breaks to build new suburbs of between 200 and 5,000 homes, with a mix of tenures and space for self-builders. Crucially, they would be funded by uplifts in land values with landlowners receiving compensation based on their exisiting use value, rather than residential values.
The report is clearly written and sets out the building blocks of a realistic step change in supply that would lead to well over 200,000 homes a year being built in England for the first time in decades. It’s well worth a read.
The Corn Laws of 1815 aimed to protect the interests of large landowners by restricting the import of foreign grain. As a result, food prices increased significantly and ‘hard-working families’ found they had less surplus income to pay their rent or to buy clothes and other manufactured goods. For the poorest families, more than half of their income could be spent on bread alone. This created a ‘cost of living crisis’ that stifled economic growth and caused unemployment to rise. Thousands of people were forced to turn to to their local parish for support. This meant either ‘outdoor’ relief (i.e. benefits)paid to them in their own homes, or ‘indoor’ relief – the workhouse.
In previous decades, the Old Poor Laws had made a clear distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor, with the latter often being whipped through the streets or placed in the stocks for public vilification. Responsibility for the poor fell upon England’s 15,000 parishes, with guardians deciding who should receive support from local ratepayers. But as poverty increased after the introduction of the Corn Laws, there was rising public anger about the growing burden on the parish system and a royal commission was appointed in 1832. The commission was driven by a Malthusian belief that the state was encouraging a growing underclass to breed unchecked. The commission fiddled the statistics to show that the number of able-bodied men receiving relief was much higher than the actual figure. In fact, as now, the overwhelming majority of those seeking help were the elderly, disabled or children, but the commission recommended a new, centralised system of relief for the poor that was enshrined in the Poor Law Reform Act of 1834. This ended outdoor relief for able-bodied people and made the punitive regime of the workhouse a central feature of the system. Being sent to the workhouse was like being sent to prison, so only the most desperate chose to go there.
It was not until 1849 that the Corn Laws were fully repealed. Cheap American and Russian corn flooded into the country and food prices fell significantly. People had more money in their pockets, wages and employment rose and the economy prospered.
This long preamble is to make the point that much of the poverty that existed in the first half of the 19th century had been created by a deliberate act of government policy – the Corn Laws – that were designed to protect rich landowners. Yet it was the victims of this policy – the poor – who were attacked and demonised, rather than the policy itself.
Does this sound familiar? In my view, TV shows like Benefits Street and How to Get a Council House represent a return to this 19th century phenomenon of blaming and shaming the poor for being poor, rather than the system that created their poverty. These shows are often brilliant at highlighting the symptoms of poverty, and I do not believe they deliberately set out to demonise their subjects, but they rarely expose or explain the underlying causes of poverty, and this omission often produces a frenzy of schadenfreude among some viewers, who appear to take pleasure in the misery of others, blaming them for their predicament, rather than the system that created their poverty. Vile comments on social media, led by cheerleaders like Katie Hopkins, are the modern day equivalent of whipping the poor through the streets for being ‘undeserving’ (and top marks to those few housing folk who had the decency and courage to challenge some of these views on Twitter – we need more like them to come forward).
Our ongoing housing crisis is the 21st century equivalent of the Corn Laws. It underpins the ‘cost of living crisis’ and is a principal cause of the growing reliance upon benefits. Yet too many of us treat the housing crisis as if it is an act of nature, like the weather, rather than a man-made crisis. The failure of successive governments to invest in new homes and release enough land for housing has created artificially high house prices and rents, which consume an increasing chunk of people’s incomes and prevent millions of them from living a decent life free from dependency upon benefits, just as the Corn Laws did in the 19th century. As with the Corn Laws, current housing policies are deeply regressive, because, in general, the lower your income, the more you will pay towards your housing costs. Our parliamentarians have caved in to the vested interests that want to preserve high house prices and rents, just as politicians in the first half of the 19th century caved in to the large landowners who wanted to keep the price of grain high.
