Tag: Housing

Categories
Blog Post

How building Council housing can help Labour beat Reform UK

How to beat Reform UK? It’s the question many in the Labour Party are now asking, with increasing desperation.

Alienated from mainstream politics and politicians, Reform UK supporters see Labour as the ‘establishment’ with little concern or understanding for their lives or their problems. To reach Reform supporters, Labour needs to show in practical, concrete ways that it ‘gets’ Reform voters’ concerns. Labour needs to deliver practical and concrete improvements across the country.

The answer is straightforward. Labour needs to build more council homes and create more non-graduate jobs. And we can do both at the same time using the same money.

Building more council homes in every part of the country will directly benefit those families who are currently in housing need. Those who are overcrowded or who need a smaller home. Those who are homeless and living in expensive and substandard private rented accommodation. Those whose children and grandchildren are paying through the roof to private landlords for very basic accommodation.

Many of these families have lost faith in mainstream politics after 14 years of failed Conservative governments when few new council homes were built and many continued to be sold off. We need to show, by our actions, that the needs of the non-graduates living in non-metropolitan parts of the country are just as much a priority for Labour as anywhere else.

The new council homes Labour builds should benefit the widest range of families. When new council homes are being built, existing residents should know that they will benefit, too. A central message should be that the new council homes are not just for ‘other people’ or ‘outsiders’, they are for people like YOU. Using local housing allocation policies in operation on many Labour councils already, half the new homes should go to those families who have been waiting patiently for a bigger or smaller home. The other half should go to those who are currently homeless or have been languishing on the housing waiting list.

Building new council homes needs a range of traditional non-graduate skills – bricklayers, plumbers, electricians, plasterers, scaffolders, painters, decorators, carpenters. Just watch an episode of Nick Knowles’ DIY SOS to see the wide range of non-graduate trades needed to build or renovate a house.

Using existing construction companies, local subcontractors and their employees will benefit, too. Many of these subcontractors will be small businesses and will get a real boost by Labour’s council house building programme. Local council house building programmes will give small construction companies the long-term commitment needed to plan their investment.

Working with local colleges, we need a massive construction skills training programme, equipping people of all ages with a skill that will form the basis of a lifetime working career. Construction skills give access to jobs in every part of the country and to any country in the world. You can work for a company or be your own boss, working hard to build a business that gives you and your family financial security and independence. The construction workers benefitting from Labour’s council house building programme will have a real and tangible stake in the economy and in society.

When the new residents move in, some will want new furniture, new carpets and new white goods. Buying these will help local shops and help grow the wider economy. Others will want to paint or paper the walls and add a few personal touches, benefitting local DIY shops.

And don’t forget that the new council tenants will be paying rent to the Council which will then be used to pay back the money it borrowed to build the new homes.

As John Harris wrote in a recent ‘Guardian article, the politics are very basic,

“Four decades ago, many of Reform UK’s older supporters had their lives transformed by Margaret Thatcher’s policy of encouraging people to buy their council houses at huge discounts; now, their daughters, sons and grandchildren live with the dire housing crisis that policy caused. If you understand at least some of the rising ire about immigration as fear of even more competition for scarce resources, housing is right at its heart: in my experience, no other issue comes near its impact on everyday life.”

We have it in our power to embark on the biggest council housing programme since 1945. If we don’t take this opportunity and then lose out to Reform UK in 2029, it will be our own fault. Let’s not make this mistake!

Categories
10-year plan for housing Blog Post

What does the housing sector need from Government to deliver on their long-term ambitions for housing?

As Director of Policy and Public Affairs at The Housing Forum I work with organisations from across the whole of the housing sector – from construction companies and architects, to housebuilders, housing associations and local authorities. I also keep abreast of housing policy – helping our members understand new developments and ensuring the government understands the needs of the sector.

The last year has been a fascinating time to have one foot in industry and one in policy circles. On the policy side, it’s the most positive I’ve ever seen. The new government has come in with huge enthusiasm to tackle the housing problems in the country, a willingness to burn political capital in doing so and – above all – a willingness to listen. It’s been greeted with pretty much unanimous enthusiasm from across the sector too. Yet at the same time, in the sector itself, the financial challenges are huge. After 15 years of high house price growth, the market sector is struggling with the slow-down alongside a sharp rise in construction costs, whilst the social housing sector struggles also with increased costs of building safety and maintaining existing homes, rising costs of borrowing and grant rates that just aren’t stacking up to support the building of much-needed new social housing.

sign up for red brick’s free newsletter

So what does it need to do to turn this tough situation around and build the new homes, including social housing, that we need?

