Categories
Blog Post

Setting the right housing targets will be critical for Scotland

Unlike in England, where the new Government has denounced housing targets as Stalinist in another sign of an uneasy relationship with its own 2019 manifesto (300,000 a year were pledged), the question of how many homes Scotland needs and where to put them is a live policy debate. The National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), expected to be laid before Parliament this year, will set out for each local authority a minimum requirement of the number of homes for which land should be made available. 

This important decision has taken on added salience because of the cost of living crisis. High rents and massive mortgages have left us little capacity to absorb economic shocks, whether external such as energy costs or the self-inflicted hike in mortgage rates following the budget announcements. Ensuring sufficient land is available for housing is crucial to bringing housing supply and demand into better balance and thereby improving affordability. It is also critical in ensuring there are enough shovel-ready sites to realise the Scottish Government’s commendably ambitious target of 110,000 new affordable homes between 2022-2032.  

Housing targets are partly a practical necessity (aligning housebuilding with infrastructure) and partly a democratic middle ground which balances competing interests. These attributes may not endear them to those seeking ideological purity, but they chart a course through undesirable alternatives. Targets are a compromise between a libertarian free-for-all, where people can build wherever they choose, and an exclusive, communitarian beggar-thy-neighbour approach, where those fortunate to live near undeveloped land in and around cities and towns are able to exercise an absolute veto over its use. The former fails to recognise people’s desire to shape, debate and influence what happens in their local area. The latter fails to give voice to families seeking a home of their own, which meets their needs and aspirations, and most of the population who consider we are facing a housing crisis.  

The housing crisis, while national in nature, must be solved on individual sites across the country. Without a clear target which local authorities are required to meet there will be a high risk of vocal local objectors successfully lobbying Councillors to prevent housebuilding. While those in need of a home make their voices known at a national level (evidenced by the prominence of housing issues in political debate) they do not, and cannot be expected to, lobby in favour of specific developments. Objectors and those commenting on planning applications play a valuable role in the process but without housing targets representing those in need of a home there would be a clear democratic deficit in planning for housing. 

Because land for housing is rationed in this way, unlike the inputs for the other of life’s essentials, it is critical that targets are as accurate as possible with sufficient tolerance for changes over time. The risks of setting targets which are too low are profound – placing upward pressure on affordability and leaving local authorities chasing scarce land at high prices to deliver their affordable housing. 

The Scottish Government is right to set out targets in NPF4. However, the figures in the 2021 draft are based on a flawed default methodology. The defaults have been changed in response to evidence submitted by some local authorities. However, these changes are haphazard; some local authorities put forward detailed, considered evidence such as households surveys, others submitted limited information probably due to pressures on resources. Remarkably, two of the least affordable local authorities in the country, East Renfrewshire and East Dunbartonshire (where house prices are 10 times average earnings) successfully lobbied for targets below the already low defaults.  

There are two components to the Scottish Government’s methodology. Household projections are added to an estimate of households in existing need to give a target. Uncritical reliance on household projections leads to unsatisfactory housing outcomes being projected forward as Professor Glen Bramley has observed “If household growth has been artificially suppressed by the undersupply of new housing, then basing future need calculations on those lower growth figures will by necessity under-estimate that need”. This is acknowledged by the National Records for Scotland who produce the projections. The past decade or more has seen worsening affordability and housing outcomes we should be planning to improve upon, not perpetuate. No attempt has been made in draft NPF4 to quantify the additional homes needed in areas where houses are less affordable and have become less so over the last decade (below).

Image: Average house price multiples of workplace full-time earnings in 2021 (left) and change since 2011 (right). Using Registers of Scotland Average House Price data and ASHE full-time earnings by workplace location

The definition of existing need only recognises it in its most acute form; those in temporary accommodation and households which are both overcrowded and concealed. Concealed and overcrowded households are where two or more families live in one home without sufficient rooms. This is an exceptionally high bar missing many other forms of urgent need such as overcrowded households, adults and adult couples living with their parents, on waiting lists, in unsuitable or physically unfit homes and those in unaffordable homes. It is not fit for purpose and will underestimate the extent of housing need. Household surveys are needed to better understand existing unmet need.

The Scottish Government has been less bombastic than the UK Government in its growth ambitions, but its Strategy for Economic Transformation is clear and aims “to deliver economic growth that significantly outperforms the last decade, so that the Scottish economy is more prosperous, more productive and more internationally competitive”. Draft NPF4 should be changed to provide targets which are fit for purpose, fully understand existing need and address affordability challenges. These will be essential in providing the homes Scotland needs to deliver housing outcomes which significantly outperform those of the last decade and take pressure off household budgets. 

Joe Larner is an Associate Director at Holder Planning based in Edinburgh, with around 8 years of experience focused on housing projects of all tenures in Scotland and England.

Categories
Blog Post

The battle for evacuation plans, so we can live safely in our homes

Who Are CLADDAG and Why Were We Set Up?

We are a Leaseholder Disability Action Group, campaigning on issues impacting disabled leaseholders trapped in the cladding and building safety crisis scandal. In the absence of any group representing disabled leaseholders, we set up CLADDAG in December 2020. This was after Sarah Rennie saw a blog I had written for Greater Manchester Housing Action, about disabled leaseholders not being included within the conversation. At that time, it seemed that our existence wasn’t recognised.

We campaign hard and aim to improve disabled representation, within campaigning, discussions and the media. This is about increasing visibility, as well as highlighting issues specific to us.

We use the term ‘disabled’ loosely in the aim of being inclusive. Many people with health conditions don’t identify as disabled. This might include deaf or older people for example.

Whilst we are disabled leaseholders and there are specific issues related to leasehold, we recognise that many impacts us the same as other leaseholders. Also, that some issues that impact us, affect disabled people across housing tenures. So as allies, we work with individuals, groups and organisations, across all categories with common aims. We learn from each other and by uniting, our combined strength increases our influence. 

Our Campaign and Our Asks

In May 2022, the Government announced it would not be implementing Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs), although it had previously committed to doing so.  A PEEP is a plan that helps people who cannot self-evacuate in the event of a fire, which could include a knock at their door or equipment such as a device alerting a deaf person that the fire alarm is going off. The Grenfell Inquiry made important recommendations for their implementation and they also received overwhelming support (87% in favour) from the Government consultation on PEEPs. The Home Office had secret meetings with private lobbyists who raised concerns which led them to this decision, based on ‘practicality,’ ‘proportionality,’ and ‘safety,’ but with no underpinning evidence.

