Categories
Blog Post

Letter to the editor: Building the Affordable Homes we need

We are delighted to publish our first Letter to the editor, from Paul Brocklehurst! If you would like to get in touch with your thoughts, please write to us at [email protected]

Dear Red Brick editors and readers,

I am not going to spend any time in this letter on why we desperately need more affordable homes. We are all aware of the statistics on housing waiting lists, levels of homelessness, children sharing beds with siblings, and the impact of housing costs within the cost-of-living crisis. That is why Labour’s manifesto was clear, “Labour will deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation”. So the simple question is how?

First, the Government needs to confirm a long term, 10-year, rent settlement for Registered Providers (social and affordable housing landlords).  Only then can they plan and borrow for investment. The immediate increase in borrowing capacity will free Registered Providers to bid on the heavily subsidised affordable housing provided by private developers through their s.106 planning obligations. At present, this is not happening. This limits not only the delivery of affordable housing, but that of private housing as well.  This is an urgent issue and needs to be resolved now.

Subscribe to Red Brick’s free newsletter today!

Second, as the Government is proposing, it needs to urgently reform the planning system to ensure that all local authorities in the country have a plan to deliver the homes they need. By 2025, 78% of Local Authorities in England will not have an up-to-date Local Plan, and 38% will have a Plan that is 10 years old or more.  What does this mean for affordable housing delivery? A few extreme illustrations of authorities with high percentages of green belt and their record of affordable home building might help. York has not had a Local Plan since 1954 and built a total of 3,329 homes in the 5 years to 31 March 2022. However, after accounting for Right to Buy loses, only a net 9% of those homes were ‘affordable’. Brentwood, over the same period, delivered a total of 1,394 new homes of which a net 8% were affordable. There are more examples that could be given, but let us be clear that in these areas, and many more, local authorities are not meeting their total housing requirements and certainly are not delivering the affordable homes we so desperately need.

Third, within the planning reforms, government needs to over-emphasise the importance of affordable housing delivery while ensuring that planning authorities bring forward the right mix of sites. We all agree that brownfield sites should be considered as a priority for development, but in many locations outside of London, the costs — such as for remediation, and construction — of developing brownfield sites means that they do not deliver the expected and necessary levels of affordable housing. Take Birmingham, in that 5-year period I referred to above, a total of 17,800 new homes were built. Yet after Right to Buy Registered Providers lost a net 994 affordable homes from their stock. You need to ensure that there are enough sites, effectively green field (not to be confused with Green Belt, but perhaps those as well, certainly Grey Belt!), being developed that can deliver the targeted level of affordable housing. There need to be checks and balances to ensure that local authorities are doing this.

Fourth, social rent needs greater emphasis among affordable housing requirements. Definitions and emphasis changed under the previous Conservative administration. In 2012, they changed the emphasis in grant funding and financial policy away from social rent (those homes with rents set at around 50% of market rents) to affordable rent (around 80% of market rent) in an austerity measure to lessen funding of affordable housing. While affordable rent might address part of the need for affordable housing, it should only be viewed as a piece of a larger jigsaw. We need to bring back social rent within the delivery mix.  This change has been further accentuated by Right to Buy losses as I have illustrated above. There needs to be greater flexibility in what defines affordable housing, but one thing is surely clear, that social rent should begin to once again play a greater part in delivery in many areas.  When I started in development over 20 years ago, the starting point was that social rent formed a large percentage of the affordable housing s.106 obligation on sites. We need to return to a point where planning policy sets a minimum percentage of social rent within the affordable mix. We should also be willing to accept other forms of affordable housing such as discounted market sales or rent to buy. The need is not uniform across the country, just as development viabilities are not, so there needs to be greater flexibility as to what is accepted.

Finally, I would like to challenge the Treasury. Affordable housing delivery should be considered as an investment in national infrastructure. We spend £31bn annually on housing benefit. Surely, a logical case can be made to commence a programme of government-led investment in affordable housing without viewing it as current account expenditure of the nation. We will have an asset, we may eventually reduce our housing benefit bill, it will lead to benefits for the wider economy – health outcomes, educational outcomes, social and labour market mobility – it would aid economic growth, improving fairness and creating opportunity.    

With Labour’s attention on immediate planning reform, its focus on economic growth and delivering more homes of all tenures, and with a willing development industry ready to deliver, bridging the gap in affordable housing delivery is achievable.

Categories
Blog Post

Labour Conference 2024: What’s going on for housing?

ACC Liverpool by John Lord is licensed under CC BY 2.0

Labour Conference is back! The first conference with a Labour Government in 15 years will see Liverpool teeming with Labour Party activists, VIPs and the broader political world.

Hundreds of events look to be forming out a packed-out calendar, so this editor thought it would be useful for Red Brick readers attending conference to have a quick guide of what’s going on for housing.

This will be split into events, exhibition, and conference floor, with notes for when and where events are happening.

Only confirmed speakers will be registered here, given the number of organisations who include over-ambitious invitations.

Please note that some events may require booking to enter, we recommend that you also check with the event organiser in advance.

If you would like your event included in this list or would like to make an amendment please get in touch with us at [email protected]

Subscribe for Red Brick’s free newsletter and articles

Hall speeches and debates:

Sunday 22nd September:

11:25am – 11:35am | Deputy Leader of the Labour Party’s Speech

Tuesday 24th September:

2:00pm – 4:00pm | Leader of the Labour Party’s Speech

Fringes:

Sunday 22nd September

11:30am – 12:30pm | Meeting Room 12, ACC | Finding Local Solutions to the Housing Crisis (The Labour Party) Join a panel of local government leaders to discuss how Labour Councils can support the Government’s target to build 1.5 million homes.

3:00pm – 4:00pm | Progressive Britain Hub, ACC | “Getting Planning Right: How can we get Britain building and promote nature’s recovery?” (Progressive Britain, CPRE, National Trust, RSPB and the Woodland Trust) Is it possible to deliver growth through the planning system and tackle the nature crisis? Or are the two mutually exclusive?

Speakers:

  • Baroness Sharon Taylor
  • Mary-Ann Ochota (Broadcaster, author and anthropologist)
  • Abi Bunker (Woodland Trust)
  • Craig Bennett (The Wildlife Trusts)
  • Rob Boughton (Thakeham)
  • Marc Harris (Labour YIMBY)

3:15pm – 4:30pm | Meeting Room 4B, ACC | Delivering the homes the country needs (NHBC) A housing event with industry CEOs, senior stakeholders and Party members.

3:30pm – 4:30pm | Arena Room 8, ACC | How can Labour fix the renting crisis? (Renters’ Reform Coalition).

Speakers:

  • Tom Darling, Renters’ Reform Coalition (Chair)
  • Vicky Spratt (The i paper)
  • Anny Cullum (ACORN)
  • Tom McInnes (Citizens Advice)

3:30pm – 4:30pm | Arena Room 10, ACC | How can Labour work with communities to end rough sleeping? (Christians on the left).

Speakers:

  • Bonnie Williams (Housing Justice)
  • Cllr George Dunstall (Haringey Council)

4:00pm – 5:00pm | Premier Inn Liverpool Albert Dock | Warming up? Electrifying home heating (Bright Blue and Thermal Storage UK). Join Bright Blue and Thermal Storage UK as we discuss the technologies for and challenge to the electrification of home heating. Speakers:

  • Ryan Shorthouse (Bright Blue) (Chair)
  • Fiona Harvey (The Guardian)
  • Guy Newey (Energy Systems Catapult)
  • Dr Robert Barthope (University of Sheffield).

4:15pm – 5:30pm | Mersey Suite, Pullman Hotel | Brick by brick: a plan to deliver the social homes we need (Shelter).

4:30pm – 5:30pm | Startup Coalition Tech Hub | Built different: accelerating the decarbonisation of the built environment through tech and innovation (Startup Coalition and Checkatrade). A panel discussion on how the Labour Government can deploy technology to accelerate its Warm Homes Plan, decarbonise the housing stock and empower consumers to lower their energy bills.