The first and biggest answer has to be funding. Keen to establish themselves as fiscally responsible, Labour came to power making few promises that involved any spending – and there have been no major funding announcements for housing as yet, though the sector awaits the Spring Spending Review with trepidation. The next Affordable Homes Programme will be the main source of funding for developing new social housing. Grant rates need to be high enough to bridge the gap between construction and land costs, and the amount that landlords can borrow against future rental income. If the government also wants to sector to prioritise social rented housing over other options (Affordable Rent, or shared ownership) then this requires additional funding, as the subsidy required per dwelling is significantly higher.

The other way to support the sector is to support the finances of social landlords, so they’re better able to raise capital. The Building Safety Fund ensures that leaseholders do not have to pay for remediating fire safety issues, but social landlords have not been protected and are having to pay from reserves. If landlords are having to spend their own reserves on remediation, they cannot commit this same money to developing new housing, and nor can they borrow if their capital position is not strong enough. Fully funding building safety work for the social housing sector would be the first step to getting some of the biggest social housebuilders, who have the expertise – and in many cases already own the vacant sites – to build again.

Supporting the social housing sector in this way will not only help build the new social housing we need, but will also help the whole of the housing sector moving towards the 1.5 million new homes target – especially while the market for sales remains stagnant.

But Government doesn’t have unlimited funds, and housing is by no means the only call on them. So what else could government do that doesn’t involve funding?

Planning is a big part of the answer, and the new Government has hit the ground running with planning reform. The changes are welcome, and will now need time to bed in, alongside maintaining the strong rhetoric to ensure all areas play their part in delivering against the new targets.

Government could look to reduce the subsidy needed for social housing by looking at social rents. The previous government reduced rents for four years, meaning that they are currently significantly lower in real terms than they were in 2010. The G15 (group of the largest housing associations in the London area) has calculated that 29% of’ homes are currently below target rent, losing them £67.7m each year in rental income. They could also consider allowing higher rents for more energy-efficient homes, something that we’ve called for at The Housing Forum, to help leverage in some private finance for retrofitting. Increasing rents could see a backlash from tenants (as well as increased costs born by the DWP via higher benefit claims). A key concern would be the impact on those affected by the benefit cap – abolishing the cap would ensure that the welfare safety net works effectively for all types of families to help them afford their rent.

And finally, looking to the longer term and to a higher rate of housebuilding across many years, the government needs to ensure that the sector has the skilled workers it needs:

  • Increased investment is needed in training and developing the workforce. FE Colleges must create training facilities and training that meets with the skills requirements of employers and the sector.
  • Staff in FE colleges and universities need to undertake continued professional development to ensure that they are up to speed with the current practice and regulations around construction.
  • Government should make dramatic improvements to careers guidance in schools to help teenagers make informed decisions about the later stages of their education, and much better knowledge of the types of job opportunities that are out there. Work experience, part-time jobs, internships and visits to local employers can all help.
  • There needs to be clear pathways for young people from school into the many different careers in construction, which includes both building new homes and maintaining and upgrading the existing stock. The London Homes Coalition has done some good work on this area.
  • The Government should not overlook the need of mid-career switchers – who have potential to expand their skillset into growing areas, such as green technology. This requires more flexible approaches to retraining and funding.

Overall, it’s been great to see such as strong focus on housing from the new Government, particularly around planning reform. But it’s now time for them to put their money where their mouth is in terms of the affordable housing sector.

Categories
Blog Post

Building homes connected to infrastructure, the benefits of Transit Oriented Developments

What is a Transit Oriented Development

A Transit Oriented Development (TOD) is an urban planning approach that focuses on creating high-density, mixed-use communities centred around public transit hubs.

At its core, TOD integrates transport infrastructure, such as rail, bus, or metro stations, with surrounding land use to create accessible, liveable communities that are well-connected by public transit and complemented by high-quality public spaces.

Over the past few decades, TOD projects have been implemented across the globe, showcasing the concept’s broad appeal and effectiveness in reshaping urban landscapes.

Sign up to red brick’s free newsletter

Key Benefits of TOD:

  • Environmental Sustainability: TODs promote public transit use and reduce car dependency, which leads to lower greenhouse gas emissions and a reduced overall environmental footprint.
  • Reduced Traffic Congestion: By encouraging the use of public transport, TODs alleviate road congestion, contributing to more efficient urban mobility.
  • Economic Development: TODs stimulate local economies by fostering vibrant communities, increasing foot traffic for businesses, generating employment opportunities, and potentially enhancing property values.
  • Improved Quality of Life: Residents of TOD communities enjoy reduced commute times, convenient access to amenities, and a stronger sense of community, contributing to a higher quality of life.
  • Placemaking: Through the creation of pedestrian-friendly pathways, non-vehicular routes, and public plazas, TODs prioritize walkability and cultivate dynamic public spaces that enhance the sense of place and community engagement.