Following the announcement, another consultation on Emergency Evacuation Information Sharing (EEIS) was launched, which doesn’t resemble PEEPs and is clearly an inappropriate standalone alternative. This closed in August 2022. 

So not only was anyone given the opportunity to respond to these concerns, but the Fire Minister, referred to disabled people as ‘getting in the way of others’ during evacuations. Such throwaway comments have been used by many throughout these consultations. Others include, ‘you should be living on the ground floor,’ being referred to as ‘those people,’ ‘evacuation chairs get in the way of everyone,’ ‘equipment is too expensive,’  ‘the Grenfell fire was rare, so the risk is low’ They aren’t easy spaces to engage in generally and is why many disabled people are reluctant to or refuse to. 

Focusing so much on cost, with no projected evidenced based costs, is a typical tactic, to make us appear unreasonable, reinforced by flippant comments, so that not only do we feel inconvenient and a burden, but others about us do too. How much is a disabled life worth?

When you look at the timeline from the Grenfell fire in 2017 (which caused the deaths of 40% of the disabled residents living in the tower at the time), it was in 2018 that the Grenfell Inquiry recommended the Government enact PEEPs. Now we’re still in a situation where nothing has been decided, following three consultations. The relatives of Sakina Afrasebi, a disabled woman who died in the Grenfell fire, took the Home Office to Judicial Review in 2020, as the first consultation was on a watered down version of PEEPs. This led to the second consultation on PEEPs. 

It feels that the human aspect is often overlooked, especially when discussing such issues often coldly in online meetings and some questions on forms being tick box questions. 

For over five years the fight for fire safety equality continues. So there was no alternative, but to request a judicial review, as the only way of holding the Government to account on their decision, which we find discriminatory. On equality grounds, people should not be prevented from evacuating a building if they wish to, at the same time as their neighbours, only because they have a disability or are pregnant for example.

Our application was granted, stating that we have an arguable case, and the hearing is due to be held later this year. In order for us to be able to do this, we need to reach our crowdfunding target towards legal costs, in case we lose. Our legal team are working on a ‘no win,’ ‘no fee’ basis. 

Equality in evacuation has become our current main focus, while most of us are currently in limbo, waiting to see if the Building Safety Act will cover our homes. This is going to take years to complete, so the most urgent issue is equality to means of escape. 

In our overall campaign, we join with our allies to demand three actions:

  1. Ensure disabled leaseholders live in accessible homes of their choice, unimpeded by the building safety crisis.
  2. Protect disabled leaseholders from the costs resulting from remedial safety works.
  3. Provide disabled leaseholders with aids and equipment for safe evacuation.

Escalated related costs are wholly infeasible for all leaseholders. However, disabled and older people are more likely to be supported by state benefits or pensions. Such restricted incomes massively impact ability to fund remediation costs, including insurance hikes. Some of our flats are more than a home and in a sense are also a care setting, as they’ve been adapted for our needs, e.g. wet room installation, ceiling tracking for hoists. For others, their conditions have progressed, meaning they need to move somewhere accessible, but they are stuck, unable to sell.

The majority of disabled people we represent do not have PEEPs to evacuate their homes, many of which are in highly dangerous blocks of flats. Managing agents are reluctant or refuse to discuss disabled leaseholders’ needs.    

Local and National Campaigning

From grassroots to national organisations, we’ve worked with numerous campaign groups, fire experts, politicians, fire and rescue services, unions and will continue to do so. We’ve had huge media coverage, partnered with organisations including Grenfell United, Disability Rights UK and Social Housing Action Campaign, as well as End Our Cladding Scandal and local groups under that umbrella, such as Manchester Cladiators. We’ve also met with local councils.

This has all come at a huge negative impact on our physical and mental health, but we do what we can, when we can. We know what it’s like to live in unsafe homes, which currently isn’t physically or financially secure, but the opposite. Combined with the fact that most disabled people are denied access to a PEEP, means our situations are confounded. It’s on your mind constantly, no matter what you do and where you go. There is literally no escape. People advise you to take time out, switch off and rest, but how is that realistic? 

Trust in all associated companies and services has been lost, which will take decades to repair. I live in a midrise block, informed of fire safety issues in 2019, including timber cladding and balconies and compartmentation issues. 

For too long ‘stay put’ as a strategy has not even been discussed publicly. It’s taken a devastating fire where so many lives were lost for this to come to light. I hadn’t previously questioned it, even having a disabled mother, in all the jobs I had working with disabled people and unexpectedly becoming disabled myself as an adult.

People contact us with all sorts of harrowing experiences. They are scared and also angry that this is even a fight. It should never have come to this. 

Our asks for Labour’s policies 

Therefore, within this crisis and alongside others, including the cost of living crisis, our contribution and focus, as part of all this, is mainly in the fight for PEEPs. Sadly, fire safety inequality is yet another example of how the government views our lives as less ‘worthy.’ Finally, I urge the Labour Party to incorporate our three demands into policy and support our legal battle.

We #DemandBetter #EnoughIsEnough

Please donate if you can.

www.claddag.org

Twitter: @Claddag

Facebook: @LeaseholderDAG

<strong>Georgie Hulme</strong>
Georgie Hulme

Georgie Hulme is a leaseholder at the Life Buildings in Hulme and a campaigner with the Manchester Cladiators.

Georgie co-founded the disabled-led leaseholder action group Claddag, which has relentlessly advocated in the media, in the community and in the courts for disabled and older people impacted by Building Safety Crisis

Categories
Blog Post

The elephant in the room: to broaden home ownership access, governments must tackle housing affordability head-on 

Boosting home ownership: an overriding housing policy objective for many decades, not only in Britain but the world over. And yet, as also seen in many countries, the past 10-20 years have witnessed owner occupancy rates static or falling – see graph. 

Figure: Changing home-ownership rates (owner occupiers as a percentage of all households) in selected countries indexed to 2003 (2003=100) – for sources see Figure 19 in our report

Home ownership levels among young adults have widely plunged in much more dramatic fashion. In the UK, for example, the 25-34 age group owner occupancy rate declined from 51% in 1989 to only 28% in 2019. And, in another concerning dimension, both in the UK and Australia, within each age cohort, ownership rates have declined disproportionately among lower income households. Given the range of inherent benefits believed associated with home ownership, these trends present a major housing policy challenge.

It is not as though official endorsement for home ownership can be dismissed as purely rhetorical. Quite the contrary. As demonstrated by our recent research comparing approaches across eight countries including the UK, a highly diverse array of first-time buyer assistance interventions have been, and are being, pursued around the world. 