4:30pm – 6:00pm | Albert Johnston suite, Novotel Liverpool Centre | Rally for Social Housing (Labour Housing Group)

Speakers:

  • Paula Barker MP
  • Rachel Blake MP
  • David Smith MP
  • Peter Swallow MP
  • Andrew Lewin MP
  • Jenny Riddell- Carpenter MP
  • Luke Murphy MP
  • Ike Mbamali (Prowgress)
  • Mairi MacRae (Shelter)
  • Martin Hilditch (Inside Housing Build Social)
  • Cllr Julie Fadden (Liverpool City Council)
  • Cllr Peray Ahmet (Haringey Council)
  • Mark Slater (Greater Manchester Tenants’ Union)
  • Gordon Johnstone (House Everyone in Liverpool Properly)
  • Jasmine Basran (Crisis)

6:00pm – 7:00pm | Meeting Room 9, Leonardo’s Hotel | Health Inequality and Cold Homes: An evening with Professor Sir Michael Marmot (Friends of the Earth and Institute of Health Equity).

Speakers:

  • Mike Childs (Friends of the Earth) (Chair)
  • Professor Sir Michael Marmot (Institute of Health Equity)

6:00pm – 6:30pm | Arena Room 7, ACC | More than a landlord: How can housing associations help tackle the housing crisis? (SME4Labour and Clarion Housing Association).

Speakers:

  • Clare Miller (Clarion Housing Group)

6:30pm – 8:00pm | Arena Room 9, ACC | Social housing into the next century (West Midlands Housing Association Partnership)

7:00pm – 9:00pm | Imagine, Hilton Hotel | Labour YIMBY: Rally for the Builders (Labour YIMBY and Homes for Britain supported by Britain Remade and LPDF).

Speakers:

  • Cllr Shama Tatler (London Borough of Brent) (Chair)
  • Shreya Nandy (Labour YIMBY)
  • Marc Harris (Labour YIMBY)
  • Chris Curtis MP
  • Dan Tomlinson MP
  • Yuan Yang MP
  • Eve McQuillan (LPDF)
  • Issy Waite (Labour Students)
  • Abdi Duale (Labour NEC)

7:30pm – 9:00pm | The Purpose Coalition Tent, ACC | The Warmer Homes Reception (The Purpose Coalition and E.ON). The Warmer Homes Reception will explore how the new Labour government and business can work in partnership to ensure everyone has the energy security they need.

Monday 23rd September

9:00am – 10:00am | Meeting Room 9, Leonardo Hotel | Where does the Private Rented Sector fit into Labour’s plans for Housing? (Social Market Foundation and Paragon). Labour have made commitments to help tenants in the private rented sector by banning no fault evictions, but what more can be done to raise standards and deliver more homes to address the supply-demand imbalance?

Speakers:

  • Jamie Gollings (Social Market Foundation) (Chair)
  • Nigel Terrington (Paragon Banking Group)
  • Vicky Spratt (The i paper)
  • Gráinne Gilmore (Cluttons)

9:30am – 10:30am | Gallery 2, RIBA North, 21 Mann Island | Delivering high-quality affordable homes? (Royal Institute of British Architects and Peabody). Join RIBA and Peabody alongside an expert panel to discuss how the new Labour government can both build new affordable homes at scale and also deliver good quality homes and sustainable places.

10:00am – 11:00am | Arena Room 7, ACC | Boosting the UK’s Small House Builders (SME4Labour and Federation of Master Builders).

Speakers:

  • Brian Perry (Federation of Master Builders)
  • Sonia Khan MP

11:00am – 11:45am | Meeting Room 11B, ACC | Homes for All: How could Labour support a broad and balanced curriculum? (New Statesman and Nationwide Foundation)

Speakers:

  • Richard Parker (Mayor for the West Midlands)
  • David Orr (Homes for All)
  • Kate Markey (Nationwide Foundation)

12:00pm – 12:50pm | Meeting Room 11B, ACC | How can Labour shape the future of UK housing?

Speakers:

  • Matthew Pennycook MP
  • Meg Hillier MP
  • Satvir Kaur MP
  • David Orr (Homes for All)
  • Kate Markey (Nationwide)
  • Jon Bernstein

12:00pm – 12:45pm | Meeting Room 11C, ACC | How can Labour end the housing crisis? (New Statesman and G15)

Speakers:

  • Fiona Fletcher Smith (G15)

12:30pm – 1:30pm | Meeting Room 10, ACC | Ending blanket bans on pets in privately rented homes: where next? (Mars Petcare and Battersea Dogs and Cats Home)  

Speakers:

  • Lorna Cattling (Mars Petcare)
  • Peter Laurie (Battersea Dogs and Cats Homes)
  • Misa von Tunzelman (Lendlease)

12:30pm – 2:00pm | Grace Suite 3, Hilton Hotel | Impact of Temporary Accommodation on Children (Shared Health Foundation). There are over 145,000 children experiencing homelessness in Temporary Accommodation. Can this government improve conditions for the country’s most vulnerable children and end child homelessness?

Speakers:

  • Siobhain McDonagh MP

12:30pm – 1:30pm | Meeting Room 12, ACC | Labour’s Housing Mission: Delivering Development in Partnership (Planning Futures and Vistry Group).

Speakers:

  • Cian Bryan (Planning Futures) (Chair)
  • Lindsey Richards (RTPI)
  • Andrew Taylor (Vistry Group)
  • Mark Washer (SNG)

12:30pm – 2:00pm | Arena Room 3, ACC | What role can housing associations play in delivering the biggest increase in affordable and social housing in a generation? (National Housing Federation in partnership with Karbon Homes and Guinness Homes).

Speakers:

  • Kate Henderson (NHF)
  • Catriona Simons (Guinness Homes)
  • Charlotte Carpenter (Karbon Homes)

1:00pm – 3:00pm | Princess Suite 3, Crowne Plaza | The Housing Revolution and Devolution: Building 1.5 Million Homes for England (English Labour Network)

Join us at Princess Suite 3 at the Crowne Plaza – Liverpool City Centre for a groundbreaking event on revolutionising housebuilding in England and the implications for devolution in England! We’re bringing together experts, policymakers, and innovators to discuss building 1.5 million homes to address the housing crisis.

Speakers:

  • Brenda Dacres (Mayor of Lewisham)
  • John Denham (former Communities Secretary and English Labour Network Director)
  • Cllr Vince Maple (Medway Council)
  • Graeme Craig (Places for London)
  • Cllr Anthony Okereke (Greenwich Council)
  • Kevin Henson (Gerald Eve)
  • Cllr Shama Tatler (London Borough of Brent)
  • Siddo Dywer (Concilio)
  • Catherine Rose (Concilio)

1:30pm – 2:30pm | Arena Room 10, ACC | What will Labour’s planning reforms mean for workers? (Britain Remade)

Speakers:

  • Sam Richards (Britain Remade)

2:30pm – 3:30pm | Maritime Museum, 4th Floor | The Future for Housing (Fabian Society and Hallam Land management).

Speakers:

  • Matthew Pennycook MP
  • Nick Duckworth (Hallam Land Management)
  • Cllr Sara Hyde (London Borough of Islington)

3:00pm – 4:00pm | 2nd floor, Atlantic Pavilion, Royal Albert Dock | Housing as a driver for growth (Chartered Institute of Housing). Hear from some of the leading voices in housing as we explore the sector’s crucial role in driving inclusive growth.

Speakers:

  • James Prestwich (Chartered Institute of Housing)

3:50pm – 4:50pm | Museum of Liverpool | Getting back to building: a new era for housing delivery (Reform Think Tank and TPXimpact). Government’s plan to get Britain building cannot be driven from Westminster. This panel will explore creating new integrated planning and delivery approaches subnational levels and partnering with businesses and communities to build the housing we need.