Overall, TODs represent a forward-thinking approach to urban development that balances the needs of transport, environmental sustainability, and community wellbeing.

Types of Transit Oriented Developments that will boost Homebuilding

TODs offer a powerful approach to addressing the dual challenges of providing new housing and fostering sustainable urban growth. When considering TODs for housing development, it is essential to examine them at two distinct levels:

1. New Transit Hubs
TODs centered around new transit hubs are typically long-term projects that involve complex planning, substantial investment, and public-private collaboration. In the UK, for instance, the Crossrail project has demonstrated the potential for such developments to transform urban landscapes, both in terms of transit infrastructure and land value.

These types of TODs leverage the increased land value generated by new transit infrastructure, with private developers playing a key role in financing the project over the long term. Although these developments are generally not “quick wins,” they are integral to the delivery of new residential stock and the broader vision of sustainable urban growth.

2. Existing Transit Hubs
TODs developed over and around existing transit hubs offer an opportunity for more immediate impact on residential development. Given the existing infrastructure, these developments can be realised more quickly, at a lower cost, and with fewer challenges compared to new projects centered on greenfield sites. Expanding and enhancing local infrastructure within established areas is typically easier and more cost-effective than building these services from scratch in new neighborhoods.

Furthermore, the higher density typical of TODs allow for more efficient use of land, offering private developers higher rates of return. This enables the leveraging of additional funding for public and social infrastructure improvements, including social housing.

In both cases, TODs serve as a crucial tool for boosting residential housing supply, promoting public transit use, and driving urban regeneration. However, by focusing on the existing transit hub type it is likely that a real difference can be made in a shorter timeframe by potentially utlilising the thousands of transit hubs all over the country.

What can be done to Enable Transit Oriented Developments around Existing Transit Hubs

1. Over-Station Development

One of the most promising forms of TOD is the redevelopment of existing buildings or the construction of new developments directly above transit hubs, known as over-station development. While this approach maximizes land use in high-demand areas, it often comes with high costs, potential disruptions, and safety concerns, particularly if the transit hub must remain operational during construction.

In some cases, the potential value of land created by developing space over transit hubs justifies the complexities involved. A notable example of such a project is the ongoing development at Euston Station, which demonstrates the feasibility of over-station TODs in major transit centres.

2. Land Acquisition and Cost

Redeveloping land or building new developments around transit hubs in densely populated or high-cost urban areas presents significant financial challenges. The cost of land and construction in these areas can be prohibitively high, limiting the scope for TODs. However, Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) can mitigate this by changing zoning regulations to allow for greater density and height in the areas surrounding transit hubs.

In turn, this could help create a market for new residential and commercial properties in areas that are currently underutilised, driving both housing supply and economic growth.

3. Integration with Existing Transit Infrastructure

For TODs to be successful, they must be integrated with the existing transit infrastructure. This often requires significant upgrades to transit facilities or adjustments to accommodate the increased demand generated by higher-density developments. However, such upgrades can be costly and complex.

Through public-private partnerships, developers can help fund necessary improvements to transit infrastructure as part of the overall TOD planning process. By using ‘planning gain’ to ensure that the financial benefits of TODs are reinvested in the public transit system, they can enhance both the transport experience for commuters and the overall effectiveness of the transit network.

4. Equity Concerns and Gentrification

While TODs can bring numerous benefits, they also present the risk of gentrification, where rising demand for properties near transit hubs drives up housing costs, potentially displacing low-income residents. To mitigate this, LPAs can mandate the inclusion of social housing as part of TOD projects. By setting clear targets for affordable housing and ensuring that developments incorporate mixed-tenure communities, the negative impacts of gentrification can be managed.

5. Overcoming Knowledge Gaps

Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) often face barriers due to a lack of expertise in successfully implementing TODs. To address this, government could develop a Best Practice Toolkit for LPAs. This resource would provide planning guidance, showcase successful case studies, and offer insights into navigating public-private partnerships, funding mechanisms, and land value capture strategies.

Additionally, LPAs and LTAs can establish their own development vehicles to spearhead TOD initiatives. A prime example of this is Transport for London’s Transit Trading Limited Properties, which has accelerated the adoption of TOD in the UK by directly managing land development around Transit hubs.

Conclusion

Enabling Transit-Oriented Developments offers a compelling solution to urban housing shortages while promoting sustainable growth and reducing car dependency. By addressing key challenges such as land acquisition, infrastructure integration, and equity concerns, and by providing the necessary tools and expertise to LPAs, TODs can become a cornerstone of future urban planning.