Demand-side and supply-side interventions

In Britain this has lately involved schemes such as the Help to Buy shared equity model, where government effectively takes an equity stake in the value of an acquired home via a (time limited) interest-free loan, thus reducing the size of a purchaser’s necessary mortgage. Significant stamp duty concessions and government-backed low deposit mortgages have also been recently offered for first time property acquisition.

Since these types of help effectively enhance consumers’ ability to pay for housing, they can be classed as ‘demand-side’ instruments. Supply-side measures, by contrast, involve government support for home ownership targeted through housing suppliers (developers) or through the below-market-value disposal of publicly owned assets. 

UK examples include grant funding for housing association shared ownership dwellings and the effective subsidy offered to council tenants exercising the Right to Buy, as well as developer contributions to affordable home ownership mandated through land use planning. 

In Australia, while supply-side interventions are nowadays virtually absent, government-commissioned build-for-sale schemes formed an important instrument for boosting home ownership in the early post-war period. Direct state involvement in land and housing development to generate ‘entry level’ homes for sale meanwhile remains significant in both Germany and the Netherlands, and extensive in Singapore. 

All demand-side and supply-side models identified in our research feature among seven distinct forms of first-time buyer assistance identified in our generic policy typology – see Table 1 in our published report.

Political potency

Generally speaking, anglophone countries (e.g. Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, UK) have in the past 10-20 years tended to see growing deployment of demand-side first-time buyer assistance measures. 

Approaches of this kind chime with the neo-liberal preference for governments to act as ‘market enablers’ rather than to play a more direct role in provision. They also tend to be politically attractive because of their media appeal and electoral resonance. 

However, especially where they take the form of cash grants or tax concessions, demand-side measures are widely criticised by economists and public policy experts as inequitable (because the beneficiaries tend to be moderate income rather than low income households) and ultimately counter-productive since, by boosting purchasing power for a commodity with inelastic supply, they contribute to house price inflation. 

Those losing out under this type of approach – because of the higher prices consequently faced – include all aspirant first-time buyers failing to qualify for such assistance. The main beneficiaries, on the other hand, are existing home owners, whose properties consequently appreciate in value without any effort by property holders themselves. 

Nonetheless, the political potency of home ownership affordability was notably highlighted in recent national elections in both Australia and Canada where rival demand-side first time buyer assistance measures were pushed high among contested issues by the leading rival parties.

Broadening access to home ownership?

How far do first-time buyer assistance schemes in fact broaden home ownership across the income spectrum, as sometimes claimed? From our own work we would largely endorse the conclusion of UK researchers who concluded in 2017 that:

‘[Low cost home ownership] schemes are not expanding … social mobility by opening up home ownership to new groups of lower income households. Rather they are being used by households who would most likely buy anyway’.

Instead, the main effect of models such as shared equity (e.g. Help to Buy) or low deposit mortgages is to bring forward home purchase for moderate income earners otherwise destined to buy some time later. Alternatively, beneficiaries are enabled to buy a home somewhat bigger, or better located, than in the absence of assistance.

Arguably, regarding the scope for broadening access to home ownership, the discounted sale of council housing to sitting tenants could be something of an exception to the rule, since many scheme participants have indeed been relatively low-income households. Nevertheless, considering the eye-watering value of the effective subsidy receivable via discount entitlement (currently up to £100,000 per buyer), the true program cost to government is, and has been, colossal.

Because such costs have been historically incurred without direct government expenditure (but, rather, by accepting a below-market price for a state-owned asset), they have had low political visibility. However, if the Conservative government was serious about its recently declared intention to promote housing association Right to Buy sales, this would change because the associations concerned would expect Treasury compensation for the value of discounts approved. 

Some more recommendable first-time buyer assistance measures include:

  • Mandating developers to include below-market price housing for sale (as well as affordable rental) in residential developments is recommendable on the grounds that the discount is effectively financed by taxing land value
  • A strength of the shared equity model (e.g. Help to Buy) is its potential for lowering both the income and wealth threshold for home ownership access, to the benefit of lower income households.
  • Enabling development of for-sale housing by state agencies or housing associations offers a means of providing dwellings that can be sold to qualifying applicants at cost price (i.e. no need to factor-in profit), while also expanding overall housing supply to the benefit of the wider market.

Housing unaffordability – the elephant in the room 

Well-chosen measures to assist first-time buyers are a desirable element of a wider housing strategy. But their potential for expanding access down the income spectrum remains very limited if other key policy settings remain sacrosanct. Overall home ownership growth demands systemic change to tackle the much tougher challenge of easing broader housing affordability. 

Yet this objective calls for the dampening of property values, an objective in tension with the dominant theme of home ownership policy: to facilitate wealth accumulation through asset ownership. 

Some will argue that this demands land-use planning de-regulation to ‘free up supply’. In our view, however, the volume of new housing output is primarily influenced by developer response to market conditions, not by the planning system. Rather, the key problem lies in the taboo status of key tax and/or social security policy settings that in many countries encourage people with spare money – or credit capacity – to plough it into housing. In the UK context this could refer to the unlimited exemption from capital gains tax for the principal home, the weakness of the inheritance tax regime and the absence of a broad-based land tax.

A serious commitment to expanded home ownership demands consideration of phased reforms in areas like these. 

<strong>Hal Pawson</strong>
Hal Pawson

Hal Pawson is Professor of Housing Research and Policy at the University of New South Wales, Sydney. He is also well known in the UK for his many years of work at Heriott-Watt University, where he worked up until 2011, and where he is still an Honorary Professor. Hal’s latest co-authored books are: ‘Housing Policy in Australia: A case for system reform’, and ‘The Private Rental Sector in Australia: Living with uncertainty’, published in 2020 and 2021 respectively.

Categories
Blog Post

How Proportional Representation can help the housing crisis

As the spectre of a general election rears its ugly head, talk of Proportional Representation (PR) only increases. Many believe now that First Past the Post must go, whether due to its effects on smaller parties, its Conservative bias, or the existence of unaccountable safe seats.

However, PR isn’t just about counting votes. Research over the years has tied more proportional voting systems to a range of policy outcomes, from lower income inequality to more effective action on the climate emergency.

Less research has been done so far on the impact of voting systems on the housing sector. However, there are a few compelling reasons that making every vote matter could at least help a policy system wracked by decades of inaction.

Whose votes matter?

First Past the Post creates an unequal democracy, where voters in marginal constituencies have more power than those in safe seats. ‘Pork barrel politics’ often result, where officials use the power of the state to advantage voters in these marginal areas.