So what’s to be done? Those who opposed the Corn Laws – notably Richard Cobden and John Bright – got themselves elected to Parliament and travelled the country, spreading the message that protectionism was to blame for the many poor and that a repeal of the Corn Laws would reduce poverty and lead to an increase in trade and prosperity. Every argument under the sun was used to attack their views and they were denounced in the press as extremists, but after years of tireless campaigning their righteous indignation eventually succeeded in persuading the wider public of the sense and morality of their cause and the Corn Laws were repealed. In the long term, their prognosis was completely vindicated.
The history lesson of the Corn Laws is this: bad policies that do harm to large numbers of people can, by human effort, be undone in order to do less harm, but this cannot happen without relentless campaigning and activism. That means that all those involved in housing need to reach out to the widest possible audience, making alliances with anyone who will join the cause, to make the moral, social and financial case for a massive programme of housebuilding, as well as challenging the stigmatisation and prejudice that wraps itself around any discussion of social housing and benefits. Blaming the poor for creating their own predicament is not the answer.
Labour and the Liberal Democrats have been flying the mansion tax kite for several years now, but details of how it would work in practice are still sketchy. In my view, the mansion tax is a bad idea and likely to come to nothing. Like the bedroom tax and the poll tax, the terminology is wrong and smacks too much of class war. Conservatives will always raise the image of the little old lady (or man) living on limited means in a £2 million house. This response from the leader of Kensington and Chelsea Council, describing the mansion tax as a ‘nasty’ tax, is typical.
A simpler, subtler option, which could raise as much as a proposed mansion tax, would be to reform council tax by stretching the distance between the bands and adding two bands at the top end, something I wrote about in 2012. It would add a much-needed dose of fairness and redistribution to a system that is grossly regressive and unfair.
To recap, council tax was introduced as a fudge after the big poll tax riot of 31st March 1990. It is a hybrid between a personal tax for council services and a property tax - the bigger your property, the more you pay. There are eight council tax bands in England (nine in Wales) ranging from Band A (properties worth up to £40,000 in 1991) to Band H (properties worth more than £320,000 in 1991). Valuations were cursory and have never been adequately updated. Band D is the benchmark, so people in Band A pay 6/9ths of the Band D tax and people in Band H pay 16/9ths of Band D. This means that a Band H property will be worth at least 8 times a Band A property, but the council tax will be only three times higher.
The regional picture is haphazard, and local authorities have discretion over the tax they set. The average band D tax is £1,468 in England but consider this: in my modest Band D house in Cambridge I pay £1,512 per year. A resident of Hyde Park One in Westminster, living in a property worth £140 million, pays a mere £1,353 a year in Band H, and this is just three times more than someone living in the cheapest home in Westminster who pays £451 a year. The fact that I pay more council tax than a billionaire Russian oligarch is rather galling.
There is an argument to be made that those in the largest properties should pay significantly more towards council services, both on grounds of fairness and redistribution, but also because larger properties generally take up more roads, sewers and street lights, and binmen have to travel farther to collect their bins.
It would be relatively easy to add two bands above the present Band H, say for properties valued from £320,000 to £500,000, from £500,000 to £750,000 and above £750,000. In today’s money, that would mean three bands, roughly from £1 million to £1.6 million, £1.6 million to £2.5 million and above £2.5 million, although London prices would be higher due to faster levels of inflation. The existing values are already in the system so the bands could be easily adjusted, but this could also be an opportunity to ‘stretch’ the bandings, so that those in a band H property end up paying four times more than those in Band A, rather than three times as at present, and those in the top band would pay six times more than those in the bottom band. It would be a much fairer system.
According to government figures around 130,000 properties are in band H although this appears to be an underestimate. Knight Frank reckon 50,000 homes are currently worth more than £2 million. For the sake of argument, let’s assume 25 percent of 130,000 would be in the new Band I and 10 percent in Band J (that’s 13,000 properties worth more than £2.6 million). A revised council tax regime could then look something like this:
|Band||No of properties (million)||Ratio to Band D (previous band in brackets)||Current annual tax (average)||New annual tax (average)||Additional revenue (million)|
This could raise an additional £1.4 billion, but more importantly it makes the system fairer and more redistributive. It could also encourage some people in larger properties to downsize. Relief would be available for asset-rich, cash-poor residents, taking account of the currents savings rules for benefits.