Categories
Blog Post

How the New Zealand retirement village model might work for the UK

'Woman sitting by window' from the Centre for Ageing Better's age-positive image library

Around 53,400 older people chose to live in a retirement village in New Zealand, and 130 people move in each week. This is around 14% of the over-75 demographic nationally and retirement villages have moved from being boutique and misunderstood to a mainstream housing option for older people. For more information about the sector’s growth, market share and development pipeline, see Retirement Villages Market Review | 2024 | JLL Research

Why have villages been so successful? The village promise has four key components:

  • A warm, dry, age-appropriate place to live (houses in NZ are often large and expensive to maintain);
  • The opportunity to make new friends and try new activities;
  • A high degree of financial security (residents know to the last dollar what they pay to move in, know exactly what they’ll get back at the end, and if they’re living in one of the 70% of villages that offer fixed weekly fees, the cost of living in the village will never increase while they’re living there); and
  • A pathway to aged care if that’s required. 65% of villages have a care facility on the campus.

However, this promise isn’t free. The principal business model is called a “licence to occupy” (LTO) and consists of the payment of a capital sum to move in, the payment of a regular fee (often fixed for life) to cover village day-to-day costs, and when the resident dies or moves to care, the operator refurbishes their unit to bring it back to as-new and a new resident moves in. Once the operator has the incoming resident’s capital payment, the outgoing resident is re-paid their original capital sum less a Deferred Management Fee (DMF) that, amongst other things, is the operator’s return on investment.

Subscribe to red brick’s free newsletter

This graphic illustrates the model. The resident’s capital sum is protected in the retirement villages legislation and their right to live in the village protected by contract. The consumer protection balances residents’ rights with operators’ duties and responsibilities. The key detail in this model, which enables the operator to make the promises outlined earlier, is that the resident has no ownership interest in their unit or the village, and is therefore protected from the vicissitudes of property ownership – insurance, taxes, repairs and maintenance, and so forth. For many older people, the release from the responsibilities of owning property is a major reason to move.

It’s worth noting that while 70% of villages fix their weekly fee that covers the overheads and day-to-day operation of the village, the costs the fee covers continue to increase even if the income from the fee doesn’t increase. This means that the operator directly cross-subsidizes the residents’ day-to-day overheads from the deferred management fee and any gains in re-licensing the units. Only a retirement village offers this level of financial security for older people.

Another important reason to move is the release of equity in their family home. Retirement villages charge around 70% of the average freehold selling price in the area where they’re built, which allows a resident to sell their home, move to a village and often have substantial amounts of equity to add to their retirement savings. This can make a substantial improvement in the quality of their retirement and allows them to do things they’ve always wanted to but couldn’t afford.

Where an aged care facility is part of the village, the residents get first call on a bed over someone in the community, should they need one. Over the last 10 years or so the only care facilities built have been part of a retirement village, and often the cost of providing care is cross-subsidised by the revenue (and profit) from the village. This pathway to care is another important consideration for older people, and is a key benefit offered by a village.

With the demographics on our side, the retirement village sector has a lot going for it. However, with the governing Act now 20 years old, there are calls for its review, and some stakeholders maintain there’s an imbalance of power; the operators call the shots and residents have to take it or leave it. 

In fact, the regulations encourage the development of a very flexible business models that allow residents to chose from a variety of options – price, service levels, DMF rates, sharing capital gains, and so forth. 

The government has been reviewing the legislation and recently announced that they would focus on just three issues – the treatment of repairs and maintenance, a review of the complaints and disputes regime, and encouraging operators to refund residents capital sums sooner once they move out. 

Operators are relaxed about these reforms, provided the latter doesn’t result in mandatory buybacks and the financial risks that accompany such a move. However, the proposed changes reflect innovations the RVA has already led so most operators have them well in hand.

Possible learnings for the UK

The Older Peoples’ Housing Taskforce recently released their report into an extensive study of how older people might have more choice about where they live. Recommendation Five notes the need for homes that have good age-appropriate design, are affordable, are close to where the intending resident lives and yet are attractive to housing developers.

The Taskforce’s Recommendation Eight notes the importance of offering a range of different housing types with a clear understanding of fees and costs. Their “4 Key Messages” of “Think Housing, Address Ageing, Promote Well-being and provide Inclusive Communities” are at the heart of the NZ retirement village model.

You can access the Taskforce’s report here

Retirement villages are spread across the entire country – cities to provincial and rural towns. The business model works well anywhere, provided residents have the capital sum (and even that is negotiable). Retirement village operators are also the country’s largest home builders and the Retirement Villages Association estimates that around 5,500 family homes are released annually back into the housing market. Villages are significant contributors to easing the chronic housing shortage.