Anecdotal evidence exists of this happening in housing, of councillors lobbying to build more in safe wards, and to avoid construction in more marginal areas. The policy outcomes of ‘NIMBYism’ are long-documented, but its politics are only viable in a system which gives certain areas more electoral weight than others.

Perhaps the most notable case of electoral manipulation through housing strategy was Westminster’s ‘Homes for Votes’ scandal, where the Conservative council renovated homes in target wards to increase their value and drive away those seen as potential Labour voters, and relocated homeless voters to safe wards.

What’s more, as urban constituencies become Labour strongholds and electoral battlegrounds move to suburbs and towns, those who are at the sharpest end of the housing crisis, particularly the young, have little electoral outlet. All ten of the safest constituencies in the country in 2019 had median ages substantially below the then national average of 40.3, going as low as 27.9 in Birmingham Ladywood. These constituencies also include significantly more private renters, while homeowners disproportionately live in marginal seats.

As we see policymakers shying away from building in electorally salient suburbs, and instead further densifying city centres, we can see that our democratic institutions have an impact on our policy outcomes. In such a geographically centred sector as housing, this is only too clear.

Who governs

What’s more, systems with single-member districts like First Past the Post encourage parties to select candidates closer to the district’s median voter, rather than to select a balanced slate of candidates who reflect the electorate large. This overwhelmingly leads to representatives who are older, whiter, and more likely to be male than the population at large.

Given that home ownership is higher among the White British demographic group and among older people, this creates a governing class more similar to those who already own homes than those seeking to get onto the property ladder.

Proportional Representation improves the age, gender, and ethnic diversities of the legislatures elected under them. Devolved assemblies elected under PR in London, Wales, and Scotland, for instance, all have a consistently higher proportions of female members and members from ethnic minority backgrounds than the MPs from the same areas elected under First Past the Post.

Moreover, First Past the Post favours right-wing governments over more progressive counterparts. In the UK, Labour has received 40% of the vote to the Conservatives’ 41% since the second world war. But it has been the Tories who have been in power for two thirds of the time.

Looking internationally, research by Holger Döring and Philip Manow showed that countries with majoritarian systems have right-wing governments 63 per cent of the time, while those with PR do so 44 per cent of the time.

Given that left wing governments are often more ambitious in housebuilding, we can see that not only does our electoral system make our politicians more likely to represent homeowners than renters, but it actively encourages Conservative majority governments which suppress housebuilding.

A different kind of politics

The kind of politics which Proportional Representation encourages is also one which the housing sector desperately needs.

For too long, the housing debate has been polarising and riddled with short termism. Pro-housing Ministers like Michael Gove and Robert Jenrick were often attacked as in the pockets of developers, while anyone with objections to new developments risks being caricatured as a NIMBY. Meanwhile, plans to reform the planning system are constantly moderated or ditched altogether, as the concerns of the next election trump long-term considerations.

This is not helped by First Past the Post. Majoritarian systems often lead to dramatic changes from one government to another, and with these changes come considerable policy changes. Governments know that they may only be in office for five years, and so short-term success often triumphs over long-term planning.

Meanwhile, parties are actively encouraged to emphasise their differences rather than their similarities. Under a plurality system, it is often more important for parties to maximise their base vote, rather than reach across to floating voters.

In comparison, Proportional Representation leads to less polarising campaigning, as parties are not just focused on winning votes in the election, but about presenting themselves as credible governing partners. Systems of shifting coalitions also enable long-term policymaking based on consensus from across the political spectrum, rather than the transient dominance of small chunk of it for five years at a time.

After years of unhelpful binaries and policy stagnation, the housing sector is in desperate need of long-term stability and progression. Ending First Past the Post’s grip on politics, with its imbalanced electorate, hegemonic political class, and polarisation and short termism, could well be a start. Want to end the housing crisis? Making every vote matter could well help.  

<strong>Alex Toal</strong>
Alex Toal

Campaigns & Digital Executive @MakeVotesMatter

TWITTER
Categories
Blog Post

What’s wrong with the Conservative housing proposals for Two Cities?

Cities of London and Westminster residents experience the housing crisis at its most acute and extreme. Families are forced to move away from their communities because there just are not enough genuinely affordable homes.  From Middlesex and Mansell Street and Golden Lane to Tachbrook and Churchill Gardens, from Hyde Park to Pimlico, families are living in overcrowded conditions, where children find it difficult to study.  Private renters across the Cities are left with no certainty about the future of their home and soaring rents.

Let’s not forget that Conservative politicians in Westminster were responsible for a loss of affordable homes in the Homes for Votes Scandal and for 50 years, Westminster City Council was at the forefront of efforts to limit the obligations of local authorities to homeless people.  In advance of the original Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, Westminster tried to persuade MPs to water down the legislation. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, WCC developed ways of ‘gatekeeping’ homeless people from accessing their rights.  Thousands more received ‘offers’ of insecure tenancies in the Private Rented Sector creating further inequality and leaving them in uncertainty. 

Last week, the Conservative Government has announced two poorly thought-through policies which do nothing to address the long-term housing crisis or tackle the immediate struggles that households are facing.

The Right to Buy for Housing Associations has been trailed for years by this Government.  I’ve been campaigning against it ever since it was first suggested. Some Housing Association tenants already have a preserved Right to Buy as a result of living in a home transferred for a Local Authority. Housing Associations themselves are deeply sceptical about the proposals with many of them questioning how the homes sold under the Right to Buy would be replaced.  I hope that Housing Associations will stand up to these policies.

The proposals for tenants to use Housing Benefit to pay for a mortgage reveal a serious lack of understanding of the challenges families claiming Housing Benefit face.  The Government has provided no evidence for how many households would have nearly enough savings for a deposit on a home. It is not clear with mortgage lenders have been consulted on any of the detail of the proposals or whether they are prepared to bring forward mortgages in these circumstances.

It says it all about this Government that when they run out of ideas, that they turn to the failed policies of the 1980s Thatcher governments.

Instead of these policies which will just reduce the number of social homes, Cities of London and Westminster needs a MP who will stand up for long term sustained Council Homebuilding Programme. I’ve delivered council homes in London and championed delivery of council homes across the country. Cities of London and Westminster needs and MP who believes that Housing is a Human Right and who would call for a review of homelessness legislation putting Housing as a Human Right at the heart of the process. But at the moment, there simply are not the resources available within local authorities to administer this system.