There are some signs that concern about the widening gap between rich and poor is gaining traction on the right. This thoughtful piece by the MP for Westminster is a case in point, and as I mentioned in my previous blog on this topic, the Free Enterprise Group of Conservative MPs might be willing to support a reform of council tax. A party that wants to present itself to the electorate as ‘the workers’ party’ could attract votes from ‘hard-working people’ with a policy that asks for the very well-off to pay slightly more in tax.
The policies that work best are often those that are introduced incrementally and subtly and with some degree of cross-party support. Reform of council tax could be spread over a period of years and would not be damaged by the negative connotations that surround the mansion tax.
During his BBC debate with Nick Clegg last week, Nigel Farage claimed that, ‘we need to build a house every seven minutes just to cope with immigration into this country’.
That made me jump up and fetch my calculator. Could Farage possibly be right? A house built every seven minutes equates to 75,000 houses a year. Given that net migration currently stands at 212,000, and assuming an average household size of 2.8 (compared to the UK average of 2.3) then a requirement of 75,000 homes a year is in the right ballpark. Between 2011 and 2021 the ONS predicts an increase of 2.2 million households in England, and migration, at a net figure of around 165,000 per annum, will therefore form around a third of this increase, so given an annual requirement of 250,000 homes it means that the requirement for migrants would be roughly in line with Farage’s figure. His reasoning appears to come from this Migration Watch report.
But all of this is pure supposition and ‘a house every seven minutes’ is just a clever political soundbite that completely ignores the fact that we are building less than half of the homes we need to build and that the housebuilding industry has consistently failed to increase its supply in response to population increases.
Whatever you think of Farage (and I am no fan of his little England politics and his admiration for V.Putin) you have to admit that his ‘ordinary bloke at the bar’ persona appeals to millions of people and that he is a highly effective political communicator.
Now many figures in our sector complain (including me) that we consistently fail to get our message across, or that we are ineffective at explaining what we do (Nick Atkin is a case in point,) but perhaps Nigel Farage could teach us a lesson or two.
So how about turning his ‘house every seven minutes’ on its head? It’s a memorable phrase, and we all know that in England we need to build 250,000 home a year. That’s one every 2 minutes. Last year we built just 107,820 houses in England – that’s one every four minutes and fifty seconds, a shortfall of two minutes and fifty seconds between the target and the reality, or a deficit of 389 houses every single day. A simple campaign would be for the ‘two minute house’, using images like ticking clocks or the digital displays that were used to count down to the Olympics. These would show how many houses are being built minute-by-minute and day-by-day compared to the number we need to build, and highlighting the gap in housing supply. It would be understandable and memorable and could persuade those who don’t ‘get’ housing of the scale of the problem. Every housing website worth its salt could include such a display on its masthead. How about it ukhousing?
But there is a more important point to be made about the Farage phenomenon. Our housing message is consistently undermined by the perception that migrants are in some way responsible for the housing crisis. If you read the comment threads in popular newspapers any discussion about housing is inevitably dominated by comments stating, in effect, ‘stop immigration and all our housing problems will be solved’. It is an issue to which we need to give serious attention and I will return to it in future blogs.
The news that nine London Boroughs have failed in their legal challenge to the Greater London Authority’s “affordable rent” programme” prompts me to write more on this topic.
I wrote a previous blog, ‘Just Say No’, pointing out that social rent is now a dead duck so far as GLA and HCA funding is concerned. I made a couple of Freedom of Information requests to try to understand what progress is being made with the new programme and the results are summarised below.
Rents in London:
- Across all programmes, the average rent for a 3-bed property in 2013/14 was £176, ranging from £116 in Newham (5 properties) to £290 in Barnet (7 properties).
- The average rent across all programmes for all property sizes increased on average from £141 per week in 2011/12 to £159 per week in 2013/14 - that’s a 13 percent increase in two years, well above inflation.
- In 2012/13, the average “Affordable Rent” for a 1-bed home was £153 per week. This ranged from £96 in Merton (19 properties) to £214 in Hammersmith (17 properties).