Speakers:

  • Dr Simon Kaye (Reform Think Tank)
  • Tracy Brabin (Mayor of West Yorkshire)
  • Peter Foster (Financial Times)
  • Stephen Webb (TPXimpact)

4:00pm – 5:30pm | Liverpool, ACC | Funding homes for social rent: a role for institutional capital: drinks reception (Prowgress)

Speakers:

  • Ike Mbamali (Prowgress)
  • Krista D’Alessandro (Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association)
  • Simon Century (Legal & General Capital)
  • Anthony Breach (Centre for Cities)
  • Cllr Vanisha Solanki (London Borough of Redbridge)

4:30pm – 6:00pm | Arena Room 3, ACC | A fair deal for all new home buyers (New Homes Quality Board). How do we ensure the proposed 1.5 million new homes to be built doesn’t come at the expense of quality?

4:30pm – 5:30pm | The Purpose Coalition Tent, ACC | Later life is for living: how can more homes for our ageing population benefit us all? (The Purpose Coalition and Anchor Hanover). With an estimated need for 50,000 homes for older people to be built each year, increasing supply can help us live independently for longer and free up family-sized homes for younger generations.

4.30pm – 5.30pm | Grace suite 2, Hilton Hotel | Turning houses into homes: a social with serious content (Labour Housing Group). How do we make sure that house and flats provide real homes for the occupants, ones with stability, comfort, affordability, and healthy environments?

Speakers:

  • Rachel Blake MP (chair)
  • Claire Donovan, End Furniture Poverty
  • John Glenton. Riverside Housing

5:00pm – 6:00pm | RIBA Office, RIBA North | How the built environment can deliver regional growth (CIOB, RIBA, RICS and RTPI). This reception provides MPs with an opportunity to find out about the crucial role the built environment plays in reaching net zero, creating vibrant communities and delivering regional growth.

6:00pm – 7:30pm | King’s Suite, Radisson Blu Hotel | Housing Equality: Creating a Housing System That Works For Everyone (Labour Housing Group)

Speakers:

  • Cllr Shreya Nanda (Social Market Foundation) (Chair)
  • Ben Twomey, Generation Rent
  • David Bridson, YMCA
  • Jack Shaw, Labour Housing Group
  • John Greaves, Places for People

6:00pm – 6:50pm | Arent Room 7, ACC | Unlocking Growth in South-East England (SME4Labour, Kanda Consulting)|

Speakers:

  • Jo Dancy (Kanda Consulting) (Chair)
  • Kevin Bonavia MP
  • Cllr Peter Marland (Milton Keynes Council)

7:00pm – 8:00pm | Arena Room 7, ACC | The new Labour Government: unlocking the homes London needs (Kanda Consulting, Royal Haulage Association and SME4Labour).

Speakers:

  • Ibrahim Dogus (SME4Labour) (Chair)
  • Karen Alcock (Kanda Consulting)
  • Tom Copley (GLA)
  • Cllr Shama Tatler (London Borough of Brent)
  • Graeme Craig (Places for London)

7:30pm – 8:30pm | Arena Room 5, ACC | Better Vision for Temporary Accommodation: Policy Launch (Justlife) . The event will discuss policy changes, shaped by the homelessness sector and people with lived experience, we believe would help build a future where experiences in TA are short, safe and healthy.

Tuesday 24th September

8:30am – 10:00am | Skills Hub, ACC | The Big Construction Debate (CECA, CPA, ACE, FMB, BMF). The environment in which we live and work is at a turning point. With ambitious housing targets to meet, a looming net zero deadline and a pressing need to develop the next generation of builders, how will we deliver a sustainable tomorrow?

9:00am – 9:45am | Meeting Room 11C, ACC | How Can a Labour Government Tackle the Housing Crisis and Get Britain Building Again? (New Statesman and Natwest Group).

10:30am – 12:00pm | Arena Room 10, ACC | Keeping Britain Warm While Saving Cash and Carbon: Delivering on Labour’s Net Zero Goals in the Home (Labour Climate and Environment Forum, EDF). How can a Labour government deliver on its net zero goals and ensure that people in the UK have affordable access to making their homes safe and warm?

Speakers:

  • Megan Corton Scott (LCEF)
  • Miatta Fanbulleh MP
  • Kieron Williams (Southwark Council)
  • Adam Scorer (National Energy Action)
  • Clare Moriarty (Citizens Advice)
  • Richard Hughes (EDF)

10:30am – 12:00pm | Meeting Room 4A, ACC |Sustainable Housing Forum: Creating Affordable Homes and Reducing Fuel Poverty (Thakeham). Labour is promising to deliver the biggest boost to affordable housing in a generation. Join the conversation on the holistic approach to affordable housing creation, fuel poverty reduction, and community building.

12:30pm – 1:30pm | Meeting Room 11A, ACC | The Road to Building 1.5m Homes (Labour Housing Group).

Speakers:

  • Cllr John Cotton (Birmingham City Council) (Chair)
  • Kate Henderson (National Housing Federation)
  • Mark Powell (EDAROTH)
  • Paul Brocklehurst (Land, Planning and Development Federation)
  • Dominic Armstrong, Community Union

1:00pm – 2:00pm | Meeting Room 4, Premier Meetings Liverpool Albert Dock | Will Labour’s Plans to Unlock the Planning System Really “Get Britain Building”? (City & Country)

Speakers:

  • Liz Hamson (BE News)
  • Chris Vince MP
  • Josh Dean MP
  • Michael Shanks MP

2:30pm – 4:00pm | Albert 3, Hilton Hotel | Citizen Panels: the YIMBY answer to better consultation? – Policy Launch and Drinks Reception (LGH Fabians & Leeds Building Society)

Speakers:

  • Chris Worrall (LGH Fabians) (Chair)
  • Cllr Shama Tatler (London Borough of Brent)
  • Tim Leunig (Public First)
  • Richard Fearon (Leeds Building Society)
  • Gemma Gallant (Iceni Projects)

3:00pm – 4:00pm | Meeting Room 4, Albert Dock Premier Inn | How Labour can solve the housing crisis in a sustainable way (Structural Timber Association)

Speakers:

  • Jon Craig, Chief Political Correspondent, Sky News (Chair)
  • Naushabah Khan MP, Member of Parliament for Gillingham and Rainham
  • Mike Reader MP, Member of Parliament for Northampton South
  • Andrew Carpenter, Chief Executive Officer, Structural Timber Association
  • Branwen Evans, Group Director, Sustainability and Policy, Places for People

3:30pm – 4:15pm | Meeting Room 11C, ACC | Getting Onto the Property Ladder: How Could a Labour Government Support First Time Buyers? (New Statesman and Santander)

3:30pm – 4:30pm | Progressive Britain Hub, ACC | Reigniting the Homeownership Dream: Listening to the Voice of First Time Buyers (Progressive Britain and Moneybox). Join us for a dynamic event with Moneybox, home of the largest community of aspiring first time buyers in the UK, as they launch their Voice of First Time Buyers White Paper, sharing findings and insights from the report and discussing policy recommendations for the Labour government.

4:00pm – 5:00pm | Arena Room 6, ACC | How Can the Government Make Sure It Delivers the Houses Britain Needs? (Institute for Government & Thakeham).

Speakers:

  • Nehal Davison (Institute for Government) (Chair)
  • Rob Boughton (Thakeham)
  • Sophie Metcalfe (Institute for Government)
  • Dan Tomlinson MP

5:00pm – 6:00pm | Progressive Britain Hub, ACC | A New Generation of Social Housing? (Progressive Britain, Inside Housing and JRF). Labour will build 1.5m new homes this Parliament. How does it make sure those least able to afford a home have access to one, and can build a foundation for a better life. Join Matthew Pennycook MP, Housing Minister and other panellists to discuss. Wine, beer and soft drinks available

Speakers:

  • Matthew Pennycook MP
  • Darren Baxter (JRF)
  • Bronwen Rapley (Homes for the North)
  • Kieron Williams (Southwark Council)
  • Kath Swindells (Inside Housing)

Exhibition:

ECL Building:

B11: The Property Institute

The Property Institute (TPI) is the professional body for residential property managers in Britain, facilitating safer managed property communities. It actively supports its members to continually improve building management standards through OFQUAL-accredited professional qualifications, ongoing professional development and auditing of firms, and it is calling for regulation of property agents to ensure people’s homes are managed competently, safely, and ethically.