The Homelessness Reduction Act must be funded properly and Local Housing Allowance cap must be lifted.  After decades in which their experience has been disregarded, it is vital that the voices of homeless people are listened to by decision-makers.  As a housing activist, these are the issues that I have campaigned on for years and as the first ever Labour MP for Cities of London and Westminster, these are the housing proposals I would stand up for.

NB: RB would be open to any contributions from any other candidate running for selection in Two Cities as well as other constituencies.

<strong>Rachel Blake</strong>
Rachel Blake

Rachel is a Labour and Co-operative Party Councillor in Bow East and is Vice-Chair of the Labour Housing Group.

AUTHOR
Categories
Blog Post

Buy a House on Benefits? Why not!

Right to Buy (RTB) – argued to be the most successful transfers of wealth since its introduction in April 1980. Yet despite successfully giving aspirational working-class families the ability to participate in the property-owning democracy it once again is under scrutiny.

Incredibly over 1.9 million homes have been sold through RTB since its inception, a take-up that demonstrates its sheer popularity. Once commonplace under Local Authorities the offer has now been made to tenants of Housing Association (HA). But for many this is a step too far.

Labour, Guido Fawkes and Shelter condemn the proposal

On the right, we have seen Guido Fawkes condemn the “buy a house on benefits” scheme as a “stupid idea”. Shelter has claimed extending RTB “couldn’t come at a worse time”. While also suggesting “the government should be building more social homes, not selling them off”. Shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Lisa Nandy, recently called into question Boris Johnson’s announcement.

She challenged Johnson over the feasibility of allowing people to use housing benefit towards a mortgage. Tweeting recently whether lenders are “on board” with the Prime Minister’s first proposal after his disastrous vote of no confidence. Nandy also claims the new proposal would “make the housing crisis worse”.

Questions over feasibility and acceptance by the market

The scheme could help 17,000 families a year according to the report on the pilot published in February 2021. However, it found half of the homes under the scheme weren’t replaced despite promises of “one-for-one” replacement. Those “replaced” were often found to be as a more expensive form of tenure. This in large part driven by a Tory grant programme favouring such forms of tenure. Arguably fair kop to call into question.

Notwithstanding the above, we have seen the rise of the for-profit registered provider backed by private equity and institutions. Who have been piling into the sector lured in by government backed income in a supply constrained market. Whether social or affordable rent, or controversial shared ownership, the private sector has been licking its lips.

If these capital providers can accommodate such government-backed income streams, why cannot lenders?

But the proposals actually spur on new supply

Secondly, the argument around the need for one-for-one replacement seems one based on a lack of understanding of basic arithmetic. For those on the left, many feel a tenancy for life forms part of housing as a human right.  On that basis, whether an aspirational working-class family lives in a social rented home, or one where they have exercised the Right to Buy, morally this principle holds true. Under RTB total housing stock does not deplete and new build from recycled capital ultimately still contributes to new supply.

The family who can now use their in-work benefits towards a mortgage become the beneficiaries directly of the subsidy. Not the HAs who fail to do repairs and pay their executives investment banker wages. At a time where the National Housing Federation announces an independent panel to review the poor-quality homes endemic under its watch, why would we want to prevent aspirational working-class families from the opportunity to fix and maintain their own home, if they have the means to do so. Ultimately giving them an opportunity to escape the ever-lasting trap of poor housing management they currently endure under HAs.

But how, after all, in a supply constrained housing system does adding new housing stock make the housing crisis “worse”?

Global market headwinds make opportune timing to support demand

All sides have now sought to strawman the Right to Buy, blaming it for the loss of much needed social housing stock. The debate has not become one of supply. Instead some argue these recent measures merely add to demand-side pressures, which an already distorted market does not need. Yet in a time of globally increasing interest rates and a recession, when else is there a better time to broaden access to those on low incomes and counter market forces.

Furthermore, HAs often have low levels of debt against them with the homes valued on the books at Existing Use Value (EUV). Such a low level of debt allows the Government to provide meaningful discounts and unlock wealth for working class families. Of course, the HA lobby and HM Treasury will have kittens if they have to sell their silver, but ultimately who benefits?

Boris Johnson is playing to the aspirational working class

Whatever your politics, broadening access to an affordable home or home ownership should be the end goal. Yes, the Labour Housing Group has taken a stance to abolish Right to Buy. But I argue this policy is targeted at those Labour must seek to win back from the Tories. Boris Johnson is sending a key message to the millions of tenants living under often dreadful Housing Association conditions, that he cares about them.

Meanwhile, Labour and much of the left-leaning housing industry, condemns what has previously been a hugely successful policy for those who have benefitted from it. Right to Buy and the need to provide more social rented homes are not mutually exclusive.

Without means-testing tenancies how else can we recycle capital from those in social housing who can afford to buy?

Many of those who will exercise their right will be those who can afford to, who are still living under the benefits of a social tenancy. These include the members of Parliament who remain in their social rented flat, while earning a top 10% salary in the Commons, as well as the 117,000 households (16%) in London living in social rented accommodation  resided in by the top 40% of earners in the capital.

But if we are not to bring in means testing of social rented accommodation throughout a tenancy, is not recycling capital from sales into the provision of new homes an admirable end goal?

I certainly think so if the sellers can keep the receipts. We can argue about whether we “replace” less than half with social or affordable rent. Or we can recognise the use of the benefit systems ability to increase the overall level of stock in a housing market beholden to NIMByism. After all an election message to aspirational working-class families that they have a chance at closing their own personal wealth inequality gap is compelling.

<strong>Christopher Worrall</strong>
Christopher Worrall

Chris is the Editor of Red Brick blog and sits on the Labour Housing Group Executive Committee.

He currently is Chair of Poplar and Limehouse CLP, co-hosts the Priced Out podcast and is the Local Government and Housing Member Policy group lead for the Fabian Society.

He writes in a personal capacity.

TWITTER
Categories
Blog Post

Housing in the Australian election

Housing loomed large in the campaign debate running up to the recent Australian federal election. In fact, rival plans for first-time buyer assistance were central to the rival pitches of the two main parties in the final week of the contest.

The overarching context for this is the concern provoked by declining owner-occupancy rates in a country that still thinks of itself as a home ownership nation. By UK standards, the overall downward trend has been quite modest – the past 20 years has seen owner occupation drifting down by around 3-4 percentage points to 67 per cent. But that conceals much faster rates of decline among young adult cohorts.

Again, as in Britain, falling home ownership worries have been aggravated by the unexpected COVID house price boom which has seen prices jump by 30% since 2019 – a substantially more marked increase than the UK’s equivalent market climb.