The financial security villages offer residents means a significant improvement in their well-being, general health, and personal sense of security. However, only villages can offer this because the operators continue to own the land and buildings and are responsible for their maintenance and upkeep. Specialist legislation to protect residents’ and operators’ interests is an effective way to allow villages to be built, but it’s essential that the legislation is sufficiently flexible to allow different business models to evolve as the market matures.

Appendix G in the Housing Taskforce’s report includes an outline of the consumer protections in the NZ retirement village-specific legislation. It’s worth noting that this legislation was passed by the Clark Labour Government in 2003 and has generally stood the test of time well.  

The transition to care is incredibly stressful for both the resident and their family. If care is part of the village package, the stress can be much less and the transition to care is effectively seamless.

Ultimately, villages work because the residents themselves have a vested interest in making them work. Villages that are resident-led (residents manage and run the activities rather than activity co-ordinators employed by the operator) tend to be more successful, popular and encourage new people to move in.

For more detailed information about the NZ Retirement Villages sector, see the RVA’s response to the Retirement Commission’s White Paper for a legislative review.

Categories
Blog Post

Is there hope for housing in the Lib Dems?

Ed Davey & SSEs Paul Smith by Department of Energy and Climate Change is licensed under CC BY-ND 2.0

2024 has been a year of unprecedented success for the Liberal Democrats. With the party seeing a record 72 MPs elected in July, the party has managed to quickly turn around a decade of difficulties since their time in the coalition government.

With this comes genuine power. The Lib Dems chair three parliamentary select committees, most notably the Health and Social Care Committee. Ed Davey has two regular questions at PMQs, allowing him an avenue to forge a national policy platform.

The Liberal Democrats are also in power across 68 local authorities across the country, covering over 6 million people.   

This success puts the party in an awkward space, and one which the British political system struggles to accommodate, as a true third party, well in advance of Reform or the Greens, but a fair distance from the official opposition.

Where the Lib Dems go next is up for debate. Are they the party of attention-grabbing stunts and comical bar-charts? Or are they a serious contender for government, needing to flip a mere 25 seats to overtake the Conservatives?

When it comes to housing, this duality runs deep.

subscribe to red brick’s free newsletter

The detail

The Lib Dems had the most detailed housing proposals of any party at the election, with over 500 words on their plans across housing delivery and homelessness. Their headline pledges were as follows:

  • Building 380,000 a year across the UK, including 150,000 social homes a year, majoring on community-lead development
  • Banning no-fault evictions, making three-year tenancies the default, and creating a national register of licensed landlords
  • Giving local authorities, the powers to end Right to Buy in their areas.
  • Ending rough sleeping within the next Parliament
  • Abolishing residential leaseholds and capping ground rents to a nominal fee

The full plan is available here, with fair detail on ending rough sleeping and empowering social tenants.

A starkly divided party

Many will be familiar with the Liberal Democrats’ divides over housing delivery, most notably at coming to a head at the party’s 2023 conference, where members defeated a motion supported by the party’s leadership which would have abandoned their target of 380,000 homes.

Some decry the party as a hub for opportunistic ‘NIMBYs’ seeking to oppose all new housing. A quick search of “Liberal Democrats” and “housing” reveals a slew of local opposition to housebuilding since the election, including in the New Forest and South Leicestershire.

But it also brings up cases of Liberal Democrats pushing Labour councils to increase their affordable housing targets in Lambeth and Southwark, highlighting inaction on an abandoned development in Wiltshire, and even facing down opposition to new homes while in administration in  the Cotswolds.

The party’s main housing figures, Vicky Slade and Gideon Amos, also have real housing experience, as a council leader and town planner respectively.

The Lib Dems in Parliament and the delivery dividing line

While some opposition parties like the Conservatives, Reform UK or even the Greens have hit out hard against some of Labour’s housing announcements, the Liberal Democrats have been more reserved in their approach.

In Parliament they have been openly supportive several of the Government’s measures, including welcoming the Government’s Remediation Acceleration Plan and voting for the Renters’ Rights Bill.

The main dividing line which they have so far placed has been on housing delivery. While the party is supportive of increasing housing supply, they have been openly critical of ‘top-down’ housing targets and have instead favoured a community-led approach, with a primary focus of delivering 150,000 social homes a year.

This was reflected most recently in Amos’ response to the Government’s NPPF reforms:

“Top-down planning diktats risk a surge in speculative greenfield permissions of the kind that the Minister is concerned about, for homes that are out of people’s reach. Instead, let us fund, incentivise and focus on the social and affordable homes that we need…”

This may be a popular rallying cry, but it ignores the reality of the past few years.

Opposing ‘top-down’ targets ignores the reality that when the last Government abandoned targets, housebuilding collapsed, and that the new Government’s approach to reinstating these has been followed by new starts increasing.