C7: Crisis

Crisis is the national charity for people facing homelessness. By working together, we can build a future free from homelessness. Visit us to understand homelessness in your area and the solutions needed so that everyone has a home, including more about our work with our partners Lloyds Banking Group.

C20: IKEA and Shelter

IKEA and housing and homelessness charity, Shelter, have formed a long-term partnership to defend the one thing we value most: home. Together, our aim is to ensure that by 2030, half a million people have access to a better life at home, by building 90,000 new social homes a year.

D2: Retirement Housing Group

The Retirement Housing Group is a membership body representing organisations providing all types of retirement housing. Established in 1995, it is the only body of its type. Retirement housing provides a solution for older people looking for more assistance. However, numerous restraints mean the UK does not build enough housing suitable for its ageing population. The RHG aims to improve affordable housing choices for the growing number of older people.

G5: Propertymark

Propertymark is the UK’s leading professional body for property agents. We campaign to raise standards for consumers who are renting, buying and selling property as well as amongst professionals working in the sector. Visit us to discuss and learn about the reforms needed to solve the housing crisis.

G20: Wates

As the UK’s leading family-owned development, building and property maintenance company, we have a proud legacy in the built environment. We know that the places where we live, work and play influence every aspect of our lives. In 2024, we entered our 127th year of business. Over the decades we have developed and maintained the resilience to survive and grow despite the many economic and geopolitical challenges we have ffaced. In the face of today’s environmental and social pressures, we know the built environment must do more. It can help unlock people’s potential, improve health and wellbeing, and shape future prospects. We are driven by our purpose of reimagining places for people to thrive.

ACC Building

AC10: Homelesslink

AC20 Thakeham

Thakeham, a sustainable placemaker, focuses on biodiversity and zero carbon hoes by 2025. Their homes include solar panels, heat pumps, EV chargers, and rainwater harvesting. Thakeham leads in UK community creation, integrating schools, healthcare, sports, and community-run amenities, emphasising community well-being and a sense of belonging.

Categories
Blog Post

Delivering a Fairer Housing in Westminster

Langdale House, part of the legendary Churchill Gardens Estate in Westminster, image by Images George Rex licensed under (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

For many of us in local government, a pro-social housing and house building national government isn’t just a welcome relief, but a necessity to give our tenants, leaseholders and residents the compassion, dignity and security they deserve.

Labour’s manifesto promises to support councils to build their capacity and make a greater contribution to affordable housing supply. This is of course welcome, but must be accompanied by an appreciation of the challenges local authorities already face in delivering fairer housing for their residents. While some components of our story are unique only to Westminster, we think this reflection of our journey gives some insight into some of the challenges faced by all local authorities.

Locally here we won control of the Council in 2022 after nearly 60 years of Conservative control. The previous administration’s treatment of social housing was literally scandalous – in one historic instance using housing as a tool for gerrymandering, the so-called ‘Homes for Votes’ scandal – with a litany of management failures including the collapse of City West Homes. As well as the headline-grabbing issues, there had been a long-standing degradation of the housing service after decades of neglect.

Subscribe to Red Brick’s mailing list

In contrast, our winning 2022 manifesto promised to build a Fairer Westminster. That meant for us putting housing at the heart of our agenda for change. We promised to take a resident-centric approach to improve housing management, deliver genuine engagement with tenants and leaseholders, and make building new council and lower rent homes the Council’s top policy priority. This was reinforced by the work of the Future of Westminster Commission and turbocharged by a Cabinet Member who has grown up in Westminster’s social housing stock and fully understands the resident experience (and challenges).

Even with our renewed focus, the Westminster housing context has remained extremely challenging. The average house price in Westminster was £954,000 in June 2024, the second highest in London. This has meant that 43% of people in the borough lived in households with an income of less than 60% the UK median after housing costs have been subtracted (i.e. in poverty) – which is the highest proportion of any London borough.

There are of course limited land opportunities for building and development as an inner-city borough. Moreover, supply pressures are compounded by the high numbers of short-term lets and second homes. The Census empty home rate in Westminster was recorded as being 25.4%, which effectively means that one in four properties in Westminster were marked as being empty at the time of the Census, suggesting 30,000 properties in Westminster have no full-time residents.

Westminster also has the highest proportion of private rented properties in the country – making up 44% of the housing stock. The high cost of private rents, supply shortages and ability for landlords to evict tenants easily has resulted in skyrocketing presentations of homelessness. 5,000 households approached the Council for support last year due to homelessness. This has resulted in extreme pressures on Temporary Accommodation. 

Despite this we have made significant progress in delivering on our housing ambitions. Recognising the scale of the challenge we set up our Housing Improvement Programme. New people have been brought in with different skill sets, experience and perspective from across the council to drive change. We’ve taken a structured approach, focusing on key problem areas first, and maintaining a constant dialogue with residents to help shape solutions and priorities. Some of examples of our early successes include:

  • Resident Panels: We have created a borough-wide Resident Panel which is open to all Westminster tenants and leaseholders to support resident input in our policy making. We have set up Task and Finish Groups to focus on specific issues. Our first Task and Finish Group focused on repairs. The Group undertook research and proposed recommendations which have been central to improving our Repairs Service.
  • Housing Repairs: The Panel’s recommendations, and our desire to improve repairs and make it localised and more responsive, is reflected in our new Repairs Policy which provides a clear understanding of the service residents should receive and how the council will continuously improve. To put this policy into action, one step we have taken is to pilot a Direct Labour Organisation (DLO). This is a small team of in-house operatives tasked with carrying out communal repairs across our estates and jointly signing off work completion with residents.
  • Estate Offices: Estate Offices were closed by the previous administration and had created a disconnect between residents and the council. By re-opening offices in communities, we are able to provide more personalised and localised advice and support service for residents. Feedback from residents has been positive and have welcomed the shift in placing housing officers back into the communities they serve. 
  • Understanding resident vulnerability: We identified that some residents’ housing casework is inherently more complex due to their vulnerabilities. A proactive new process for identifying and recording vulnerability for residents was implemented at the first point of contact and to date the team has identified vulnerability for thousands of residents so as to agree on reasonable adjustments. Moreover, we have set up a multi-disciplinary team, the Customer Advocacy Team (CAT), who can be called upon to offer advice for complex cases and visit the most vulnerable to ensure the residents’ needs are assessed.

We in Westminster are of course beyond excited to play our role in delivering on the ambitions set by the new Labour Government and have already made strides in improving our existing services, but this must be matched by an appreciation of the challenges and pressures many local authorities already face.

Categories
Blog Post

Planning reforms for small and community-led builders

Building work by Brett Jordan licensed by Unsplash

Tom Chance will be speaking at a Labour Housing Group webinar: What should be in the Labour Government’s NPPF, on Tuesday 17th September.

The government’s consultation on the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) asks 106 questions. Buried in the middle are a few questions about how the planning system could support more small builders and community-led development.

Dr Tom Archer argued here in May that we need a more diverse and competitive housebuilding industry, including more community-led housing, if the government is to hit its housing targets. I represent many of the 900 community groups that have been trying to build more than 23,000 homes in a broken system. So how could the NPPF help?

Not by watering down standards and reducing the requirements for social housing. Community-led developers want to raise standards, and most Community Land Trusts (CLTs) focus on social rent.

Nor is our problem with ‘NIMBY’ planning committees overturning officers’ recommendations. If anything, we have more of a track record of the reverse, with members overturning finickity officer objections to approve community-led homes.

Subscribe to Red Brick’s newsletter

The Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) review on housebuilding concluded that the main barriers to entry for SME builders are the length and uncertainty of the planning process, and the complexity, cost and information requirements.

