Category: Blog Post

Categories
Blog Post Class of 2024

Ending rough sleeping can be achieved under Labour

In March, over 7,000 people were sleeping rough in England. It is a national scandal and one that Labour is determined to fix.

When I became Deputy Leader of Milton Keynes City Council, it was known as a “city of tents”, with those without a place to stay setting up camps in our city centre, beneath our underpasses, and next to our train station.

Rough sleepers had become a political football for a Conservative Party seeking to divide and degrade. Suella Braverman, as Home Secretary, claimed that living from a tent was a “lifestyle choice”, and the national number of people sleeping rough began to tick up once again. Britain stood on the precipice of a homelessness crisis, and the government didn’t just ignore it – they demonised the most vulnerable in our society.

Yet, as a national crisis brewed, things looked very different in Milton Keynes. With my background in homelessness, I alongside colleagues across the council set about changing the situation in Milton Keynes by first recognising that it is at its heart a people not a housing issue. Rough sleepers are often the product of being let down by their parents, by the system or by the state.

sign up to red brick’s free newsletter


The tents were just a symptom of a deeper issue, of people trying to cope with their past and current trauma by making sometimes self-destructive decisions as a way to survive. This explains the over representation of people who grew up in care, with domestic and sexual abuse and who have been in prison. They had often been repeatedly failed by the fragmentation of support and passing between services and charities.

It was only by designing the system around the people who needed it, can we create a system where leaving the streets can become a reality for them. The first step was to consolidate the Milton Keynes homelessness services under one roof. At the Old Bus Station, the local council established a new shelter for rough sleepers. It implemented a no second night out rule effectively running SWEP all year round. The emergency beds we offered were important, but not as vital as the medical services, including a GP and addiction services, probation support and other public sector support services that were available on the ground floor. Local charities were encouraged and enabled to provide services directly at the bus shelter, dishing out hot meals, befriending and providing access to laundry equipment.

That is not to say that there are no more rough sleepers in Milton Keynes. For those who do not want to engage or accept a place at the shelter, every morning council officers check on them, building the rapport that will encourage them to engage. People with a history of rough sleeping may not be successful on their first, second or even third attempt, but I made sure that support was more widely available in Milton Keynes.

Since being elected last July, this Government has been committed to supporting homeless people, not attacking them. The Government has doubled our emergency homelessness funding to £60 million as an immediate support for councils to keep people in their homes. This is in addition to the £1 billion already committed this year to tackle the root causes of homelessness, including the largest ever investment in preventative services, so we can put in place long-lasting solutions, not just sticking plasters, to end this crisis.

The Chancellor has also outlined the biggest investment into social housing, including council houses, for a generation in her Spending Review, with £39bn being allocated to providing the housing families deserve. The Renters’ Rights Bill progressing through Parliament will finally ban no-fault evictions, stopping tenants founding themselves without anywhere to go unexpectedly – and our manifesto commitment to fight for the “hidden homeless”, who get by each night through sofa-surfing, will act further to intervene on the path of homelessness before it leads to a night alone on the streets.

Nothing underlines our commitment to making tackling homelessness a top priority than our decision to finally scrap the unfair Vagrancy Act, an archaic and outdated law that criminalises those with nowhere else to go. Within Parliament, a cross-departmental group has been established by the government to liaise with my colleagues on the backbenches who have lived experience with tackling homelessness, or experience on the streets, with ministers and Secretaries of State consulting directly with us and taking on board our feedback for the upcoming governmental Rough Sleeping Strategy. Initiatives from departments all across government are acting to support those who need it most, with our reforms to job centres, with a record investment into back-to-work support, helping across society, including those with experience rough sleeping. I am so proud to say that it has all gone a bit Milton Keynes – the Government is focused and committed to tackling the causes of homelessness, and this is only the start. Whilst the previous government had laid down a muddled path towards a Tent Nation, we’re fighting back and treating everybody with the humanity and respect that everybody deserves. That shouldn’t be political – it is what we owe everybody in society.

The impact of these changes almost goes without saying. Many of my colleagues have lived experience of sleeping rough, and they know the difference support makes. The amount of potential being squandered by our failure to support homeless communities is a national scandal, and these changes will allow us to support people off the streets and into the professional life where they can offer so much to so many. An ounce of moral fibre is all it takes to compel you to tackle homelessness, but as we make growth our priority, a workforce fulfilling their true potential – not letting it lie dormant in hostels and underpasses – will help us build a better, more decent Britain.

There’s always further to go. We know that the frontline of supporting homeless people is local government, and if an authority is committed to supporting their rough sleepers, they can achieve tremendous things – just ask Milton Keynes. With a supportive framework from Westminster, local authorities can create a seamless web of support that matches the needs in their place.

Everywhere should be a bit more like Milton Keynes. When it comes to rough sleeping, this Government should take that advice.

Categories
Blog Post

Fix renting to fix lives

As the Renters Rights Bill reaches Report stage, more attention is rightly turning to the 19% of UK households renting privately. The rising financial cost of rent is well known. But a deeper, often hidden cost is going uncounted: the toll renting takes on people’s wellbeing.

New analysis from PBE’s Caught in a Trap report shows that the way we rent is quietly undermining wellbeing. Using the latest data from the English Housing Survey and Understanding Society, we find that renters are three times more likely than homeowners to be in “wellbeing poverty”—defined as rating life satisfaction 4 or below out of 10 on the ONS scale.

Renters are more likely to have persistently low life satisfaction than homeowners. One in 10 (10%) renters find themselves in this position. The question is, to what extent is this down to the experience of renting? Or is it simply that, due to other demographic and economic factors, people who experience low wellbeing are more likely to be renters?

sign up to red brick’s free newsletter

The hidden cost of private renting

Renters in both social and privately rented homes face real challenges, but the data shows the link between wellbeing, poverty and housing is particularly pronounced in the private rented sector. Social renters also often report low life satisfaction, but much of this is closely tied to individual factors like poor health, low income or disability.

Even after accounting for the same demographic, economic and health characteristics, private renters are still more likely to experience wellbeing poverty. This suggests private renting itself carries a wellbeing penalty—something about the experience makes life harder.

This wellbeing penalty affects 4.6 million private renting households and is valued at around £3,700 per person per year, using Treasury wellbeing valuation methods.

The wellbeing penalty for private renting

The primary drivers of the wellbeing penalty for private renters are affordability, quality and insecurity. Private renters spend an average of 39% of their income on housing, far more than social renters (29%) or homeowners with mortgages (20%). Given that rents have risen by 18% over the past five years, this pressure shows no signs of easing. For many, this means constant financial stress, limited choices, and a reduced quality of life. Affordability concerns explain around two-fifths of the private renting wellbeing penalty.  

Our analysis suggests that, based on new modelling, the number of people in England likely to be experiencing low wellbeing is around 110,000 higher among private renters than it would be if they had the same wellbeing outcomes as similar people in other housing tenures. As more households are pushed into the private rented sector, this gap may grow, along with the cost to the nation’s wellbeing.