Add to that, the recent spike in rent inflation greater than at any time since 2008, and it’s obvious that the pandemic significantly aggravated Australia’s longstanding housing affordability challenge.

So, in this battle that ended with the centre-left Labor Party (yes, that’s the correct spelling) regaining power after nearly a decade in opposition, what exactly were the rival housing plans pitched by the two main parties?

With Labor having retreated from significant reforms to private landlord tax breaks pledged in the previous two elections, there was actually less distinction between the housing offers of the main protagonists this time round. Even so, the difference between Labor’s 2022 platform and that of the Liberal/National governing coalition remained notable.

The home ownership offers

The main area of contest was of course home ownership. Both parties committed to expanding the existing national low deposit mortgage scheme for first-time buyers predicated on a government guarantee enabling downpayments of 5% rather than the standard 20%. This may now be made available to around half of all those entering home ownership.

Beyond this, and targeting much the same group, Labor pledged to initiate a national shared equity programme. Complementing existing state government schemes in Victoria and Western Australia, and subject to applicant income and property price caps, this would see the federal government taking an equity stake of up to 30% in an existing dwelling and up to 40% in a newly built home. The model is very similar to the UK Government’s Help to Buy scheme in both content and name.

Deriding Labor’s approach as one in which ‘the government wants to own your home’, on the ropes in the opinion polls, and clearly seeking a point of difference as the campaign neared its end, the Prime Minister further ramped up the debate by pitching a new and novel proposal. Aspirant first-time buyers would be enabled to draw on otherwise inaccessible pension (or ‘superannuation’) savings for home purchase.

Although widely criticised as inflationary, as well as inequitable, the ‘super for housing’ proposal was considered by some a political masterstroke, since it leveraged a libertarian sensibility across the electorate at no (immediate) cost to government. It also served the partisan aim of attacking the pension industry disliked by conservative Australians not only because of its compulsory contributions but also because some funds are union-linked.

Social housing

While featuring comparatively minimally in election media coverage and debate, a number of other potentially significant housing commitments were aired in the contest – mainly by Labor. These included Labor’s pledge for a national social and affordable investment program to generate 30,000 dwellings over six years.

Considering that Australia has been latterly constructing only around 3,000 social housing units annually, with the federal government making a near zero contribution, this is notable – yet also modest. Factoring in expected population growth, it would be enough to slow, but not to reverse, the longstanding decline in social housing representation in the housing system (now only just over 4% of total occupied dwellings).

The most novel aspect of the social and affordable housing investment proposal is its financing through investment returns from an ‘off balance sheet’ future fund. The attraction of such a structure is that, under relevant accountancy conventions, the cost would not score as government debt. Some readers may detect parallels with the long-running UK debate on the accounting treatment of council housing investment.

As far as social housing is concerned, the Liberal/National election platform extended only to expanding the quantum of community housing debt guaranteed by government – a facility of only very limited value without the matching subsidy that the Coalition declined to offer.

Institutional reform and strategy

Finally, and once again, with a very low media profile, Labor’s election pitch included some significant institutional reforms which, with the Party now installed in government, we can expect to take shape in coming months. These include, firstly, the creation of a National Housing Supply and Affordability Council (NHSAC), a body charged with analysing housing needs and provision – a remit similar to the UK’s erstwhile National Housing and Planning Advice Unit (NHPAU).

NHSAC will sit within a new national housing agency, Housing Australia. This will absorb the former administrative roles of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation (NHFIC) for first-time buyer assistance schemes, as well as the housing future fund. Perhaps opening up more far-reaching possibilities for the future, Housing Australia will also take responsibility for a ‘National Housing and Homeless Plan’. This, it would be hoped, will cement the federal government back into an active an ambitious role in the national housing system – something unseen for more than a decade.

Until Labor can find the stomach to revisit fundamental tax reform many of us would argue that the scope for fixing Australia’s dysfunctional housing system will remain extremely limited. At the same time, the incoming government’s program contains some housing green shoots that are still worth celebrating.

<strong>Hal Pawson</strong>
Hal Pawson

Professor Hal Pawson, is based at the City Futures Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney

TWITTER
Categories
Blog Post

Why is moderately priced housing hard to build?

Before recent local elections here in the UK, Dr Jenny Schuetz participated in an online Fabian Society member policy webinar: “Is flexible zoning the solution to the housing crisis?” hosted by Councillor Shama Tatler. Dr Schuetz discussed how in the United States land use practices have made it hard to build moderately priced housing.

Schuetz argues we have baked a lack of supply into our land use practices, especially for lower cost rental housing. She stated we don’t build enough smaller moderately price homes and that places with the highest rents are building the least amount of housing. Sadly, much like in the UK, the US has also designed a system that makes this an inevitable outcome.

The zoning system in the US differs somewhat from the UK discretionary planning system to some degree. For example, zoning in most parts of the US, including in large cities, reserves two-thirds to three-quarters of land for detached single family homes. Yet this system does allow you to build as of right. Effectively setting out a straight-forward set of rules on things such as size of lot and the height of building. If these follow rules can get permission without having to go through an extensive public process.

Long, complicated and uncertain processes provide significant barriers to housing affordability

For detached houses this is the norm. Should you want to build apartments or other types of housing then you must go through an additional approval process. It is this process that requires developers and housebuilders to show up in front of community meetings. Present plans, receive feedback, and requires formal approval from a local government body. Often a long, complicated, and uncertain process that provides a significant barrier to housing affordability.

Sound familiar?

Discretionary approval processes translate into much higher costs for housing that is approved and proposals often get stopped along the way. It is this element of the process that takes more time and costs more money. All because the existing process is set up to favour existing residents, in particular long-term homeowners.

For example, someone who may have lived locally for 30 years and doesn’t want their community to change. Schuetz argues these opinions are given more weight than someone who doesn’t currently live in the community. Meanwhile the person who shows up and says I would love to live here, but I can’t afford to move in so a new apartment would be great for me has their voice diminished.

Discretionary approval processes unfairly favour homeowners and existing residents

Dr Schuetz believes it is these approval processes that by design do not give equal weight to people who show up and talk at community meetings. She argues that suburban communities can often be where the problems are most acute. In these suburbs you find very large homes on large lots that are short distances away from public transit. Often where the median lot size is half an acre that only a single family can occupy. The only way to add more housing is to replace these single-family homes with more dwelling units. Under the current zoning system in the US such changes are explicitly prohibited.