Take information requirements. The Housing Forum found that across 21 local authorities there were 119 different types of document that might be required to apply for planning approval. The list has grown hugely over the past 20 years. In one recent case, a CLT applying for permission to build 6 homes needed 82 documents.

Drawing this up now costs CLTs around £11,000 per home, substantially larger than the £3,500 per home estimated by the CMA for larger sites.

As for the length and uncertainty, we analysed 84 applications submitted by CLTs between 2006 and 2022. The average time to get a decision was 359 days, compared to the statutory target of 56. Some, held up by issues like nutrient neutrality, have been stuck for years.

Having spent all that money, and waited a year or more, will you get permission? Even if you think that you have met all the policy requirements, you cannot be sure.

Local planning authorities do not tend to allocate many small sites, a process which would confirm the principle that they can be developed. It is more costly and resource-intensive to allocate 20 sites of 20 homes than one site of 400 homes.

The NPPF says large sites could be subdivided to create opportunities for SMEs and CLTs. But this is very rare. The Letwin Review concluded as much in 2017, but his proposed reforms have not been acted on.

So communities generally seek permission on what are known as ‘windfalls’ – sites not allocated by planners, where the principle of whether it should be developed is in question. The uncertainty is risky.

The point about this complexity, cost, length and uncertainty is its impact on finance. You will need to find at least £100,000 to prepare and submit a planning application. You have no idea if it will succeed, or be wasted money. You do not know how long it will take to get a decision. Nobody will lend you money on those terms. So new entrants need deep pockets, or depend on grant programmes like the Community Housing Fund.

We could reduce the uncertainty in a few simple ways.

One would be to expand the community-led exception site, a policy we secured in the NPPF last year. It enshrines the principle that democratic community-led developers can develop windfall sites adjacent to settlements to meet local needs, removing any uncertainty around the principle of development. But it has an arbitrary size cap that we want lifted, and it should also apply within settlements to help community-led approaches to suburban and urban infill. Many CLTs have successfully negotiated the local politics to develop disused garages, underused open space and even back gardens, as well as brownfield and greenfield sites on the edges of villages and towns.

We would also like community-led developers to be able to propose ‘community priority projects’ when local plans are drawn up. These would allocate sites, or parcels of large sites, to meet specified local needs, ringfenced for community-led development. The process could ease the pressure on officers by having communities do a lot of the legwork to establish ownership and viability, and win round their neighbours to the principle of development.

These modest reforms will help. But we really need the forthcoming planning and devolution bills to fundamentally change the balance of complexity, cost, delay and uncertainty that is hobbling the diversification of our housebuilding industry.

You can find out more about the asks of the Community Land Trusts Network in their recent submission to the NPPF consultation.

Categories
Blog Post

The first consumer inspection reports: what they tell us

social-housing-inspection-reports
Apartments block in London by Pedro Ramos is licensed by Unsplash

On 24 July the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH) published its first regulatory judgements (RJs) on the performance of two registered providers of social housing (RPs) following inspections under the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023. Watford Community Housing Trust (WCHT with 5,200 homes) and Nottingham Community Housing Association (NCHA with 10,500 homes) both secured a C1 grading, meaning they were judged as meeting the outcomes of the Regulator’s consumer standards.

The C1 judgement states:

“that overall the landlord is delivering the outcomes of the consumer standards. The landlord has demonstrated that it identifies when issues occur and puts plans in place to remedy and minimise recurrence”.

Consumer ratings today are very different from the verdicts of the Audit Commission in the 2000s. We are not talking about the delivery of ‘excellent’/’three star’ services identified by the Commission under its inspection regime. While organisations will have the accolade that they are meeting the standards, they will not have the kudos of being able to call themselves ‘excellent’.

The reports offer scant detail about the quality of services and do not provide the evidence the Regulator holds that the standards are being met. As we were advised during the development of the new framework, inspection reports are intended to mirror those produced following in-depth assessments (IDAs) in the housing association sector covering the economic standards. Consequently, the reports are extremely short and are simply a summary of the inspection findings. The NCHA report runs to just 522 words and the WCHT report is even shorter at 365 words.

Looking at inspection methods from other sectors gives us alternative reporting models which RSH could learn from. Both Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission (CQC) produce much longer reports following inspections.  More importantly both regulators use templates that summarise the inspection findings and promote consistency in reporting. The RSH may face pressure to revisit its narrative approach as tenants (and other stakeholders) struggle to draw comparisons between the performance of different landlords.

Will the inspection reports for large providers be longer than those generated for smaller landlords? The first such reports have examined the performance of relatively small providers. Blanket positive conclusions about the performance of large providers with significant geographical spread may be challenged by groups of tenants who may feel that they do not reflect the level of service they receive from their landlord in their area.

The NCHA and WCHT reports set out how the providers have assured inspectors that the consumer standards have been met. However, there are no links to key public documents such as tenant satisfaction measures (TSMs). To improve transparency and accountability, the RSH should consider publishing up-to-date TSMs as part of its inspection reports.

Focusing specifically on TSMs, and taking WCHT’s satisfaction scores as an example, some commentators might be surprised to see the Watford-based provider secure a C1 rating while all its 12 satisfaction scores (bar one) were less than the median score achieved by 196 housing associations in the LOCARLA dataset. This effectively confirms that there will be no clear read across between TSM scores and the ratings that providers will secure following an inspection.

WCHT and NCHA were both due a scheduled inspection, having each had IDAs in 2020. In both reports, all four of the consumer standards were subject to assessment by inspectors. Will this approach be repeated for future inspections? The RSH affirms its risk-based approach to regulation. It might be expected that inspections would be more focused where a document review and the TSMs (for instance) have shown that the inspectors should concentrate on, say, the poorly performing services.

The judgements for NCHA and WCHT, based on consumer inspections, can be compared with the RJs delivered earlier in the month for four providers deemed as failing the standards. The four RPs were each given a non-compliant C3 consumer rating, which means there are “serious failings in the landlord delivering the outcomes of the consumer standards and significant improvement is needed”.

We are now seeing the outputs of the new regime for consumer regulation over seven years since the Grenfell Tower disaster precipitated the wholesale change in state oversight of social housing. A key question arises as the various reports emerge from the RSH about the performance of individual providers against the consumer standards. Will the reports give tenants and other stakeholders the insight they need into the performance of providers? Will the reports make providers more accountable for the services they deliver to their tenants? It is noteworthy that the RSH reports score on the cusp of ‘very difficult to read’ for readability[i]. That suggests they are intended more for professionals than the general public. 

The RSH is starting to roll out the new regulatory framework for social housing providers just as a new government takes over. Ultimately what will ministers make of the nascent regulatory framework? Will they deem it ‘fit for purpose’? We already know that in the health and care sectors the role of the Regulator has been criticised by the new Secretary of State.

But given the in-tray that the new housing ministers face, an immediate review of the regulation of social housing providers is unlikely.

An earlier version of this blog was published by Housing Quality Network

[i] Flesch reading ease scores of around 30-33, listed as ‘difficult to read’ with scores below 30 ‘very difficult to read’

Categories
Blog Post

Seven years after Grenfell: Labour must end the cladding scandal

Everyone deserves a safe home in which to live, work, care for their families and be able to make plans for their future. Yet, more than seven years after the Grenfell Tower fire, an estimated 600,000 people will go to bed tonight in homes that are still unsafe, and almost 3 million are trapped with unsellable homes, unable to move on with their lives, according to recent analysis by the Sunday Times. More than 15,000 residents have been ordered to leave their unsafe homes since Grenfell, and evacuations are on the rise.

Justice has been a long time coming for the bereaved, residents and survivors of Grenfell. The Grenfell Tower Inquiry will publish its Phase II report on 4th September, which is an important step in holding individuals and organisations to account for the loss of 72 innocent lives, but criminal trials are not expected to begin until at least 2027, ten years after the fire. Shockingly, the pace of removing cladding and other fire safety defects from flats across the country has been even slower – and at the current rate, it could take decades.