Insecurity is another key factor. Nearly 40% of private renters have lived in their homes for less than a year, and many remain at risk of “no-fault” eviction under Section 21. Millions remain vulnerable to losing their homes with just two months’ notice, making it harder to plan, build community, or feel truly settled.

Scotland shows a potential way forward

Fixing our housing crisis requires long-term, system-wide solutions. However, reforming renting here and now can deliver meaningful change. Scotland, where reforms have been in force since 2017, including the introduction of open-ended tenancies and stronger protections against rent increases, shows what’s possible. Since then, the wellbeing penalty for private renters has improved. If these improvements were entirely due to the reforms, their value could be as much as £4 billion annually. Changes to housing policy can significantly improve people’s quality of life.

England can follow suit. The Renters’ Rights Bill will abolish Section 21 evictions, improve protections, and allow renters to challenge unfair rent hikes. If implemented well, it could lift 50,000 people out of wellbeing poverty and improve life for many more.

The Bill alone isn’t enough. Without proper enforcement from already stretched councils, rights risk being paper promises, and issues with affordability in particular may persist.  

Affordable private renting is the next step

Homes are the foundation of our wellbeing. They shape whether we feel secure and supported. The case for housing reform goes beyond market efficiency to dignity, fairness and quality of life.

Big problems like Britain’s housing crisis demand big solutions that take time to deliver. Focusing only on the long-term can risk leaving today’s renters behind. As Scotland’s experience shows, meaningful reform to the rental market can improve people’s lives now, while we work towards the systemic change the housing market needs.

The Renters’ Rights Bill offers an opportunity to reduce the insecurity and stress of millions of renters. But we need to think not just about legislation, but about enforcement, support and affordability.

That’s why PBE is exploring how to make private renting more affordable, and we’re looking for collaborators to support this work. Real progress is possible in the short term as well as the years to come and requires political will to grab opportunities to fix renting and improve lives.

Categories
Blog Post Class of 2024

Tackling second homes and short-term lets is key to addressing rural inequality

I am lucky enough to live in Falmouth. My ex-husband and I got a mortgage on a house here 20 years ago when we had two salaries and had each sold the previous homes we had before we got together. I would never have been able to do so on my own. Now, despite my lack of DIY skills and its rather ramshackle appearance, this house has become a home where my small family has its roots. Our homes are extensions of ourselves. And everyone deserves the chance to turn a house into a home.

What I have come to realise during my time in politics—both on Cornwall Council and now as an MP—is how lucky I am to have somewhere to call home in the first place. So many people don’t have that. There are over 800 households in emergency or temporary accommodation in Cornwall.  Conversely, there are people for whom a house, will always be an investment, whether as a pension pot or a business. Where some people see shelter, warmth and stability, others see financial security or profit. 

Statistics from the council tax base tell us that there are approximately 13,000 second homes registered in Cornwall. That is nearly 5% of the total housing stock, and nearly five times higher than the average across England. In Cornwall, there has been a ‘First Homes Not Second Homes’ campaign for many years to restore the balance because of this issue.

Sign up to red brick’s free newsletter

And it’s not just about providing a roof over people’s heads. The taxpayer has lost about £20 million per year as a result of the loophole allowing second homes to be registered as holiday lets for business rates purposes. As short-term lets often fall under small business rates relief, they will pay neither council tax nor business rates. During Covid, approximately £170 million went to the owners of properties that were registered as businesses in pandemic business grants. Over £100 million of that went out of Cornwall.

This government is already making strides against this. The Renters’ Rights Bill will help ease the short-let scourge. During the second reading of the Bill I said that I could see many benefits for the people in Truro and Falmouth who rely upon the Private Rented Sector (PRS).  At the census, 20% of households in Cornwall lived in private rental including almost 30% of households with children under 10.  There has been a noticeable uptick in Section 21 evictions in recent years affecting families with young children. 

A Section 21 notice, also known as a “no fault” eviction, initiates the end of a short hold tenancy without the landlord having to give a reason to the tenant. Section 21 eviction is traumatic enough. In coastal areas the trauma is exacerbated. Because of our geographical spread, many evicted families are placed in holiday parks, caravan sites, and hotels up to an hour and a half drive from their previous place of residence and with poor rural transport links this can often lead to families completely cut off from their jobs, schools and support networks. All because a landlord wants to cash in. Under the new legislation Section 21 evictions will be abolished.

We know that families are routinely—and suddenly—evicted from their rented homes by a Section 21 to feed the culture of landlords “flipping” to more lucrative short-term holiday lets. The Renters’ Rights Bill will put an end to this and give families the time to seek housing in the same areas, keeping kids in school and maintaining a vital support network.

This Bill is the most significant package of reforms to the PRS in over 40 years and it will deliver on Labour’s manifesto commitment to provide greater security and stability for more than 11 million private renters. Reform of the sector is long overdue and the Labour Government has achieved in four months what the Tories failed to do in four and a half years.

Unfortunately, the law, which should pass before the summer recess, will come too late for many families in Cornwall who have already lost their homes. That was why it was imperative that the Bill be passed, to provide future protection against discrimination for those in receipt of benefits or with children or who have a pet in their home, with the tenant able to challenge unfair decisions.

Cornwall has a history of seeking PRS reform. An inquiry into PRS by Cornwall Council’s economic growth and development overview and scrutiny committee was published in 2020 and recommended a number of measures: to extend licensing powers; data gathering on PRS for landlords and tenants; DBS checks; longer protected terms; and limited annual rent increases. However, in the wake of the covid pandemic and further local government cuts the measures were delayed and when the administration changed to a Conservative one they were too wary about upsetting landlords so none of the recommendations were enacted.

As a result the PRS has been decimated in Cornwall with many landlords selling up or “flipping”, including conversions to holiday homes. Prices have skyrocketed and many local people struggle to find homes. There are around 24,000 holiday let properties in Cornwall, which is up 30% on 2019. Cornwall is also the local authority with the largest supply of short-term lets outside London. 

That is why I am so pleased and relieved that this Renters’ Rights Bill has been prioritised by this Government, and it will bring in many measures that were in that original Cornish report. These changes will really support the security of privately renting families in Truro and Falmouth and across Cornwall where we’ve had a sustained housing crisis for years now and buying or even renting a house has become out of reach for most people.

I was also pleased to see that this Government will be investing £39 billion over the next decade in a new Affordable Homes Plan. The biggest cash injection into social and affordable housing in a generation.  I am determined that some of this will come to Cornwall so that we can build some of these places like Langarth Garden Village and Pydar in Truro, with infrastructure in place before homes are built, and decent housing that’s affordable for people who work locally. Angela Rayner wants a new generation of council housing to be her legacy, and I want to help that happen in Cornwall so that families have the stability that they crave to be able to get on in life.