- In 2012/2013 the average “Affordable Rent” for a 3-bed home was £191 per week. The highest average rents were £250 per week in Kingston upon Thames (1 property) and Kensington & Chelsea (3 properties), £246 per week in Islington (7 properties) and £222 per week (17 properties) in Southwark. The lowest rent was £126 in Harrow (2 properties).
Rents outside London:
- Beyond London, ‘Affordable Rents’ for a 3-bed ranged from £79 in Darlington to £223 in Elmbridge. The three lowest rents were £79 in Darlington, £81 in Gateshead and £85 in Durham.
- In many local authorities around London average ‘Affordable Rents’ for 3-bed homes were not much lower than in the capital - £222 in Epsom, £214 in Brighton, £208 in Windsor, £206 in Epping and £183 in Hertsmere.
After the GLA court victory, Sir Edward Lister, deputy mayor for planning, said: ‘Maximising the delivery of affordable homes in London is the mayor’s top priority’.
Frankly, I don’t see how a house let to a low-income family in London at a rent of £191 per week can be meaningfully described as “affordable”. It is interesting that the GLA’s analysis of the Living Wage (£8.80 per hour) assumes that weekly housing costs for a 3-bed property will be around £115 per week in London (see Appendix A). These “affordable rents” blow a very big hole in the Mayor’s own analysis and mean that a Living Wage is nothing of the sort for those unfortunate enough to be saddled with an ‘affordable rent’ property.
The clear message for me is that, whilst ‘affordable rents’ may be affordable in some parts of the country they are clearly not affordable in London and much of the south east.
Neither the HCA or the GLA could provide any information about the number of ‘conversions’ from social rent to affordable rent, nor any detailed information about how affordable rents compare to market rents. (It also proved impossible to reconcile the figures from the CLG, GLA and CLG on completions, so I have omitted these figures. If anyone can shed any light on the numbers involved I would be pleased to hear from you.)
On conversions, I think it is important that this data is collected and published as it represents a loss of social rented homes. If it is assumed that there is at least one conversion for every new ‘affordable rent’ home and assuming that the former output of HCA and GLA funded social rented is matched by the output of affordable rented homes, then around 15,000 social rented homes will be lost each year in England. Not a huge figure, but when you add it to losses through the right to buy (almost 17,000 in England last year) and ‘voluntary’ sales, as per the HCA prospectus, it starts to become significant, perhaps 40,000 a year in total. Take that forward by ten years and the number of social rented homes starts to reduce significantly. This is one of the changes that have prompted the creation of SHOUT, the Campaign for Social Housing.
My main concern is that the whole ‘affordable rent’ programme has been introduced with the minimum of consultation and without any real thought about the long-term consequences for social rented housing. There needs to be more debate and more transparency about this significant change in policy.
“We all live in a Robbie Fowler House” goes the football chant. Fowler, with over 80 homes in his portfolio, is just one of scores of top footballers who have sunk their money into property. The reason is simple. Forget Lamborghinis, the average Briton in receipt of a windfall is most likely to spend it on property. It’s as safe as houses, isn’t it? Whatever may happen to gold, shares or fine wines house prices keep on going up.
The pension changes mean that from April next year people who would have been required to take an out an annuity wil be able to take their defined contribution pension pot as a lump sum, with the first 25 percent tax free and the remainder taxed at their normal rate. The Chancellor’s surprise announcement led to speculation in the press that thousands of pensioners would be rushing out to purchase buy-to-let properties. According to the Mail this would push up house prices by 30 percent.
So what are the impacts of these changes likely to be?
Figures show that 400,000 people spend around £14 billion on annuities each year – that’s a pension pot of £35,000 per person, which will not buy much south of the Humber. When they de-regulated the pension system in Australia only 25 percent used their pension pot to buy an annuity, whereas 32 percent used it to pay off a mortgage, buy a home or fund home improvements. If we assume a similar pattern of behaviour in the UK that means a reduction of £10.5 billion each year in the amount of money that the pension industry invests in bonds and other long-term funds. As Robert Peston points out that could have consequences for the funds available for social housing.