The previous Government rarely acknowledged the full scale of buildings affected, but estimates published in July show that 11,000 buildings are expected to require remediation works, including 2,414 managed by social housing providers. Despite this, the latest official statistics report that only 4,630 buildings are being actively monitored or “in programme.” Cladding has been removed from 1,350 buildings: just 12% of the estimated total. The government has committed £9.2bn of funding, but only £2.3bn (25%) has been spent so far.

Being “in negotiations” about remediation or having “plans in place” counts for little when dangerous cladding – or other construction defects that enable fire to spread rapidly – remain on people’s homes. Let’s not forget, these defects are defined as “life-critical.” Recent cladding fires, from Wembley to Valencia, have demonstrated why action remains so urgent.

When Grenfell survivors gave evidence to parliament a year after the fire, they warned MPs that :

“Grenfell 2 is in the post unless you act, and quickly… The Government need to take responsibility… There needs to be a plan, and it needs to be acted on right now.”

In Opposition, Labour agreed. Back in 2021, Sir Keir Starmer shared his plan to end the cladding scandal. He was adamant that Boris Johnson, then Prime Minister, “could end this scandal right now if he wanted to. The Government must end the delay and give innocent homeowners the safety and security that they deserve.” Now, with a new Labour Government in power, there is no time to lose in getting a grip of this crisis.

Since day one, the pledge to build 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament and to “get Britain building again” has been front and centre in Labour’s messaging. However, residents and leaseholders are still waiting anxiously to hear the same kind of commitment and clear deadline for making existing homes safe.

The Minister for Building Safety and Homelessness, Rushanara Ali, has written to property developers about her intention to convene a roundtable, to agree a plan for accelerating remediation. This is welcome, but what is needed is firm action to hold all parties to account, with clear deadlines and real consequences for delays. Otherwise, building profitable new homes will continue to take precedence over making existing homes safe, leaseholders and residents will remain trapped, and the market for flats will remain broken.

Labour must focus not just on the pace but also on the quality of remediation, ensuring that the scope of works is not being minimised by developer-commissioned assessments which leave combustible materials and other defects in place, because this leaves leaseholders and residents with higher risks, higher costs, and potentially unsellable homes forever.

The current developer remediation contract covers only 15% of the 11,000 buildings expected to require remedial work. Therefore, the same urgent focus must be applied to government-led remediation programmes, and a wider pool of developers, contractors and freeholders should be compelled to make all their buildings safe. That does not just mean external cladding; internal building safety defects must also be addressed, because buildings cannot be made half-safe.

The End Our Cladding Scandal campaign has published a manifesto, outlining five key focus areas for the new Government to finally end the crisis:

  • Establish clear and comprehensive risk assessment standards. Definitive, holistic, and risk-based guidance is essential for buildings of all heights and for both external and internal defects, so that safety assessments and the remediation required will be absolutely clear and consistent.
  • Make homes safe at the pace residents need and deserve. The pace of work must significantly accelerate from today. The government, construction industry and building owners must all be held to account to ensure a swift solution.
  • All leaseholders must be fully protected from the cost of remedying safety defects. The building safety crisis is the result of a decades-long collective failure by the construction industry and successive Governments that ignored warnings that the building regime was not fit for purpose. Every leaseholder is blameless and should have equal protection.
  • Protection from further financial penalties. The government must ensure leaseholders affected by this national scandal are not further penalised by an onerous mortgage lending process and exorbitant building insurance premiums.
  • Urgent action to give people their lives back – now. Those affected must be able to obtain accurate information about their homes, remediation work must be carried out with respect for residents, and mental health support must be available to those affected.

We cannot wait for Grenfell 2 before we act. The new government has an opportunity to step up and deliver a much fairer and faster end to the building safety crisis – and it is time to grasp the nettle.

Categories
Blog Post

Commemorating the centenary of Labour’s first Housing Act

Today’s housing crisis is all too stark. The number of households living in inadequate and temporary accommodation has risen exponentially, whilst rough sleeping numbers continue to increase. Private rents are increasing at the fastest rate since records began and the number of evictions has escalated. Housing pressures are not just affecting those that rent. Rising mortgage costs have plunged hundreds of thousands of households in mortgage arrears. Fourteen years of Conservative inaction and neglect on housing, particularly the gross under-provision of affordable and social housing, has left Britain facing a housing crisis comparable to those which followed the end of both world wars. The raft of housing measures recently set out by the new Labour government in the King’s Speech is heartening, but Labour must now clearly commit to funding the construction of a major programme of social housing. Such a programme will not only provide the much-needed homes for thousands of families and individuals, but it will also contribute significantly to Labour’s plans to grow the economy.

It is fitting that following Labour’s electoral success on 4 July 2024, we should take the opportunity to look back at the housing legacy of the first Labour administration that took office one hundred years ago in 1924. That groundbreaking government, led by Ramsey MacDonald, Labour’s first Prime-Minister, lasted a mere nine months due to its precarious minority status. As a result, its achievements were limited but its greatest success was surely its housing policy. Labour’s Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1924, that came into effect exactly a century ago on 7 August 2024, gave a renewed impetus to the building of council houses, following the collapse of Lloyd-George’s ‘homes fit for heroes’ housing programme and a subsequent Conservative attempt to close the door on the building of houses by local authorities. Its provisions lasted well into the 1930s and led to the construction of more than 500,000 council houses.

In response to the growing housing crisis immediately following the end of World War One, Lloyd-George’s coalition government planned to provide half a million council homes, comprising generous space standards (as recommended by the Tudor Walters committee that had reported on housing standards) and subsidised for the first time by way of an exchequer contribution. The Housing and Town Planning, etc., Act 1919, more commonly known as the Addison Act (after Christopher Addison the Minister responsible for the then newly established Ministry of Health), handed local authorities the responsibility for identifying housing need and formulating plans to meet such requirements. The 1919 Act provided a generous subsidy to local councils that plugged the gap between all losses in excess of a penny rate incurred by the local authority, provided the housing schemes had been approved by the Ministry of Health. In other words, the local municipalities were guaranteed against any serious losses on their housing programmes, the state taking financial responsibility for the provision of working-class houses. In 1920, private enterprise was given access to a ‘lump sum’ subsidy provided by way of an Additional Powers Act.  However, by 1921, following an economic downturn, Addison’s policy had become too expensive. It ran out of steam and failed to produce houses in the numbers promised. By 1923, the programme came to an end, eventually producing fewer than 214,000 completions (including 43,500 by private enterprise), less than half the number planned. However, the 1919 Act did establish an important principle. The local authorities had become the instruments for the housing policy of the state. Indeed, Addison had opened the door for the treatment of the provision of housing for the working class as a sort of social service.

The 1919 Act was followed by housing legislation less bold both in terms of the exchequer subsidy payable and in addressing the housing needs of the working class. It was one that conformed to the principles of so-called sound conservative finance. Neville Chamberlain’s Housing Act 1923, the vehicle by which Baldwin’s Tory government proclaimed its ‘property owning democracy’ mantra, favoured the construction of houses by private enterprise for sale or rent, benefiting mainly the lower-middle class. At £6 per unit per year over twenty years it offered a less generous subsidy than Addison’s Act. There was no requirement for a contribution from the rates. Space standards were lowered to cut down on cost. Nevertheless, Chamberlain’s statute eventually facilitated the construction of 438,000 houses. However, local authorities were treated as mere ‘also rans.’  The Act allowed councils to build houses themselves only if ‘they succeeded in convincing the Minister of Health that it would be better if they did so, than if they left it to private enterprise’. Although 75,000 council houses were built under the provisions of Chamberlain, the Act was, in effect, a deliberate attempt to prevent the permanent establishment of the local authorities as suppliers of working-class housing. If the supporters of Chamberlain had had their way, such provision would not be a social service as Addison had envisaged.