Reform of culture, however, is much harder than the reform of law. In Britain, we all know that a man’s home is his castle. We also know that a man can do whatever he so wishes with his castle. The issue is that, as a country, and a county, we have taken that notion to the extreme with places such as St Ives and Port Isaac becoming ghost towns except in summer. We need to be much tougher and we need more protections in place.

In parliament, I’ve suggested a four-step toolkit of measures to the new Housing Minister. Firstly, we could enact the Registration Scheme for first time lets as set out in the Levelling Up Act. I know the Government are working on a database system to do this. We would then know how many there were and where, and could make fire and safety checks mandatory and give local authorities the power to grant or revoke registration and inspect the properties. It would be a similar scheme to the licensing of houses in multiple occupation (HMO), which currently only applies to homes registered for five or more people; it would seem sensible to increase the scope of HMO licensing as well to cover smaller properties.

Secondly, we want the business rates/council tax loophole closed. It should not be possible to pay no council tax or business rates on a property; it is just not fair. 

Thirdly, Cornwall and many councils have already voted to double the council tax on empty second homes, and Cornwall has asked the Government if it can triple it. Given that the council was Conservative-run until last month, and that this decision was agreed on a cross-party unanimous basis, it shows how severe the problem has become in Cornwall. If we were to implement that, every time the council tax was doubled it would raise £20 million. However we do know that people are changing their behaviour to avoid this and so that figure is likely to decrease quite steeply on a year on year basis.

Finally, we could potentially create a planning use class for short-term or holiday lets, so that homeowners need to actively apply for permission for the change from “lived in” to “holidayed in”—changing the default that the Conservatives suggested. 

These are measures we could see in the toolkit, which could be given to local authorities who could decide how much or little to do, depending on how big or small a problem it was in their area. The toolkit could form part of any devolution package.

Time has shown that the rebalancing of our housing market isn’t something that is going to happen on its own. We need the tools to do it. In only a year Labour have shown that they care about housing and the rental sector in a way that previous governments simply didn’t. We’re only beginning. The fight back to restore balance to second homes and short-term holiday-lets has begun.

See more from:

Categories
Blog Post

‘So what has Labour done differently?’ – 50 housing wins from Labour’s first year in power

General Election campaigning, Reading, United Kingdom - 18 June 2024 by Keir Starmer MP is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

One year ago, we asked the question ‘but what will Labour do differently?’ on housing ahead of the 2024 general election. Ahead of the polls, Labour was making substantial promises around its housing plans. 1.5 million homes, a generational boost in social housing, as well as fixing fundamentally flawed tenures in the private rented sector and leasehold among other promises gave hope to a sector which had been so neglected under the Conservatives.

While Labour’s first year in Government has been challenging, with difficulties at home and greater uncertainty abroad, few would have expected that it would get so much done in its first year on housing.

At the first anniversary of the election, now marks the perfect opportunity to review all that Labour has achieved in housing since entering Government, as well as looking ahead to what the next year could hold.

sign up to red brick’s free newsletter

The road to 1.5 million homes

The Government’s flagship policy on housing was its pledge to build 1.5 million homes in this Parliament. And, while figures in industry, and even the Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook, have admitted that this is likely a stretch target, the progress which the Government has made will set the UK on a permanent path to delivering more homes.

Shortly after the election, the Government set out addressing issues with individual sites, reversing ministerial vetos on individual sites such as around Liverpool Docks (1), and establishing a New Homes Accelerator to take direct action on individual sites (2). This has also been partnered with a new subsidiary of Homes England, the National Housing Bank, with £16 billion of capital leveraging an additional £53 billion of private investment to build half a million homes (3).

Crucial to this has been making the planning system more favourable to delivering more homes at greater speed. This has involved updating the NPPF to restore housing targets (4), to reallocate low-quality ‘grey belt’ land for new homes (5), and to mandate that local authorities have a 5-year land supply and a local plan (6), the Government has undergone a number of ambitious steps in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. This has included modernising planning committees to empower councillors to deliver better-quality projects (7), delegating more decisions to officers to allow for more rules-based planning decisions (8), and streamlining planning for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs), so that homes are not left without critical infrastructure (9). This work is supported by the recruitment of an additional 300 planning officers to improve capacity in local authorities (10).

Nor are the Government’s changes purely a charter for large developers, and they have included mandating faster build-out rates to prevent developers from a ‘slow-build’ approach to prioritise profit over homes (11). More support has also been provided for SME builders through establishing a new ‘medium site’ category with reduced planning rules (12), setting aside more Homes England land for smaller builders (13) and establishing a Small Sites Aggregator to unlock small sites which otherwise would not be developed (14).

However, reaching 1.5 million homes cannot be reached through planning alone, and the Government has also been active in ensuring that there is a sustainable workforce to produce the homes that we need. This has included setting up Skills England, a national body for addressing the skills shortage (15), setting aside an additional £600 million for construction sector skills (16), and establishing a Construction Skills Mission Board with an aim of recruiting an additional 100,000 new construction workers per year (17).

Key to the Government’s long-term plans are also New Towns, and while there were fears before the election that these would be unfeasible, not only did has the Government set up a New Towns Taskforce (18), but they identified 100 sites for these, with work due to start on at least 12 before the next election (19).

(See more on what the Government is doing to address the skills shortage from Lauren Edwards MP)

(See more on the Government’s plans for New Towns from Shaun Davies MP)

A generational boost to social and affordable housing

While boosting housing supply is critical, it is social and affordable homes which are most crucially needed for those with greatest housing need. While the last Government allowed 120,000 homes to be sold through the Right to Buy, Labour has already curtailed this, not only reducing discounts severely (20), and announcing that newbuild social homes will be exempt from the Right to Buy for 35 years and that social tenants will have had to have lived in their home for 10 years before being eligible (21).

Not only has the Government stopped the outflow of social homes, but they have meaningfully set the groundwork to increasing the delivery of more social homes, through instructing Homes England to direct funding primarily to social homes (22), and reforming Compulsory Purchase Orders in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to allow local authorities to buy land at existing use price rather than inflated ‘hope value’ for social housing (23). Finally, increasing the funding for social housing featured prominently at all of the Government’s major fiscal moments, with £500madded to the Affordable Homes Programmein the Autumn Budget (24), £2 billionat the Spring Statement (25), before an increase of 50% from the Conservatives’ Affordable Homes Programme to spend £39 billion on affordable homes in the recent Spending Review (26). This is combined projected to increase social housebuilding sixfold, building 300,000 new social and affordable homes over the next decade, 60% of which will be at social rent.

Finally, housing associations and local authorities have been supported to have greater financial stability, not only by being included in Government funding for cladding remediation (27), but providing greater certainty of social rent, with a ten-year rent settlement to bring social rents back to 2015 levels in real terms, and plans for social rent convergence so that artificially reduced rents are brought up to standard (28).