But Schuetz isn’t just arguing for more large-scale apartment blocks. As this construction costs for these types of homes in such locations are often prohibitive. Instead, she argues for more row houses or condominiums that can be three, four, even up to six storeys where such methods of construction are feasible. In essence, the argument is to build more homes on those single-family plots. One of the nice things about this strategy is it does not require much land assembly from developers.

Schuetz also argues this kind of human scale development does not change the character of the community that much and offers substantial cost savings over new single-family homes. It is a strategy that can work in many places as doesn’t require big parcels of land or large-scale developers. Effectively it provides family sized businesses projects they are capable of delivering quickly.

Places in the US are exploring new ways to reduce barriers to housing affordability

Minneapolis provides an example of places exploring new ways to reduce barriers. In this city they effectively legalised duplexes in the Autumn of 2018. While in Oregon it also allowed state-wide reform for accessory dwelling units and duplexes. For apartment buildings the approach focuses on transit and commercial corridors. So, for six, eight, and ten storey apartment buildings, Massachusetts last year passed a state-wide rule recommending all localities allow apartments within certain distances of commuter rail stations.

Dr Schuetz noted how localities often find back-door rules to effectively not build things they do not want to build. The way zoning works is in the first instance the state can either prohibit apartment buildings or legalise them. If the state says they must legalise, then what dimensional requirements do you set? If a state decides it will only allow two storey apartment buildings, despite not being unviable, effectively it has prevented new homes from materialising. Other requirements include minimum parking standards that come with additional costs to each new unit of housing.

Legalising housing development is just the first step

There is an infinite number of restrictions to make it financially infeasible for developers states and localities can put in place. To achieve a flexible zoning system legalising apartments and middle housing is the first step. However, the further regulations will require attention as well if we want to see a meaningful response. State governments have a lot more authority over land use than the Federal government. They create local governments and designate their land use powers and fiscal authority.

Local governments fund services like schools based on local property taxes. Local finances impact decisions concerning new homes, as the are often assessed on local homeowners property values. States effectively can push back on localities if they want to do so. Meanwhile Federal government has very limited authority and few direct policy levers at its disposal to force the contrary.

Political opposition from locals who oppose change are the primary major barrier preventing moderately price housing

Unfortunately, effective policy solutions face steep political opposition and the politics on the ground is very similar in the US as it is in the UK. Long-term homeowners like the neighbourhoods the way they are and haven’t fully internalised how expensive it is to buy property today. They are often reluctant to change and are protective of their property values. All these personal, political, and financial incentives that reinforce the behaviour of long-term homeowners who carry a lot of weight in the political process.

Yes, there are tiny green shoots of promise in several cities and states. In place that have managed to achieve relatively small-scale reforms tinkering around the edge of the process. But we need to build more promising political coalitions against long-term homeowners. And yes, these coalitions must go much further if we are ever to get meaningful reform passed and more moderately priced homes.

Interested in housing development economics, property taxes and local public finance relationships in the US, incentives for zoning, and the politics behind it? Find out more in Dr Jenny Schuetz new book called “Fixer Upper How to Repair America’s Broken Housing System”.

<strong>Christopher Worrall</strong>
Christopher Worrall

Chris is the Editor of Red Brick blog and sits on the Labour Housing Group Executive Committee.

He currently is Chair of Poplar and Limehouse CLP, co-hosts the Priced Out podcast and is the Local Government and Housing Member Policy group lead for the Fabian Society.

He writes in a personal capacity.

TWITTER
Categories
Blog Post

What does the Queen’s Speech mean for housing?

Despite presenting a large volume of legislation, overall the policy proposals in the Queen’s Speech will do very little to address the underlying causes of our country’s housing crisis.  Labour Housing Group has long argued for systemic change in the supply of genuinely affordable housing (the planning system and housing finance), reform of the benefits system, and regulation of the private rented sector and is campaigning for housing to be set in legislation as a human right. 

The legislation proposed in the Queen’s Speech will not address the challenge of a desperate shortage of genuinely affordable homes, the poor quality and energy inefficiency of all housing stock or the growing problems of homelessness and temporary accommodation.  The legislative programme does not bring forward ideas for the failing social security system which is leaving families having to choose between heating and eating.  I have set out the outline of what is expected in each of the Bills and then highlighted what’s missing.

The Renters Reform Bill is expected to abolish ‘no-fault’ evictions by removing Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988.  We have heard this before and we must hold this Government to their promise to now deliver this.  The Bill also proposes to reform possession grounds for landlords – it is not clear what these will be or how the Bill will tackle the issues with administration of evictions.

The proposal for a legally binding Decent Homes Standard in the Private Rented Sector is certainly welcome but currently lacks detail for how this will be enforced, how the enforcement will be funded and how the works to ensure the Decent Homes Standard will be administered or paid for. Similarly, the introduction of a new Ombudsman for private landlords to resolve disputes could be a positive step forward but experience from the Housing Ombudsman, under-resourced and under-powered and struggling to keep up with the flow of escalated complaints from social landlords, suggests that unless this is properly funded this will create more uncertainty for renters.

The Social Housing Regulation Bill attempts to give more focus on consumer standards. With plans to enable the Regulator to intervene with landlords who are performing poorly on consumer issues there is hope for the many residents who struggle to secure a decent level of repair service from their landlord.  This is a u-turn from the Coalition Government’s abolition  of the Tenants Services Authority in 2010.  The impact of this Bill will only really be felt by tenants once the new powers and functions come through the Social Housing Regulator. Labour Housing Group will work with Labour MPs to make the case that the Social Housing Regulator is properly funded to deliver this expanded role. 

Enabling the Regulator to inspect landlords is encouraging – the tenants that I represent who receive a poor repairs service would welcome the chance to call for an inspection and to see the outcome of that inspection. This Bill still has gaps.  There is no stated role for Local Authorities or Local Councillors who are often the first to hear about the impact of poor consumer standards.

It is also silent on the role of local authorities with housing association disposals – local authorities have a responsibility to assess housing needs for their local areas and planning powers to secure affordable homes but there is no requirement for housing associations or the Social Housing Regulator to consult local authorities on the impact of disposals. Finally, this Bill is a missed opportunity to invest in tenant engagement including a requirement for tenants to be on Housing Association Boards or to have a say on local management decisions.

The Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill promises mostly administrative changes to monitoring levelling up, alongside tinkering at the edges of the planning system. Anyone committed to seeing more affordable homes built will despair at the lack of ambition from this Bill. The idea of organising votes on a street by street basis to determine planning applications will just bring in unnecessary bureaucracy to an under-resourced planning system.