However, Labour’s 1924 housing legislation, championed by the Clydeside MP, John Wheatley, Labour’s first Minister of Health, was both radical and ambitious. Born in 1869 in County Waterford, Ireland, Wheatley grew up in Lanarkshire, his father Thomas, a labourer, having found work in the Scottish coalfields. Wheatley himself became a miner at the age of 12. He lived with his parents, eight siblings and lodgers in a one-roomed terraced house, which lacked many basic amenities, and had shared toilet facilities and water supply. Wheatley later described the degrading conditions of such housing in a pamphlet he published entitled, Mines, Miners and Misery, where he blamed the mine owners for dehumanising the workforce. Wheatley’s political activities had initially centred around local government where he specialised in and campaigned for housing at affordable rents. He was first elected to the House of Commons in 1922, leading the ‘Red Clydeside Group’ of MPs to Westminster following their triumphant showing at the election of that year. Received by George V on his appointment to the cabinet in February 1924, the king noted in his diary that Wheatley was an ‘extreme socialist’.  

Wheatley’s Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1924 provided for a fifteen-year housing strategy and an increase in the number of houses built each year from between 63,000 and 95,000 in 1926 to between 85,000 and 127,000 in 1928/1929, reaching a maximum of between 150,000 and 225,000 in 1934/1935. Wheatley’s Act afforded an exchequer subsidy to local councils for housing for rent at a rate of £9 and £12.50 per unit per year respectively in urban and rural locations, over forty years, shifting the emphasis back to council housing provision. The exchequer grant was conditional on the municipalities contributing a subsidy from the rates of 50 per cent of that received from the centre. Crucially, Wheatley built the foundations of his housing policy carefully, first working to gain an agreement between builders and the building trades on the expansion of the apprentice system to ensure there was the workforce to increase housing production. He also sought agreement with building materials suppliers to help limit price inflation, and wisely consulted the local authorities about his plans. As a result, the 1924 Act enabled the first ever peacetime collaboration between government, the building industry and trade unions to try to overcome the haphazard and casual nature of construction and to train workers to replenish wartime losses. Wheatley aimed at high quality standards, coining the phrase ‘homes not hutches’. However, the houses built under Wheatley’s statute were similar in size to those built under Chamberlain, but due to the deteriorating economic circumstances of the time, Chamberlain’s minimum space standards regularly became Wheatley’s maximum. Nevertheless, the houses constructed were considered to be of a good standard, requiring, for example, that homes built with a subsidy should have a fixed bath in a bathroom.

The Wheatley Act restored the powers of the local authorities to provide working class houses without first having to prove that they could not be provided by private enterprise. As such, Wheatley re-established the local authorities as part of the permanent machinery for providing working-class housing; a position that was reaffirmed in a codifying Act of 1925, following the Tories return to office in late 1924. The Wheatley subsidy was eventually repealed by the Conservative led National government in 1933. Nevertheless, by that time its provisions had resulted in the construction of more than 520,000 homes. Wheatley himself was well aware of the limitations of his housing legislation and did receive criticism from some of his parliamentary colleagues that it was too moderate. He was, however, a pragmatist stating ‘ … I have to take the materials which are available and use them, however much I may disagree with them, in order to contribute, however slightly, to the betterment of my fellow men’.

John Wheatley died on 12 May 1930, aged 60. The Wheatley Housing Group (Scotland’s largest registered social landlord) is named after him. It is fitting that we should commemorate and remember the centenary of the passing of the Wheatley Act. It represents a groundbreaking piece of housing legislation that blazed a trail for the provision of millions of good quality council homes for working people in the years that followed. In many respects Wheatley was the inspiration for Aneurin Bevan’s herculean efforts that produced over a million council houses between 1945 and 1951. It has been said that ‘the solid brick terraces which march across the inner suburbs of every British city could not have been built without John Wheatley […] the greatest of Clydesiders’. I for one will not argue with that.

Dr John Temple, CIHCM, is a retired housing professional. He served as a Labour councillor on Tyneside from 1981 to 2004. He is a member of the Labour Housing Group.

Categories
Blog Post

Fast wins for more homes: how Labour can champion infill development

Burnett House, Lewisham, an example of upward extensions. Image by Kate Matison licensed under CC BY-ND 2.0

The housing crisis remains one of the most pressing issues facing Britain today. With homebuilding at crisis levels, numbers of households in temporary accommodation rising, and young people struggling to get on the property ladder, Labour recognises the urgent need for action.

Labour has a powerful electoral mandate for bold and ambitious home building. There is also a need for fast wins that deliver rapid, sustainable growth in housing supply through smart urban infill development.

Building more homes is critical for economic growth. Every 100,000 additional homes adds around 0.8% to GDP during construction. However, ambitious long-term projects like new towns will take years to bear fruit. That’s why to get results we must pull other quick levers. Three ‘fast win’ policies could boost housing supply in the short to medium term, without requiring additional central government resources.

The Government can create approximately 30,000 new homes per year through carefully planned infill development, enabling residents to expand their homes, and making the most of housing association land. This approach aligns with Labour’s commitment to prioritise brownfield development and create high-quality urban environments.

We can build new homes in the right places through:

  1. Building up: Learning from successful Labour-led initiatives in boroughs like Haringey, the government should set national policy for sympathetic towards upward extensions of existing homes. This will add more living space and create new homes while preserving neighbourhood character.
  2. Street votes: The government can complete the implementation of ‘street votes‘, an initiative based on the Mayor of London’s Outer London initiative with strong centre-left support,  empowering communities to bring forward sensitive development through local decision-making. This builds on the principle of community engagement that Labour has long championed.
  3. Estate renewal: By amending national policy through the NPPF or Written Ministerial Statement, the government can make it easier for social landlords to deliver better homes for tenants. Cross-subsidy from new market homes could fund improved council housing for existing tenants and create additional social housing stock.

These policies focus on building more homes in high-productivity areas — breaking down barriers to growth and opportunity. By enabling people to live closer to good jobs, we can reduce commute times, improve quality of life, and cut carbon emissions.

Importantly, these low-key quick win approaches prioritise small and medium-sized builders, create jobs and support local economies. This is infill development done sensitively; enhancing rather than disrupting existing communities.

Labour’s vision for attractive communities is popular with voters. By making use of the potential of brownfield sites and urban areas, we can deliver the homes we need.

A small wins approach has seen success internationally. In the US, reforms to allow ‘granny flats‘ have dramatically increased housing supply in cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco. Labour’s government in New Zealand has nearly doubled new housing permits in Auckland through smart infill policies.

By enabling more homes in existing urban areas, we can make better use of infrastructure, support struggling high streets, and improve public transport viability.

Crucially, an approach to infill development prioritises community support and environmental sustainability. A Labour Government can learn from successful Labour local government initiatives like Sadiq Khan’s tenant ballots for estate renewal in London, which have shown strong resident support for carefully planned renewal and delivered thousands of council homes.

Labour’s plan for housing represents a pragmatic, forward-thinking approach to one of Britain’s most pressing challenges. By focusing on rapid, community-supported development in areas of high demand, we can boost economic growth, improve quality of life, and create the homes that Britain desperately needs. This is how we build a fairer, more prosperous country for all.

Categories
Blog Post

A King’s Speech with hope for housing

2023 State Opening of Parliament by Houses of the Oireachtas is licensed under CC BY 2.0

‘My government’s overriding priority is to ensure sustained growth to deliver a fair and prosperous economy for families and businesses…’

2009

The last time a Labour Government set out its legislative agenda was in November 2009, when Gordon Brown was Prime Minister and the world was reeling from the global financial crash. This was a world before Brexit, when our aspirations included ‘peace in the Middle East’, ‘to improve management of water supplies’, ‘a reformed second chamber’ and to ‘abolish Child Poverty’. The 2010s were indeed a lost decade.

What did not get a mention was housing. The recognition of housing as a key determinant of the nation’s physical and economic health, had still not been effectively made. Arguably, this enabled the subsequent annihilation of social housing grant by Grant Shapps more politically acceptable than it should have been.