Improving the quality of existing stock

While delivering new homes is crucial, critical issues with our existing housing stock persist, particularly in larger blocks and in social housing. This is somewhere where the Government has taken direct action, implementing Awaab’s Law into social housing later this year (29), and setting out plans for a new Decent Homes Standard for social and private rented homes (30), alongside a first-ever Minimum Energy Efficiency Standard in social rented homes (31).

The Government has also established a plan to act on all 58 recommendations of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry (32), including introducing a single construction sector regulator. This has been alongside setting out a Remediation Acceleration Plan to fast-track the vital work to address building safety defects on high rise buildings (33).

The Government has also put their money where their mouth is on housing quality, setting aside £13.2bn for a Warm Homes Plan to bring 300,000 homes up to EPC C level (34).

Read more about the Government’s plans for building safety from Darren Paffey MP)

Fixing flawed tenures

The 4.7 million private renters and 5.3 million leaseholders in England and Wales know well that the arcane rules governing their own homes are in stark need of reform. And the Government has recognised this, launching a bold programme to fix these tenures.

In the private rented sector, the Government is on the verge of passing the Renters’ Rights Bill. Not only will this outlaw ‘no-fault’ Section 21 evictions (35), it will outlaw rental bidding wars (36), introduce a mandatory private rental sector database (37).

The Bill contains a myriad of other improvements, from the right to request a pet (38), to capping rent advances at one month (39), as well as establishing rent tribunals for tenants to charge unreasonable increases (40), but a list of 50 achievements could likely include reforms from the Renters’ Rights Bill.

Meanwhile, the Government has set out plans to implement their predecessor’s rushed Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act (41), as well as fast-tracking reforms to the Right to Manage to ensure that leaseholders can hire and fire their managing agents with greater ease (42). The Government has also published a Commonhold White Paper (43), with plans to publish a full Leasehold and Commonhold Bill later this year (44), with a range of commitments already made, including mandatory qualifications for managing agents (45).

Addressing homelessness head-on

The most immediate symptom of the housing crisis is that of homelessness and rough sleeping, with the number of families in temporary accommodation reaching 126,400under the Conservatives.

The Government has acted here head-on, not only setting a Cross-Government Taskforce on Homelessness chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister (46), but putting their money where their mouth is, with a £1 billion boost to funding at the Autumn Budget (47). Attempts are also being made to address the use of bed and breakfasts as temporary accommodation with Emergency Accommodation Reduction Pilots in the 20 local authorities with the highest B&B usage (48).

While the recommendations of this taskforce are still to be seen, a number of crucial steps have already been taken. These have included exempting care leavers and survivors of domestic abuse from punitive ‘local connection tests’ for local authority housing support to ensure that they can receive critical help to prevent homelessness (49), and establishing a commitment to repealing the cruel and outdated Vagrancy Act in the Spring of 2026 to finally decriminalise rough sleeping (50).

Check out more on tackling temporary accommodation from Naushabah Khan MP)

Looking ahead: what do we need in Year 2?

Despite this progress, the Government cannot rest on their laurels, particularly with the number of new starts on site decreasing, the numbers of households in temporary accommodation on the rise, and rents continuing to increase in the PRS.

A lot of the achievements on this list, while laudable, consist of plans, targets and goal-setting. While this is undoubtedly needed in the first year of a new Government, tracking their progress and ensuring their implementation is key.

When it comes to new rights in leasehold and the private rental sector, resourcing needs to be provided to local authorities, regulators, and the First Tier Tribunal to take the increased caseload, and any gaps and loopholes need to be carefully monitored.

Moreover, blocks to delivering new homes, particularly social and affordable homes, need to be reviewed and analysed in-depth. Concerns continue to be raised with the Building Safety Regulator, as well as with viability rules and the difficulty of delivering social homes on brownfield sites. Reforms to these to enable faster delivery of homes from registered providers may well be needed to meet the Government’s housing ambitions.

Finally, while the Government has undoubtedly done a great deal of work in these areas across this year on fixing the housing crisis, more needs to be done to make the political case that these changes will actually improve voters’ lives. Even if all of Labour’s housing goals are met, showing that a slower increase in rents or prices, or slightly faster movement in social housing waiting lists, is down to the Government of the day is difficult at the best of times, and even more challenging in a competitive multi-party system. The Government needs to identify a compelling housing story to tell which links together all 50 of these accomplishments, and really sells it to voters, not just for its own sake, but to achieve a long-term political consensus for sustained housing action.

One year in, and the Labour Government is moving with remarkable speed and ambition to fix the housing crisis, proving that, when it comes to housing, change is being delivered. What this change amounts to could well be decisive both politically and substantively for Labour’s legacy.

Categories
Blog Post Class of 2024

Ending out-of-borough temporary accommodation must be a key part of Labour’s mission

Image from the Centre for Homeless Impact's image library

Before the 2024 general election, the housing crisis in Britain had reached truly critical levels, with one of the most visible and harmful symptoms being the increasing use of out-of-borough placements. These occur when local councils, unable to find suitable or affordable accommodation within their own boundaries, place households—often vulnerable families with children—in temporary housing far from their local communities, family, and connections. 

The root causes of this phenomenon are clear. Between 2010 and 2024, successive Conservative governments oversaw a sharp decline in the construction of social housing, despite rising demand and a growing need for decisive action. A recent report by Shelter emphasises that between 2014-2024, we’ve seen a net loss of 260,000 social rent homes. Combined with the erosion of local authority budgets and a creaking planning system, out-of-borough placements became the defining symptom of a deeply ineffective national housing strategy. 

These placements often have severe and negative consequences. Families are torn away from schools, jobs, and support networks, placing an enormous strain on mental health and family dynamics. Children must often change schools with little notice, and parents may lose access to childcare, employment, or vital community support structures.  

Sign up to red brick’s free newsletter

Out-of-borough placements provide no solution to Britain’s housing crisis—they simply shift the pressure elsewhere. Receiving councils often lack the resources to accommodate incoming households, while the demand artificially drives up local rents and reduces availability for residents. I’ve seen this first-hand both as a local councillor and now an MP in my own constituency, Gillingham and Rainham.  

That is why, since taking office in July last year, this Labour government has taken strategic steps to address both the immediate harms and the underlying causes of out-of-borough placements. At the heart of this effort is a dual approach: reducing the need for such placements by increasing the supply of affordable homes and improving oversight and coordination between councils when they do occur. 

Paramount to this strategy, is the government’s commitment to building 1.5 million new homes by 2029, including a substantial expansion of social and council housing. Alongside nearly £40 billion for affordable and social homes announced at the recent spending review, we are introducing local housing targets, streamlined planning, increased ‘land value capture’, devolved housing responsibilities, collaboration with private investment, and the strengthening of tenancy rights through the transformative Renters’ Rights Bill. Combined, these measures will enable us to deliver the biggest boost in social and affordable housing in a generation.  