The focus should have been on supporting clear policies which prioritise affordable homes and high-quality design standards.  We await the detail on how the Bill will support local authorities to bring empty premises back into use and support the high street – currently local authorities have broad powers to support regeneration and so it’s difficult to see what more will be added which would have a meaningful impact.

It is positive that the Energy Security Bill proposes to appoint Ofgem as the new regulator for heat networks. I represent residents in new build homes who have no control over their energy prices and no powers to demand transparency over costs or choice of provider.  The appointment should go further and provide clear local involvement for consumers so that they have a say in their energy provider. There is a huge gap in making plans to insulate and retrofit existing homes so that they are more energy efficient.  Only a street by street, block by block programme, with sustained investment from national Government will secure the reduction in energy use that is needed to get to Net Zero.

It’s clear what’s missing from this legislative programme.  The Government has failed to address the issue of short term lets, which is eroding the availability of affordable homes across the country, particularly in London and areas with a growing tourist economy.  The Government’s failure to really grasp this issue and tackle the impact on housing supply and on communities lets down both homeless families and those hoping to join the housing ladder. 

It is unsustainable for short term lets platforms to continue operating in central London without further regulation.  There is a gap where there should be a long term commitment to investment in genuinely affordable council and social housing.  This should be delivered through Government co-ordination of major new housing schemes alongside a sustained funding stream.

Going forward, Labour Housing Group will work with the Labour front bench and Labour MPs to make the case for the strongest possible action within these Bills to address the housing crisis.

<strong>Rachel Blake</strong>
Rachel Blake

Rachel is a Labour and Co-operative Party Councillor in Bow East and is Vice-Chair of the Labour Housing Group.

TWITTER
Categories
Blog Post

The progressive case for street votes

This week’s Queen’s Speech was a key opportunity for the government to announce serious plans to tackle the cost-of-living crisis. But while some individual announcements were welcome, overall they failed to go far enough. It was concerning to see recent rowing back on the commitment to building 300,000 homes a year, following the abandonment of plans for planning reform last year. Action to make housing – the single biggest item of household expenditure – more affordable is vital in the context of our long-term housing crisis.

However, there was one item in the speech which progressives should view with interest – the proposal for ‘street votes’. When this was announced, some were surprised by the broad array of progressive figures and groups that had already endorsed trials of the idea. This group includes housing associations, community groups, the chair of the Fabian Society Local Government and Housing member policy group, the Royal Town Planning Institute, the past president of the RIBA, Shelter’s former head of policy Toby Lloyd, campaigning organisations Generation Rent and Priced Out, two of Sadiq Khan’s design advocates, and even Labour’s former Deputy Mayor of London Nicky Gavron. More broadly, suburban intensification is being championed by progressive politicians around the world, from Jacinda Arden’s government in New Zealand to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the US.

But what are street votes? Although we will have to wait for more details of the government’s plan to emerge, the idea of street votes has been advanced by a variety of organisations over the last several years. The idea is to give local residents a power to allow more housing where there is a broad consensus. Street votes are only a supplement to existing means of getting planning permission, a way of adding more gentle density where there is support on the street to do so.

Instead of the only option being to seek planning permission on a case-by-case basis, street votes would simply let the residents of a street agree, by a large majority of perhaps two-thirds, to a plan that would allow additional housing on that street, according to a pre-specified design. Notwithstanding reports in the ever-excitable Daily Mail, they do not mean that the neighbours get to vote on your individual application for an extension.

Each property owner would then be free to use the permission, or not, in their own time. There are strict limits to ensure that the overall effect helps the place and does not harm anyone else, including through impacts on daylight and congestion.  And tenants, not absentee landlords, would get the vote, which is why street votes have been endorsed by Dan Wilson Craw of Generation Rent.

With millions struggling under the high cost of housing and now the rapidly rising cost of living, measures to address high housing costs are more needed than ever. Where successful, street votes would produce more floorspace and more homes, enabling money spent on rent and house prices to go further, and reducing the cost of living for hard-pressed families.

Haringey’s Labour council in 2010 showed the potential for what such a policy can achieve. In South Tottenham, housing constraints faced by the Haredi Jewish community led to community leaders, councillors and planners working together to agree a right for residents to extend their homes by as much as 1.5 storeys, alongside a strict design code. This has had high uptake, won the support of the broader community, and allowed growing families to benefit from additional space instead of being priced out of the local area.

Haringey extension

Importantly, street votes give control over the character and shape of an area to communities themselves. Councils in areas at the sharp end of the housing crisis are often frustrated by landowners and promoters gaming the site allocation process by land-banking instead of putting land forward for development. Concerns about corruption are common. But none of this can happen with street votes. The plan will only be passed if a large majority of residents want it to be passed. There is no messy, behind-the-scenes process of political donations and private negotiations between councils, landowners and developers.

Small builders have suffered terribly in recent decades from a worsening shortage of small sites. Many have seen their businesses fail. Our current rigid system of land allocation means that development is typically consigned to a few large, poorly served, car-dependent sites. This tilts the market in favour of larger developers, allowing a few big players to dominate the market. By contrast, street votes could deliver many more micro-sites, allowing small builders to regain their presence in the market and help to train the next generation of skilled tradespeople.

The densification enabled by street votes would also benefit the environment. Suburbs and rural areas generate far more carbon emissions per head than areas of gentle density with terraced houses and flats. Inhabitants can walk, cycle or take public transport to work rather than being dependent upon car use to get around. Flats are better insulated and require less heating than large suburban housing. And street votes could help generate funds to retrofit existing housing with better insulation.

Finally and crucially, the land value uplift created by a street vote would be taxed. When a house gains permission for an extension, its value increases. With street votes, as more generally, homeowners and landlords are required to pay a tax on this uplift to their local authority. This means that if street votes work to generate more housing, this will generate more money for hard-pressed local authorities to spend on the infrastructure, social housing and public services on which communities rely. If street votes generate as much additional housing as some think it might, that could mean billions of pounds more to local authorities.

We should not allow the idea of street votes to become identified solely with the Conservative Party. There are many reasons why progressives, too, should support trials of street votes. There is no guarantee that these ideas will work, or that the government will implement them well – but as long as the policy is carefully handled, there are few obvious drawbacks to a trial. If they do work, they might help many families, communities and councils improve the places where they live, and do something to help the many struggling under the sky-high cost of housing.

<strong>Shreya Nanda</strong>
Shreya Nanda

Shreya Nanda is an economist at a think tank, and previously at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

TWITTER