Fast forward fifteen years and we are living through a housing emergency the like of which we have not seen since the 1940s. Not one part of the housing system works effectively, be it renters’ rights, the lives blighted by years in temporary accommodation (not to mention the effect this has on local authority finances), the lack of social housing, the scandal of leasehold. Add to that building safety, the need to decarbonise our housing stock and the near impossibility for anyone getting on the housing ladder without substantial help from ‘the bank of Mum and Dad’ and it is a grim picture.

The last 15 years have seen the resurgence of housing campaigns not seen since the 1960s. Organisations like Shelter and Crisis have become the nation’s conscience and they have been joined by newer players such as Generation Rent, Priced Out and the National Leasehold Campaign. It would take a brave politician to say that housing is not one of the most salient issues.

So this morning we heard how our new Labour Government is going to spend its time, and the early political capital that comes with a massive majority. And, unlike 2009, housing was at the forefront of its agenda.

Central to this King’s Speech is a proposal to kickstart homebuilding by reforming the planning system, most notably shifting local input to an ‘how, not if’ basis in areas failing to build enough housing. Doing this marks a considerable shift in the housing debate on the ground, enabling discussions to go ahead on the basis that homes will go ahead, and making it easier for communities to discuss their priorities for new developments, whether these be social housing delivery, greener homes, or infrastructure enrichment.

Reforms to compulsory purchase compensation rules will make it cheaper to build housing, and particularly the social housing which we so desperately need. And simplifying the consenting process for major infrastructure projects will make it easier to ensure that the homes we deliver are well-provisioned with high-quality green infrastructure.

Importantly, its labelling as a Planning and Infrastructure Bill is an encouraging sign that government will increasingly tie together planning for housing and infrastructure, something called for by both sectors for some time.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives’ failure to pass the Renters’ Reform Bill is being remedied with its revival as the Renters’ Rights Bill. Not only will this introduce the long-awaited ban on Section 21 ‘no fault’ evictions, but it will allow renters to challenge ‘unfair’ rent increases, apply the Decent Homes Standard and Awaab’s Law to the private rental sector, and create a digital private rented sector database. These measures will provide certainty to millions of private renters across the country who live in fear of eviction with no warning or reason.

Finally, the King’s Speech set out plans to reform the exploitative leasehold system. While the last Government passed some moderate changes to make it easier for leaseholders to buy their freehold, the Draft Leasehold and Commonhold Reform Bill will introduce the wide-ranging measures of the Law Commission, along with banning the sale of new leasehold flats so that commonhold becomes the default tenure. For the millions living in leasehold properties this will be a welcome relief.

Detail will follow in coming days on what exactly this legislation will look like, but it shows a strong commitment to both providing the homes we need, and ensuring that those living in them have security and dignity in their tenure. 

This King’s Speech is an encouraging start for what a Labour Government can do with a majority in the House of Commons. But key for many of the important measures to fix the crises in social housing delivery, decarbonising homes, and improving quality, require public spending. After clearing this hurdle, the upcoming spending review and Autumn Statement will both be opportunities to show how much money this Government is able to commit to solving these crises. 

Categories
Blog Post

The housing election that wasn’t

2024 General Election in Kingston upon Hull East Holderness Road Methodist Church Doors by Hulian 11 is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

With a few exceptions, the period of 22 May to 4 July 2024 was possibly the most predictable election in recent history. After six weeks of campaigning, debates and gaffes, nothing really changed. There was no breakout moment, no shifting of the debate, and no risk that the result would be anything other than a Labour landslide.

For housing campaigners, the lack of debate around the housing crisis will stand out as a missed opportunity. Before the election, housing advocates excitedly pointed to the increased salience of housing in polling, and its prominence in Labour’s 5 missions. But it hardly featured in the air war, the debates, or major policy announcements.

We can now look with hope to a Labour government poised to boost housing supply, improve quality of existing stock and reform problematic tenures like leasehold and private rent. But we should also ask: why was housing so absent from the election campaign; does this matter; and how can campaigners ensure that it is at the heart of the political discussion?

Multi-party consensus

Many pundits (including this one) pointed to housing as a dividing line at this election. The Conservatives had poignant housing failures around the Renters’ Reform Bill’s collapse and housing targets. Meanwhile, housing was at the centre of Labour’s policy offer, with the pledge to build 1.5 million homes, reform the private rental sector, and improve quality.

But the parties’ manifestos showed a relative consensus on housing policy. All agreed that housing supply needed to be sped up, with a focus on brownfield regeneration. All agreed on introducing some planning reform, with popular-sounding buzzwords to soften its potential risk. All agreed that reform of the private sector was needed. And all agreed that there was room for more social housing in the mix.

Meanwhile, more radical provisions such as rent regulation, ending the Right to Buy, or rebalancing the existing home ownership model, were off the table, meaning that there was little room for scare tactics.

What few dividing lines existed were either technical or risky. The Conservatives laid out their “cast-iron commitment to protect the Green Belt”, and while this was raised on the occasional front page it was never a fight which Labour sought. And few are qualified to, for instance, authoritatively debate the differences between Labour and the Conservatives’ leasehold policies.

The tightrope to a majority

One thing that has become clear since the election is how close things were in so many seats. While Labour’s majority is historic, it is built on precarious electoral foundations.

In housing terms, this was a tactical sacrifice of tens of thousands of votes in urban, renter-heavy seats, in exchange for those of suburban or rural, predominantly homeowner votes.

More so than in 2019 Labour’s electoral coalition contains a mix of those who are at the sharpest end of the housing crisis, and those who might worry that they would lose out from the change that is needed to solve it.

The parliamentary majority won at this election will make enacting this change easier, but making this a dividing line would have risked that majority. Labour’s ‘Ming vase’ strategy has successfully delivered dozens of MPs in previously safe Conservative seats like Hitchin and Gloucester, and talking more about planning reform or private rental reform might have lost a fair number of MPs who can now champion a wide range of progressive causes, including in housing.

This was particularly difficult in the tax-and-spend debate. So much of the election debate concerned the risk of future taxation from a Labour government, and so, while investing in skills, quality improvements, and unlocking developments may well ‘pay for themselves’ in the long run, any discussion of the amounts of spending involved would have led to further concerns of how to pay for this.

Linking the issues

Issues like the cost-of-living crisis and the state of the economy have been at the top of the political agenda at this election, but advocates failed to effectively link this to the high cost and low quality of housing.

In part, this is a symptom of the multiple crises going on in housing at the same time. The private renter locked out of home ownership and the historic resident of a dilapidated social housing block are suffering from different, albeit linked, policy failures.  

During a an election campaign, it was easier to speak of how delivering GB Energy could result in cheaper and greener power, than to explain to voters how reforming a tenure they weren’t living in, or building homes they couldn’t afford, would benefit their lives.

The real campaign is just starting

Does it matter that this was not a ‘housing election’? High salience debates often lead to polarising and extreme answers, particularly in two-party systems like the UK. And in housing, where so much is decided by the markets and private business, such populist answers can be particularly dangerous.

Whatever the state of the debate, Labour comes into office with a mandate to enact transformational change. Already planning reform is being mentioned as a priority for the first 100 days, and much more may follow soon.  

Now is the time of lowest risk and greatest opportunity. Debates about the scale of the solutions needed to end the various housing crises can be had without the risk of being turned into an attack line. And new MPs are more aware than ever of how tight their majorities are and the need to deliver for their constituents.

The task of advocates is now to drive the discussion with the hundreds of new MPs, many of whom care deeply about the housing crisis. Campaigners need to get better at demonstrating that the root causes of the housing crises, particularly the overall housing shortage, affect everyone regardless of tenure or security.   

By showing how certain reforms will help new MPs’ constituents, particularly those in marginal seats, campaigners can build a coalition for change in between elections.

This election may not have been a turning point in the debate. But, for housing advocates, the real campaign has just begun.