As a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government (HCLG) Select Committee, I have repeatedly called for increased data tracking and measurement tools to give us greater insights into this problem. Currently, no centralised record exists, making it difficult to understand the true scale of displacement and to plan appropriate interventions. Without this shared measurement platform, it becomes increasingly difficult to form an effective national strategy. Therefore, I am pleased that the government has announced it will make data more publicly accessible, as well as working with local authorities and MHCLG’s expert homelessness advisors closely to ensure data quality and reporting practices improve. This is an important first step. 

I have also advocated for a review of the funding allocation model for local authorities, having seen first-hand the inefficiencies of our current system as a local councillor. Presently, host councils are often penalised for hosting out-of-area placements, as housing benefit and homelessness support funding are tied to the placing authority. In November 2024 the Government announced that from 2026/27 it will move gradually towards an updated allocation system for council funding. This will build on the proposals set out in the previous Government’s Review of Relative Needs and Resources (the ‘Fair Funding Review’). 

Critically, the HCLG committee have proposed strengthening communication protocols between local authorities, requiring councils to notify and consult with each other when placing families beyond their borders. This measure aims to reduce friction, increase accountability, and ensure that vulnerable families are not abandoned in unfamiliar locations with no authority to turn to for support. 

Whilst these are initial steps, they are vital in allowing us to build a coherent plan of action to tackle the scale of out-of-borough placements. With local authorities’ use of temporary accommodation increasing by 9% in London, 50% in the South East of England, 73% in the South West, and 216% in the North East, the need to undertake more formalised monitoring of the use of out-of-borough placements is key. The government’s focus on data, coordination, and housing supply is beginning to shift the conversation. Local councils and housing charities have reacted positively to the renewed emphasis on long-term solutions rather than temporary fixes, but there is still much work to be done. 

Alongside this, the strengthening of tenants’ rights through new legislation will also help us to combat the problem. This Labour government’s new Renters’ Rights Bill, which abolishes Section 21 “no fault” evictions, will help reduce the flow of households into temporary accommodation in the first place. Many out-of-borough placements stem from sudden evictions, especially in parts of the country where the rental market is unregulated and highly competitive. By removing the means by which rogue landlords evict families at short notice, we can prevent even more people from entering this negative cycle or relocation. 

The broader housing strategy fundamentally lays essential groundwork for reducing out-of-borough placements over time. The Prime Minister’s ‘Get on and Build’ mantra is epitomised by recently announced new powers for councils to keep housebuilders on track, and a promise for housebuilding timeframes to be set before planning permission is granted. Developers who repeatedly fail to build out or use planning permissions to trade land speculatively could face new ‘Delayed Homes Penalty’ or be locked out of future permissions by councils. The message from this government could not be clearer, it’s time to build at scale. 

The HCLG’s recent report investigating the ‘Crisis in Temporary Accommodation’, gives key insights and recommendations for how we can combat the national housing emergency. The initial steps mentioned are key, but there are future changes which should be considered to meaningfully reduce out-of-borough placements and restore housing stability. 

As highlighted, the creation of a national database would be significant. By introducing a central record of out-of-borough placements, local and national authorities will be better equipped to identify trends, coordinate responses, and evaluate the effectiveness of current policies. This should help to prevent families from falling through the cracks and ensure that vulnerable households receive appropriate follow-up care. 

We should also ensure that housing targets are matched by delivery mechanisms. This means reforming the planning system to prioritise affordable and social housing, empowering local authorities with land-buying powers, and enabling councils to borrow and build at scale.  

Lastly, the voices of those with lived experience should be central to policy design. Families who have been moved miles away from their communities know better than anyone the emotional and practical toll this system imposes. Their insight can help shape both placement policy and housing strategy for a more effective system overall. 

Out-of-borough placements are a stark symptom of a housing system that has long failed to meet people’s needs. The previous government’s inaction allowed thousands of families to be displaced from their communities—isolated, unsupported, and increasingly dependent on temporary housing. But with a renewed focus on building homes, reforming placements, and restoring local capacity, this Labour government is beginning to chart a new course. 

It won’t be fixed overnight. But by championing a ‘build now’ principle and improving oversight and coordination between local authorities, we can ensure that housing policy no longer uproots lives—but helps people plant roots instead.

See more from:

Categories
Blog Post Class of 2024

Safe as houses: how this Government is putting building safety at the top of the agenda.

Image by Okeanweb licensed under Pixabay

The UK has a housing crisis. After 14 years of failed Tory government, the symptoms of this crisis will be all-too-familiar to so many of our constituents. From skyrocketing rents to unaffordable homes, the housing shortage is having a huge impact, and this Government has rightly prioritised addressing this.

But there is another side to the housing crisis that is equally important: building safety. Events of recent years have put this issue at the forefront of our national conversation about housing. It has been eight years since that terrible night in June 2017 when the fire tore through Grenfell Tower due to unsafe flammable cladding and claimed at least 72 lives. It seems scarcely believable that after all this time so much vital safety work has not even begun. How can it be that thousands still live in fear of another cladding fire?

This is a problem that I know only too well. My constituency of Southampton Itchen has one of the highest number of high-rise buildings with unsafe cladding in Hampshire. Shockingly, remediation work has started at barely a third of these properties. My casework inbox and surgeries are full of heartbreaking stories from residents, including from leaseholders who cannot sell because banks will not offer mortgages on their properties. Those in this unenviable position tell me they feel like prisoners, trapped in homes where they do not feel safe. Others are finding themselves suddenly evacuated from their homes when their buildings fail long-delayed safety assessments. When, shortly after the election, I organised a meeting for constituents who had been affected by cladding, our large meeting room was filled by more than 60 constituents, each with their own story of stress and uncertainty stretching back months and years. Enough is enough. My constituents – and others across the country – have lived with this nightmare for too long.

sign up to red brick’s free newsletter

I am pleased that after years of dither and delay, we are finally seeing some meaningful action in this area. The government’s strengthened Remediation Acceleration Plan should help to overcome the most serious barriers that have slowed down the process to a snail’s pace. More stringent target dates for making buildings safe and tougher penalties for developers and landlords who do not meet their obligations are long overdue.

It is a fundamental principle of fairness that homeowners and tenants should not have to carry to cost of fixing building safety issues. Why should my constituents who bought or rent their homes in good faith be penalised for something that is not their fault? They should not – and I am pleased that this government agrees, as shown by its determination to bring forward the introduction of the new Building Safety Levy to Autumn 2026. This is a levy on new residential buildings that meet certain criteria, and it will raise revenue to be spent on building safety. It is a vital measure to ensure that the industry that holds collective responsibility for long-standing building safety issues make a fair contribution, and that ordinary hardworking people aren’t left out of pocket.

It is right and fair that we extract a fair contribution from the housing industry, and by bringing the levy into effect in Autumn 2026, the government is giving registered Building Control approvers time to prepare for the levy; and housing developers who will pay the levy will have reasonable time to factor levy cost into their financial planning. It may be that we need to go further in ensuring that housing providers are not rewarded for failure, and as we look forward to an uptick in construction activity, I think that many of my constituents would agree that any housing providers that do not comply with their obligations to homeowners and tenants should be firmly out of the running for any new contracts or funding.