It also means an additional £4.5 billion would be available each year for home improvement, mortgage payoffs and house purchase. Let’s say a third goes on each of these categories. An extra £1.5 billion spent on home improvements each year is good news for local builders and double glazing salesmen. A similar amount spent on paying off mortgages increases the level of personal equity in housing stock, which could see a rise in equity release schemes, but also puts more cash in people’s pockets to spend elsewhere, which will undoubtedly have an economic impact. An extra £1.5 billion spent on house purchase, assuming an average purchase price of £125,000, could mean an addditional 12,000 properties being bought each year by pensioners. That’s a small fraction of the million transactions now taking place each year in the UK, but it’s equivalent to over two thirds of the homes that have been bought under the Help to Buy. If supply does not respond, and you add it to the stimulus provided by Help to Buy, there is bound to be some additional inflationary impact on house prices, although whether this reach the 30 percent predicted by the Mail I doubt.
Some retirees will also use their lump sums to support struggling children or grandchildren to fund the deposit to buy a home, either as a gift or an interest free loan. In the absence of any increase in supply this too will have an inflationary impact.
There will be other consequneces arising from these changes. Pensioners taking possession of large lump sums of money will be an easy taget for con artists and dodgy builders and local authorities and housing providers should keep an eye out for this. If significant numbers of pensioners blow their lump sums on holidays and cars it could also impact upon welfare spending in the long term. At present, many pensioners do not claim the benefits they are entitled to – especially pension credits and council tax benefit - but this may change, and although pensions are not covered by the welfare cap it could add to the pressure for cuts on the benefits that are.
So lots to speculate about. All in all, the long-term consequences will depend upon how people behave. It could prove to be one of the biggest changes in personal finances since the right to buy, with unforeseen consequences for millions of people. For the Chancellor, it’s all about trusting people to do what they want with their own money. As Boris Johnson says, ‘If old fools end up in rusty Lamborghinis eating dog food it’s their call’!
I wrote in praise of Nick Boles last year. He seemed to be one of the few Ministers who understood the seriousness of the housing crisis and was prepared to do something about it. But now, with an election pending, he has caved in to intense pressure from countryside lobbyists, backbench Tories and peers. His recent changes to the planning rules make the housing requirements of the National Planning Polcy Framework almost redundant in scores of local authority areas.
I have some sympathy for his plight. You can judge the scale of the onslaught against him by reading the transcripts of two recent Westminster Hall debates here and here, or the contents of this campaign website set up by one of his own MPs. There are countless campaigns like this across the country.
The first capitulation came with updated planning guidance, which strengthened green belt protection and diluted the housing requirements of the NPPF. Here, Boles stated that “unmet housing need is unlikely to outweigh harm to the Green Belt and other harm to constitute very special circumstances justifying inappropriate development”. The guidance also stated that Local Plans can pass the test of soundness even where authorities have not been able to identify land for growth in years 11 to 15 of their local plan and that windfalls can be counted across the entire plan period and not just the first 5 years, as stated in the NPPF. (It’s hard to understand how a plan can be described as a plan when it relies on windfalls).
Boles has also watered down the requirement for neighbouring local authorities to work with each other to meet housing needs. “The duty to co-operate is not a duty to accept. We have considered and rejected the proposals of HM’s Opposition to allow councils to undermine Green Belt protection and dump development on their neighbours’ doorstep” he says. What this means is that local authorities like North Herts, with huge tracts of developable land, can stick two fingers up to its land-locked neighbour Stevenage.
Worse was to come. Two weeks ago, Boles wrote a threatening letter to the Planning Inspectorate, which effectively says that inspectors cannot require local authorities to review their Green Belt boundaries in order to meet their housing needs, and that the local authority alone can make such a decision. It is worth quoting this paragraph in full:
“It has always been the case that a local authority could adjust a Green Belt boundary through a review of the Local Plan. It must however always be transparently clear that it is the local authority itself which has chosen that path – and it is important that this is reflected in the drafting of Inspectors’ reports. The Secretary of State will consider exercising his statutory powers of intervention in Local Plans before they are adopted where a planning inspector has recommended a Green Belt review that is not supported by the local planning authority.”