A target of 150,000 social homes a year, while admirable, ignores the fact that, even going by the more generous measure of ‘affordable homes’,  fewer than a third of this goal are currently being delivered. Using this goal as a reason to oppose new housebuilding in general, without a firm plan to deliver it, is pure opportunism.

And suggesting community-led planning as an alternative ignores the fact that few people outside of a hyper-engaged, largely more privileged minority, get involved in the planning system as it is.

While the Liberal Democrats’ vision for housebuilding may be a principled one, it appears out-of-place amid its largely more pragmatic approach. More importantly, it allows space for MPs, including the party’s Deputy Leader Daisy Cooper, to opportunistically rally against building more homes in their local area.

Is there real hope for the Lib Dems?

Unlike the other opposition parties, the Liberal Democrats have a genuine plan to solve the housing crisis, with a broad policy platform with several good ideas.

In order to have a real impact, however, the party needs to moderate its anti-housing opportunists and play less into the populist rallying cries of more minor parties. Most importantly, it needs to acknowledge that any housing policy needs the keystone of a serious plan for delivery, which recognises both the scale of the challenge and the need for a top-down approach.

More in this series:

Categories
Blog Post

Kemi Badenoch’s shift right bodes ill for housing

Kemi Badenoch MP (North West Essex, Conservative) by House of Commons is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

The 2024 general election saw the worst result for the Conservative Party in terms of share of seats and votes since its formation in the nineteenth century.

But the Conservatives’ failure should not preclude their return. Only three Conservative leaders have failed to become prime minister, and some recent polls have already put them ahead of Labour. Even a minor swing could put them back in power, with Kemi Badenoch as prime minister.

Badenoch served as Shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government between the election and her victory in the Conservative leadership contest, and so we know more about her housing positions than other aspects of her views. And her approach so far demonstrates a worrying drift to the right.

subscribe to red brick’s free newsletter

Shifting right on renters’ reform

One of the biggest disappointments of the last Government was a failure to pass the Renters’ Reform Bill. In ending Section 21 ‘no fault’ evictions and bringing in new standards to the private rented sector, the legislation would have been life-changing for millions of private renters.

While Badenoch served in administrations which introduced this legislation, she quickly pivoted after the election to oppose Labour’s Renters’ Rights Bill, which is very similar to the Conservatives’ Bill.

Speaking at the Bill’s Second Reading, she parroted the talking points of landlord lobby groups that the bill would reduce the availability of homes in the private rental sector, while failing to discuss where those homes would go.

This potential tilt away from renters’ rights was further reinforced by Badenoch’s pick for Shadow Housing Minister: Kevin Hollinrake. Hollinrake was founder and chair of Hunters’ estate agents until 2021, and was reported to have numbered among the opponents of his own government’s Renters’ Reform Bill in 2023.

Shifting right on housing delivery

Can building homes be left or right wing? Seemingly under Kemi Badenoch it can be, as housing has become part of her wider ideological conflict with the left.

This has manifested in her blaming left wing administrations in urban centres and the bureaucratic ‘deep state’ for a failure to build the homes we need.

The former continues a long-standing trend of Conservatives trying to disproportionately focus construction in urban areas.

This is for a brazenly political reason: Conservatives have long abandoned metropolitan voters and are happy to concentrate in these areas the disruption caused by building more homes. Accordingly, in 2021 they introduced a somewhat arbitrary 35% “urban uplift” to the 20 most densely populated towns and cities outside of London, and, in 2024 Michael Gove launched a review of Sadiq Khan’s London Plan as a way to criticise the mayor for failing to deliver enough homes.

Badenoch has also continued this tradition, attacking Khan on a similar basis in three of her eight speeches as Shadow Housing Minister.

Similarly, while Badenoch has made pleas to protect the green belt, she has simultaneously started to champion a deregulatory planning policy with measures to “roll back the environmental laws, the diversity and social requirements”, blaming the bureaucratic state for the failures to build more homes.

This is a disappointing hallmark of the Conservatives’ housing policy. While the party failed to meet their own housing targets, before ditching them entirely to appease ‘NIMBY’ backbenchers, their only real solution for the lack of delivery in urban areas has been, and continues to be under Badenoch, to blame local leaders.

Shifting right on migration

A further worrying trend of Badenoch’s tenure as Shadow Housing Minister has been a shift to blame migration for the increase in rent levels, stating that “The only way to improve the lives of [private renters] is to control immigration and build more homes, particularly in high-demand areas like Inner London.”

This is not a far cry from Reform UK’s dishonest blaming migrants for the lack of social housing. Unlike Reform’s argument, which is based purely on falsehood, there is some truth to the idea that any new entrants into the private rental sector will increase demand, whatever their country of origin.