These are all steps in the right direction that will be welcomed by constituents. But we need to do more. When I met with the Building Safety Minister Alex Norris recently, I suggested several policy priorities that have emerged from and been shaped by the many conversations which I have had with those affected. Some of these focused specifically on cladding and fire safety – for example, further work to support leaseholders living in developments below the 11-metre threshold. But others spoke to the increasingly common opinion among my constituents that our archaic and centuries-old leasehold system is no longer fit for purpose. With so many leaseholders suffering delays to remediation and other fire safety works due to unfair and unreasonable practices from managing agents and landlords, it is little wonder that so many of my constituents feel that it’s high time for more radical change.

The Labour Government has rightly pledged to get Britain building again and finally deliver the new homes that are so desperately needed. But surely one of the lessons from this long-running crisis is that speed and cost-cutting cannot be at the expense of safety. That is why my constituents have supported my call for measures to ensure the long-term quality and standards of future housing developments.             

Many long-suffering constituents – especially leaseholders, who bought their homes in good faith – tell me that they have heard too many promises before. While this scepticism is understandable, the onus is now on all of us across Westminster and beyond to show that actions speak louder than words. While there is still much to do, our first year in power has seen this government clearly signal its intention to get to grips with building safety, and I hope this gives my constituents the confidence that the action they have waited so long for is finally on its way.

See also:

Categories
Blog Post Class of 2024

Can building homes help Labour beat populism? 

Image by Mikael Blomkvist licensed under Pexels

Populist politics thrive when people feel the system is not working for them. Nowhere is this clearer than in the housing system, which has failed too many for too long. Over 1.3 million homes currently sit empty, rents are at record highs, and many young people are forced to live with their parents well into adulthood. If Labour is to win against the populist Right, we must show that we can make the basics work for ordinary people. And being able to put a warm, safe, affordable roof over your head is surely the most of basic of rights.

Labour’s commitment to building 1.5 million homes within this Parliament represents more than just housing policy – it is a political opportunity. It is a chance to demonstrate that we can deliver real change. To show that we can tackle the cost-of-living crisis, drive economic growth, and equip a new generation with the skills they need to thrive. And in doing so we can undercut the populist playbook, help to repair some of the lost faith in mainstream politics, and provide the job opportunities that give people hope for the future.

Sign up to red brick’s free newsletter

We know the previous Conservative government failed to invest in council or social housing, failed to make the case for housebuilding, and failed to align our education system with the skills needed to build the homes we so desperately require. Not because the challenge was insurmountable, but because of a lack of political will. The consequences of this are stark. In 1991, 67 per cent of 23 to 34-year-olds in the UK owned a home. By 2024, that figure had fallen to around 15 per cent. Meanwhile, the private rented sector became unbalanced against renters, and our social housing stock was decimated from the Thatcherite Right to Buy policies of the 1980s. 

Housing was never a problem that was going to be solved with a few tweaks. It needed a bold solution, and thankfully the new Labour government is committed to delivering that through both practical support and strong political messaging. I frequently say that skills underpin the ability of Labour to meet all its five missions in Government, but nowhere is this more obvious than in the goal to build 1.5 million new homes to finally deal with the supply problem that has characterised the housing crisis for decades.

So, what is Labour doing to support construction skills? 

Firstly, we have allocated funding for 120,000 extra educational places for young people to gain construction skills. Providing opportunities for young people who are not academic, and holding technical training and qualifications in the same esteem as university, was an important pillar of Keir Starmer’s messaging in the lead up to the General Election. I was delighted to hear how much he valued technical education when announcing the skills mission at Mid-Kent College in my constituency last year, drawing on his father’s employment experience as a toolmaker. There is still more to do to improve people’s attitudes towards technical skills and knowledge of the career opportunities they can lead to. The Government’s planned overhaul of the National Careers Service, which will be more integrated with local Job Centres, gives us the opportunity to do this but we must start reaching young people earlier – ideally in primary school.

We have also created Skills England, a new body within the Department for Education, that I hope will be more nimble and responsive to business needs, and which will have clear Ministerial accountability to the Education Secretary. This link to business is important – we must make sure that we are giving people the training that will lead to a job at the end of it. Thankfully, our other reforms, such as scrapping the failed Apprenticeship Levy, will make it easier for businesses to engage with our currently complex and fragmented skills system. More details will follow from Ministers about how the new Growth and Skills Levy, which replaces the Apprenticeship Levy, will work. But we do know that it will be designed to be simpler and more flexible to business needs, two principles which have been hugely welcomed by employers, skills providers, and trade bodies, and particularly those in the construction sector.

I am particularly keen to see that the Growth and Skills Levy works for Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). In Medway, which includes my Rochester and Strood constituency, over ninety per cent of all businesses are SMEs. This is a common situation outside our major cities. I know from my visits to local businesses and roundtable discussions that many SMEs do not engage with the apprenticeship system, although they would like to, because they have had bad experiences in the past trying to navigate it. While larger businesses have Human Resource departments that help with this, smaller businesses struggle both with the paperwork involved and the loss of a staff member for extended periods from the “shop floor” during training. It is imperative that Labour’s new system works for all types of businesses. Otherwise, areas like mine, whose economies and labour markets are dominated by SMEs, will not be able to see that extra money for construction skills translate into local jobs and economic growth.

It is giving people opportunities and a better quality of living that will help us tackle the threat of populist parties like Reform. The skills policies I have outlined above, combined with the £3.9bn per year for the next decade allocated to a new Affordable Homes Programme in the Comprehensive Spending Review, are major steps towards achieving that goal within this parliament. But this is about more than policy – it is also about persuasion. We must take the British people on a journey with us. We must win the argument that housebuilding is not just necessary – it is the right thing to do. It is right for jobs, for growth, for small and medium-sized businesses, and for the future of our communities.

Many of the UK’s think-tanks are analysing the recent local elections results that saw Reform do so well. One of the correlations with a high Reform turnout was a low percentage of people with degrees. One hypothesis is that opportunities for non-graduates are poor, and that this translates into a lack of social mobility and feelings that the system does not work for them. Well paid, skilled jobs, like those in construction, are a straightforward way that Labour can tackle this. Doing so will not only provide the opportunities that people from non-graduate backgrounds want and need, it will also help us build the decent quality homes that many people feel have fallen out of reach. By tackling these twin concerns around jobs and homes, we can start to make people feel the system is working for them again thanks to a Labour government.

See more from:

Categories
Blog Post Class of 2024

New Towns are a Labour success story – now these young towns need Labour again

I owe a big part of my identity to the New Towns Act 1946. I was born and raised in Telford; it’s integral to who I am, and being a New Town is integral to what Telford is.