This is a pure nimby charter. Just to be clear, the NPPF, requires local authorities “to meet the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period”. The new planning guidance also requires local authorities to respond to “market signals” (higher than average rents and house prices) and build more homes accordingly. But if this means building on the green belt, and if the local authority is opposed to such a course of action, then the Planning Inspector will be almost powerless to intervene. This means that dozens of “sound” Local Plans that are in the pipeline will be left in limbo. Up and down the country, local authorities will be considering withdrawing or amending their plans and housing will be the loser.
In England, 181 out of 326 English local authorities contain green belt land. For 20 authorities, more than 73 percent of their area is green belt, and if you look carefully at this interactive map you can see that scores of local authorities simply cannot grow without reviewing their green belt boundaries, because they are drawn so tightly. The only alternative is to build at much higher densities on brownfield land, and I really cannot see the good burghers of St Albans or Reigate agreeing to a rash of tower blocks in their districts.
Demographically, local councillors across England match the people who are most likely to oppose new homes (older, white, home-owners). The last census by the Local Government Association showed that the average age of councillors had increased from 55 to 60 over a 13-year period and that 96 percent were white, 68 percent worked in the private sector and 79 percent worked in professional, managerial or teaching sectors. The people who need homes are simply not represented in our Council chambers and they do not vote to the same extent. At the last general election, 44 percent of 18 to 24 year olds and 55 percent of 25-34 year olds voted, compared to 75 percent of those aged 65 and over. It it any wonder that the opponents of new housebuilding are so influential? What this episode amounts to, in my view, is a failure of democracy and a failure of localism.
In recent weeks I’ve been involved in writing, publishing and launching a new report on shared ownership housing for Gateway Housing Association. “Moving On Up” looks at the sector as a whole with a focus on staircasing. It includes a study of Gateway’s shared owners (9 in 10 of them are satisfied) and members of the London Home Ownership Group. The report includes 15 practical recommendations that could apply to all housing providers.
The main focus of the report is on staircasing. Given its origins as a leg-up onto the housing ladder you would expect mobility in shared ownership to be high. In fact it has just about the lowest mobility of any sector. For many housing providers selling a shared ownership property seems to be the end of the process rather than the beginning. Staircasing is a key element of mobility – the more you own the greater your chances of moving on – so the report looks at the barriers that stand in the way. Obviously income is a key barrier, but the fees involved in buying extra shares were also identified as a significant obstacle, and providers need to find ways to lessen their impact, perhaps by offering to pay them up-front and offsetting them against future receipts.
You can read “Moving On Up” here.
At the report’s launch, Gateway’s Chief Executve Sheron Carter introduced the keynote speaker, David Orr, who described shared ownership as “the tenure that refuses to die”. It’s true that shared ownership has been hamstrung by complexity, restrictions and constant change and yet it keeps struggling on, primarily because it is actually a brilliant concept. The notion of a tenure that bridges the widening gap between renting and owning has to be sound and if it didn’t exist someone would have to invent it. (Incidentally, there was some discussion at the launch about who did invent shared ownership. The late Chief Executive of Notting Hill, John Coward, is a strong contender and you can see an interview with him here.)
There are around 170,000 shared owners in England, so it represents a relatively small slice of our overall stock, but it has huge potential to provide more homes. A report from Shelter last year (“Homes for Forgotten Families”) suggested that nearly eight in ten low to middle income families would be unable to afford to buy outright, even with Help to Buy, but 95 percent of them could afford a shared ownership home. Shelter says shared ownership needs a big shake up if it is to play a significant role in the future – there are too many schemes and it has been messed around with too often by government. That certainly confirms my experience from trawling though dozens of websites. A Rightmove for the shared ownership sector would be a step in the right direction, as would a firm dose of simplification and re-branding. Some providers, like Thames Vallley Housing Association, have taken up this challenge by devising a scheme called Shared Ownership plus that allows owners to buy 1 percent extra each year with minimum fuss.
The fundamental problem is that shared ownership has an identity crisis. Is it social housing, designed to meet genuine housing needs, or is it a product that is there to meet housing demand? A report from the JRF in 2008 highlighted this tension and described shared ownership as “a permanent hybrid tenure between ownership and renting.” Some local authorities reflect this tension when they express concerns about whether people in shared ownership are in genuine housing need.