However, this is only part of the picture. Migrants already have significant barriers to renting privately, including language barriers, difficulty finding guarantors, and Right to Rent checks, and so landlords when surveyed admit that they are less likely to rent to someone without a British passport. As a 2017 briefing from the House of Commons Library states:

“Research suggests that new migrants often enter the PRS in areas of low demand, filling less desirable property left by individuals moving into better housing. This may be because some groups of migrants only have access to low-paid or insecure work, but it also reflects variations in perceptions of standards and personal priorities.”

As John Perry notes, this also means that foreign nationals are more likely to live in sub-standard accommodation, the regulation of which Badenoch strongly opposes.

While Badenoch is still new in position, the direction of her housing policy so far demonstrates a concerning shift to the right, with renters, migrants and the environment thrown under the bus. This divisive rhetoric is simply a distillation of the arguments made by the Conservatives in government, and a worrying sign that Badenoch has learned little from the lessons of the past.

More in this series:

Categories
Blog Post

A plan to boost construction industry capacity to deliver 1.5 million homes

Image by abakumada licensed by pixabay

Moving from such a low base in home building to achieve ambitious targets in a relatively short time frame will create challenges in every aspect of how the construction industry operates.

The government must engage with all the key sectors of the construction industry that will have a role in delivering their planned large-scale home building programme and develop a capacity boosting plan. Also, this plan’s success will rely on its alignment with a training and skills capacity boosting initiative

Any proposed capacity boosting plan should include two key aspects:

  • Delivery capacity building – How to structure the overall design and building of homes, neighbourhoods and towns.
  • Organisation capacity building – How to structure the development corporations and other entities charged with developing homes, neighbourhoods and towns.
Subscribe to Red brick’s free newsletter

Delivery Capacity Building

How Development Corporations should be set up

To facilitate the large-scale home building programme, local development corporations will need to be created from new, as happened with the creation of the post-war New Towns. The effort and time to build such organisations simultaneously  should not be underestimated,  and a plan to adopt a ‘lean model’ corporate template set-up should be established.

In simple terms, a ‘lean model’ would mean that development corporations would outsource a sizeable amount of their workload to private sector specialist consultancies, allowing them to focus on their core mission.

Engaging consultancies could  leverage their existing skills base and know-how, and share responsibility for capacity building to the private sector, spreading risks associated with development.. This approach would enable more efficient and accelerated project completions.

How Master Planned Developments should be built out

To build at scale, larger master plan developments will be needed. Whether these will be development corporations or other entities such as housing associations, councils or private developers, an ‘enabler’ approach involving sub-developers for various asset types should be used.

An ‘enabler’ approach would involve the master developer selling on parts of an overall master plan development to sub-developers while still maintaining a level of control.

This will allow for the sharing of the delivery burden and development risks allowing the overall delivery to be expedited while still maintaining overall master developer control.

The key to maintaining overall control of what is designed and built is for the master developer to have a comprehensive design guide for all parties involved to adhere to. A comprehensive design guide provides criteria specific for private sector consultants, construction contractors and sub-developers to work to while still allowing for innovation and a broader range of products and ideas from these other partners.

Some of the master plan developments will be new towns by definition and will be developed in accordance with the planned ‘New Towns Code’.

How Statutory Authorities Involvement should be streamlined

Local authority involvement via planning and building control departments is a critical component of delivering a mass home building programme so it is essential that there is an increase in funding and staffing levels. This was acknowledged in the last budget with a GBP £500m boost in funding exactly for this purpose.

In addition, there should be a plan to significantly increase the volume of developments that can be processed by consolidating local authority workloads. This can be achieved if the current reform of the planning regulations simplifies planning by zoning or other similar proposals.

This entails a designated area being provided with a set of development criteria such as land usage, type, height, set back dimensions, etc. If developments are designed to meet these there should be no need for the local planning authority to assess each development individually.

Why its essential to incorporate Modern Methods of Construction (MMC)

Embracing all of the current Modern Methods of Construction (MMC) on a substantial scale will also enhance delivery capacity by increasing build speed, reducing costs and reducing the need for skilled labour on site. The offsite factory mass production of building components or partially assembled units has mostly worked in the past where a large volume of residential, educational, medical or other assets have been needed.

MMC has faced some difficulties in recent years, partly due to a lack of a steady product supply line, with innovation and choice not at the level of countries where this is more prevalent. The large-scale build program will resolve the supply issue, but the government’s plan should be to reinvigorate the sector with some expertise from countries where MMC is better developed such as Germany. This could be done by creating a centre of excellence or sponsoring partnership L&D programmes for UK companies to learn from foreign companies.