Towns like Telford, Milton Keynes, Northampton and Washington have a unique story to tell, and it’s a story not enough people know. We’re living, breathing embodiments of the aspiration and social mobility that characterised Attlee’s and Wilson’s Britain. New Towns made a new life possible for families like mine: it wasn’t just a massive increase in the housing supply – though that was significant – it was access to jobs, education and training, high-quality green space and nature, new communities. New Towns were a new vision for a new Britain.

To this day, if you take a visit to Telford you can see that vision. Telford & Wrekin Council builds homes at a faster rate than almost any other local authority in the country – with more than 1,200 new homes built last year alone – and the design of our town means there’s no conflict between housebuilding and protecting green spaces. Quite the opposite: access to green space is one of the most important assets a new home can have, and Telford was designed with that in mind. The work of the Labour-run council, including during my time as Leader, has given our town 20 designated nature reserves (with three more proposed) covering over 600 hectares, and more than 300 protected green spaces – comfortably above the national average. The great strength of New Towns is that they’re built to facilitate community, giving residents access to schools, education, retail and other key infrastructure on their doorstep.

Existing towns, cities and villages have a tendency to entrench inequality and deprivation. Living in a poorer area – an area with higher crime rates, worse transport connectivity, fewer schools, fewer jobs – can deny you opportunities, and without those opportunities it can be hard to escape the area that’s holding you back. New Towns – or, as we call ourselves now, young towns – like Telford offered a fresh start, and in a time when living standards were rising and families could dream of a better future for their children, that new start was an opportunity to forge a better life.

There’s an all-too-familiar twist in the New Towns fairytale, though: like with most of what’s great about this country, it all changed when the Tories got their hands on it. New Towns aren’t a fait accomplit; you’re trying to recreate the centuries of development that most towns have under their belts in just a few decades, so you need continued investment and attention to sustain the rapid growth.

Sign up to red brick’s free newsletter

Instead, the Conservative Governments of the 1980s and 1990s did what Conservatives do best: wash their hands of all responsibility, and turn growth into decline. New Town Development Corporations – key to successful building, planning and growth – gave way to inert quangos and private corporations, which served to block growth rather than facilitate it.

Every New Town MP and council leader will tell you the same thing: all our housing and infrastructure was built at the same time, and a lack of regeneration means it’s all crumbling at the same time. Population growth, job creation and urban development have all stagnated because there hasn’t been the drive from central government to grow them, despite the obvious opportunities to do so. Starting with Thatcher, successive governments grew complacent; they saw the rapid growth of New Towns, and concluded that they were a complete project which would take care of themselves. They should have inferred that even more growth was possible if the effort was sustained.

Thanks to the new Labour Government, we’re seeing renewed focus on New Towns. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister both appreciate the massive role New Towns can play in fixing the housing crisis, and in kickstarting the growth and social mobility that we haven’t seen for far too long. Britain today isn’t the aspirational nation it once was, thanks to the Tories’ age-old approach of managed decline. Inequality has widened and solidified, and it’s grown much harder for parents like me to imagine greater prosperity and security for our children. New Towns can help fix that, offering parents stuck in deprived areas the chance of a safer, friendlier community, with better access to jobs, schools and more.

Given the scale of the housing crisis – and the nature of the solutions – we need to get to work quickly, and the Government has done that. The New Towns Taskforce has been fully established and begun its work, and the first step of the process – identifying potential sites – is well underway. Building New Towns is far from a quick fix, but ambition and urgency will make a major difference to the timescales we’re looking at. The Prime Minister has pledged that construction will start before the end of this Parliament – that’s exactly the kind of ambition we need.

What’s even more encouraging – but not appreciated enough – is that the Government understands the roles young towns can play in delivering new ones. New Towns have never been built from scratch; they’ve always been expansions of existing villages. When looking for sites, it would be foolish to overlook the towns with the highest rates of housebuilding and growth, and the greatest potential for more building – that’s New Towns, many of which are awash with space and boast strong track records of delivering high-quality homes at speed and scale. To that end, the reports that the 12 sites selected will include some young towns are very welcome.

What I and other champions of New Towns are at pains to stress, though, is that this isn’t all young towns have to offer when planning for new ones. The questions of how to resume growth of existing New Towns and how to successfully deliver the next generation of New Towns are one and the same. As I said earlier, the current generation of New Towns remain a work in progress; similarly, the success of the next generation won’t just be measured 20 years from now, it’ll be measured 60 years from now, when we’ll see whether these New Towns unlocked their full potential, or just became like any other towns.

In Telford, Stevenage, Basildon and other young towns, we have a blueprint for the next generation – and in some cases, we have the structure around which the next generation will be built. Now is the perfect opportunity to revive the political will of our Labour forebears and make our New Towns the major urban centres they can be, so that when the next generation of New Towns have been set up, they’ll know where to go – and they’ll know that the sky’s the limit.

And in more practical terms, if we want to deliver exponential regional growth – which is an imperative given the anaemic growth outside the South-East we’ve seen over the last few decades – we need to create new hubs around which to build future settlements. One of the most important variables in the trajectories of existing New Towns has been their proximity to a town or city that itself has been growing. Milton Keynes, for example, has benefitted from having London on its doorstep; Telford is likewise better off for having Birmingham as a neighbour. It’s much easier to entice people to a New Town if you can offer the jobs and opportunities of a thriving population centre a short drive or train journey away. Now, what London was (and is) to Milton Keynes, Milton Keynes can be to the rest of Bedfordshire; what Birmingham is to Telford, Telford can be to Shropshire and Mid-Wales. If we create jobs, wealth and vibrant communities in our young towns, it’ll become much easier to create new settlements in areas around them with the potential to build.

2024 wasn’t quite 1945 – there’s been no world war, no destruction, no big reset – but we can see that same need for optimism and aspiration today that drove Attlee’s governments back then. Building a New Jerusalem meant making what had previously been pipe dreams possible for people who had previously been trapped in poverty or insecurity, and while the scale might be smaller today, New Towns are part of the New Jerusalem that’s needed. New Towns symbolise that aspiration and the chance of social mobility, and they symbolise turning decline and inequality into growth and opportunity. This Government must be a successor to Attlee, not to Thatcher, and deliver that New Jerusalem.

These clusters of housing and economic growth, created by Labour and protected by Labour, now stand ready as confident young towns – with the ability, the aspiration, the hunger to once more contribute to the re-building of Britain.

See more from:

Categories
Blog Post

The Supported Housing Act needs to back good providers

Image from Age without limit's Age-positive image library

In February, the Government announced detailed proposals to take forward the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act, including new national standards, a licensing regime, and changes to Housing Benefit.

The Act went through Parliament in 2023 in response to the emergence of rogue, poor-quality landlords in the sector, charging high rents but providing little meaningful support for residents.

The Act’s aim is to ensure consistent, high-quality standards across the country, whether the supported housing is for those who have experienced homelessness, older people, people with learning disabilities, or other groups in need.