Perhaps we just need to recognise that anyone who buys a home to live in has some level of housing need, and get on with it. There is masssive untapped demand out there and shared ownership has the potential to add to the overall supply and house thousands of extra people, if only we realised it.
The Planners, (now re-branded as Permission Impossible) is good, formulaic TV. Each episode covers four or five planning battles, culminating in a site visit by councillors and the final decision at planning committee. Cue disgust/delight on the part of developers/objectors, run titles. It may not appeal to everyone, but it should be compulsory viewing for anyone who works in housing. The latest episode even featured an appearance by Sir Steve Redgrave pressing the case for a sports’ village on green belt land in Chester (he lost).
The programme showcases hard-pressed planning officers and councillors trying to do their best and, in the finest traditions of English muddling-through, they usually reach the right decision in the end. But I can’t help thinking that there has to be a better way to plan for the homes and places that we need.
Apparently, the second series was going to be called “Not in My Back Yard”, which reminded me that I wrote about the psychology of “nimbyism” last May and promised to return to the topic. This prompted me to look at a new toolkit from Shelter that aims to promote a better understanding of how different groups of people feel about development proposals, and allows developers to tailor their proposals accordingly. Not surprisingly it is “wealthy executives”, “affluent greys” and “flourishing families” who are most likely to object to new developments in their area, and they make up a quarter of the UK population. These are precisely the people who appear most frequently in Permission Impossible and it proves the point that protests by these groups are likely to push development into areas where people are less likely to object - i.e. areas populated by “educated urbanites”, “aspiring singles” and “those affected by Inner city adversity”.
A good example of this is happening on my doorstep in Cambridge where I am involved in a local residents’ group. The City Council has just submitted a draft local plan that proposes new homes on a tiny slice of green belt land close to Addenbrooke’s hospital. This amounts to just 14.6 hectares out of a total green belt of 26,340 hectares, but inevitably an aggressive “Save the Cambridge Green Belt” campaign has been launched. You can get a flavour of their methods here, (some of the comments are mine). Crying “Save the Green Belt” In such circumstances is like campaigning to “Save Hyde Park” when a block of toilets on a landscaped plot measuring 26 by 30 metres is proposed for one corner of the 142 hectare park, (I’ve done the maths). It’s pure scaremongering, but what can you do?
The consequence of this “nimby” campaign is that the area where I live is being forced to accept higher housing densities because the Council is struggling to meet its housing targets within the urban footprint. A large brownfield site near me has had its density more than doubled to 75 dwellings per hectare, even though local schools and services are over-stretched. A petition against the proposal raised a few hundred signatures, whereas the green belt lobby managed over 2,000 signatures, so they are more vocal and, I would argue, more selfish than we are. The difference between my group and theirs is that we want housing but they want none at all.
As urban densities increase I believe this kind of conflict between urban and edge-of-town groups will increase. It’s not just ruralites who want to keep the towns hemmed in - those who who live on the urban fringe and stand to lose ther views or their access to open fields are equally opposed to growth, even though the homes they live in were built on green fields fairly recently.
Much of the argument between anti and pro-gowth campaigners is conducted at arms’ length or through on-line forums, and although people often complain that the planning system is too adversarial I can’t help thinking that a little more face-to-face confrontation could be a good thing and possibly cathartic in the long run. For example, when the councillors on Permission Impossible carry out their site visits, local objectors and developers are forbidden to approach them. This leaves both sides feeling frustrated and complaining about a lack of openness and transparency. Instead, why not allow more argument and debate at each stage of the process? Let’s hear the voices of those who would benefit from development, perhaps at the pre-application stage, in a kind of truth and reconciliation session. Let nimbys come to face to face on site with single parents living in damp and overcrowded homes, or young people who are forced to spend half their salaries on renting a grotty flat, so that they can see the personal consequences of their campaigns against new homes. In our society ugly things are often hidden from sight, and the well off and well-housed rarely see the ugly side of the housing crisis. If “nimbys” were persuaded to see the bigger picture and “check their privilege” perhaps it would help to temper their views, or am I being naïve?
Perhaps, perhaps not. But the planning system needs to find a bettter way of hearing a wider range of voices when important planning decisions are being made, and not just listening to those who make the most noise.