While the introduction of national standards and a push towards higher quality is much-needed, the Act needs to get the balance right in driving out rogue providers, while ensuring good-quality providers do not face negative consequences.

There are several areas where we think the government needs to think again.

Sign up to red brick’s free newsletter

An important drive towards national standards

The overall ambition of the Act – to ensure only providers who meet new standards are given a licence to operate – is the right one.

In its initial proposals, the government has set out principles to guide the supported housing sector, plus seven different standards that providers will be measured against. These include standards focused on person-centred support, empowering residents, protecting the environment, staff and safeguarding, and meeting local need.

As part of Emmaus UK’s response to a government consultation on these measures, we surveyed 161 residents and staff at our own supported housing charities and heard strong support for the standards, averaging at 93% agreement for the seven standards. In a series of workshops, residents told us the standards largely reflect what they believe is good-quality supported housing.

It was also clear, however, that some standards need to be strengthened, including the need to give residents a wider range of ways to shape their support, and to enable strong relationships to be built with multiple support staff.

We also recommend the government ensures alignment with other standards many providers already follow, for instance, via the Regulator of Social Housing. The standards should also include a greater focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion, ensuring supported housing meets the needs of specific groups, such as the LGBTQ+ community and women.

Backing good providers

Emmaus UK has concerns with the possible impact of new measures on good-quality providers, in many cases smaller organisations. Large amounts of money, time, and resources will be required for providers to apply for licenses, and evidence that they are meeting the new standards.

The result could be greater pressures being placed on the supported housing sector. We are already in a place where, last year, a third of supported housing providers had to close schemes because of funding pressures, and 60% say they will be forced to close schemes in the future.

There are several specific steps which we think the Government can take to reduce pressures. Firstly, providers need additional funding to go alongside the new burdens, funding we anticipate local authorities will receive. There should be detailed and ongoing guidance, support and training, including maximum transparency on requirements and having an adequate lead-in time to meet the standards. Local authorities should also provide training in their areas.

Secondly, the government should reconsider the definition of a ‘scheme’. Under current proposals, each separate postal address would require a separate licence. This could leave providers with lots of dispersed supported housing of only a few units each in an impossible position. They would need many different licences, driving up costs and disincentivising this type of supported housing at a time when more is desperately needed.

Thirdly, the government needs to ensure greater consistency in how the Act is rolled out across the country. We do not think it will be necessary for local authorities to apply discretionary conditions, which could create unpredictability for providers operating in different areas. We also believe that there should be a standardised licence fee rate rather than authorities choosing different amounts, or at the very least a cap.

Homeless Link have proposed a new national body to oversee licensing and ensure geographical consistency, something which we would support.

Creating a thriving supported housing sector

Making these practical improvements will help to get the balance right in bringing in strong new standards, while helping good providers to operate well.

We know the Act is not the only piece in the jigsaw to help the supported housing sector thrive. That is why we are backing the National Housing Federation’s ‘Save Our Supported Housing’ campaign, calling for the government’s housing-related support to increase to at least £1.6bn per year and for the homelessness and housing strategies to recognise the vital role of our sector.

Indeed, the withdrawal of funding for supported housing has contributed to the rise in the rogue, bad-quality providers seeking profit that the Supported Housing Act seeks to eliminate.

Getting the Supported Housing Act right is crucial for creating the high-quality supported housing sector that residents deserve. While there is strong support from residents and staff for new standards, we strongly urge the government to consider the impact on good-quality, often small, providers.

Let’s get this crucial piece of legislation right.

Categories
Blog Post

Not so nimby after all?

Politicians, like people, often define themselves by what they are not – by what, and who, they are opposed to. They usually like to do so knowing they have public opinion on their side.

Before last year’s election, Sir Keir Starmer was happy to identify as a YIMBY (Yes In My Back Yard) – someone who is supportive of local housebuilding – rather than a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) and committed to backing the “builders over the blockers”.

But is the country on his side? Ipsos polling suggests that they are, with Britons’ instincts appearing to be more ‘build’, than ‘block’. In principle, 46% support building more homes in their local area, while 25% oppose it. But a substantial 24% are neither supportive nor opposed and other Ipsos research has shown attitudes to be conditional, based on what is proposed.

subscribe to red brick’s free newsletter

However, if people lean more instinctively towards YIMBYism, they do not know it. While 26% expect that more people support building new homes than oppose it, 42% think that more oppose than support it and 20% think support and opposition are matched (12% say they do not know).

This suggests that NIMBYism is less prevalent than is often portrayed. NIMBYs are, themselves, particularly out of touch – while 28% of those who support building new homes wrongly believe that opponents outnumber supporters, 72% of opponents to new homes wrongly believe that they are in the majority.

This matters because, when asked what the primary factors are contributing to Britain’s housing shortage, the public continue to see opposition at the top of the list, alongside the financial position of local councils preventing them from building new homes, and a restrictive planning system. It is especially salient among opponents of new building.

This data has several political implications. First, it should embolden Labour, and local politicians, to be positive about housebuilding in both language and deed. Second, it gives YIMBYs a new target to take on – in addition to NIMBYism itself – the mistaken notion that opposition to housebuilding is the prevailing social norm (something which can be an important influence on public opinion).

These findings should give encouragement to YIMBYs and supporters of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Moreover, polling shows that the public tend towards supporting rather than opposing several of the Government’s planning policies, ranging from the mandatory installation of solar panels on new-build property to developing ‘grey belt’ land.

But there is also plenty of jeopardy ahead for Labour. Britons think that the means of how housebuilding is done matters as much, if not more, than the ends. Six in ten (61%) say that higher priority should be given to protecting and improving the environment even if it means fewer homes are built, three times the proportion (19%) who say that priority should be given to building homes quickly, even if it comes at the expense of environmental concerns.

An identical pattern exists in favour of prioritising the views of local councils and residents over the volume and speed of construction, a preference which is particularly strong among opponents of new building.

These sentiments explain the relative unpopularity of one component of the Bill – the extension of compulsory purchase – and the popularity of another – requiring developers to contribute to a Nature Restoration Fund.

In a similar vein, previous polling by Ipsos found that the public prioritises improving the quality and design of new homes over simply increasing the number of homes built (by contrast, MPs view both aspects as equally important). And public support for building varies according to the design aesthetics of new builds.

To put it mildly, the politics of housebuilding is littered with potential traps for politicians of all stripes. What makes public opinion endlessly fascinating, sometimes frustrating, is its nuance. People favour local decision-making but also central targets. They see the merits of new housing supply but bemoan the strain on existing infrastructure.

The data suggests that NIMBYism isn’t the dominating force it is sometimes made out to be, but neither can YIMBYs just turn up and win. While there is significant appetite for both building and planning reform, these are views, not values, liable to shift and change according to people’s lived and local experiences.

The public – and Labour’s own voters – will not look kindly on a system that shuts out local people who will live in, or nearby, over a million new homes.

Builders build houses. But so too do hearts and minds.