The plan should include ‘modular kit homes’ for self-builds by individuals, small builders or developers. While self-builds would not contribute to public housing, the UK has much potential to develop this sector, offering direct competition to the professional home building developer sector as well as adding overall housing supply.

Organisational Capacity Building

Making Development Corporations centers of delivery excellence and best practice

As noted earlier,’ establishing a wave of new development corporations will be a feat in itself, and the know-how and skillsets required for this in the current market will be limited. In addition to the ‘lean model’ , to attract the best skilled individual people in a competitive market, these new corporations should prioritise becoming ’employers of choice.’

Being an ‘employer of choice’ by having a work environment, benefits and culture that attracts the best new joiners and retains existing employees should be complemented by a substantial training programme for graduates. This should be supported by educational and professional institutions, to cultivate a high ratio of trainees across various business roles. Opportunities for upskilling and training of staff in general should be part of this, and the development corporations should aim to set the benchmark in the industry.

How to effectively monitor and control a large-scale home building programme while its being delivered by many organisations

As part of building capacity, there needs to be central monitoring and control of this large-scale home building program across all delivery entities and all local authority areas to ensure there is a level of uniformity in monitoring metrics across the board in terms of value-for-money, delivery outcomes, good design, timelines, quality products, etc.

A development corporation or any other type of delivery organisation will monitor their development work and pass on collected data to a central overarching body such as a dedicated unit within the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). This data is used to decide what is and is not working and can be continually assessed to enable strategy updating over the life of the programme.

To achieve this, when development corporations are established, a standardised set-up template encompassing all corporate aspects should be used to streamline the establishment of the many required development corporations and other delivery entities, ensuring synergy, avoiding disruptions, and expediting delivery. Additionally, a best practice residential development delivery template should be used, covering investment, procurement, design and construct stage gates, complete with a Project Management Office (PMO) setup for every delivery entity.

Categories
Blog Post

Green populism will not solve the housing crisis

Carla Denyer and Adrian Ramsay, co-leaders of the Green Party, with Elllie Chowns, Housing and communities spokesperson. Image by Bristol Green Party licensed under public domain

One notable moment from the 2024 general election was the surprise success of the Green Party. The party more than doubled their vote to 6.7 percent, with four MPs. This followed a string of successful local election results, which has brought the party a total of 813 councillors.

The party also came in second place in 40 seats in 2024, up from just three in 2019, and they are within a five point swing of an additional five MPs.

For a long time, the political world has treated the Greens as a curiosity with interesting but ‘out there’ ideas. But, as the party’s electoral strength builds, it is worth taking a serious look at their policy offer.

This is particularly important in the housing sector, where their proposals rely on a mix of populist myth-peddling and blunt tools to address one of the most complex crises facing the country.

Sign up for red brick’s free newsletter

What do the Greens stand for?

On housing, the Green Party Manifesto in 2024 had four main priorities:

  • A Right Homes, Right Place, Right Price Charter with new regulations for housebuilding
  • Investing into decarbonising housing
  • Delivering 150,000 social homes per year through purchasing existing homes and building new ones, including ending the Right to Buy
  • Regulating the private rental sector by allowing local authorities to introduce rent controls, ending ‘no fault’ evictions and introducing private residential tenancy boards to resolve disputes

Many of these policies are sensible, and several are being implemented by the Labour Government, including investment into housing decarbonisation, restricting the Right to Buy, and ending Section 21 ‘no fault’ evictions. But the sum of these policies, alongside the Green Party’s actions outside of their manifesto, presents a worrying package which could have unintended consequences.

Stymying delivery

One notable moment of the election campaign was the refusal by the Greens’ co-leader, Carla Denyer, to support a housing target, despite being pressed on this three times by the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg.

This is particularly problematic given that many of the Green Party’s policies would make housing delivery harder. The Party’s ‘Right Homes etc… Charter’ includes making councils spread development over small sites, which would eliminate economies of scale by larger development. Likewise, a mandate of Passivhaus Standard on all new homes in this charter would put substantial additional costs on construction with few measurable benefits to the Future Homes Standard currently being introduced by the Government.

Government policy should, of course, promote higher regulations and help smaller builders to create a more diverse industry. But mandating these high bars is a blunt tool for a complex problem.

Similarly, while academics argue the definition and the merits of rent controls, it is relatively well-established that the sort of direct control on rent levels suggested by the Greens has a negative impact on housing supply.  

Combined with the well-publicised history of Green councillors and MPs opposing new housing in their area, this amounts to a concerted effort to stymy housing supply.

This was also shown in the one recent occasion of sustained Green Party control over a local authority when they led Brighton from 2011 – 2015. Data from the Housing Delivery Test show that, in the aftermath of this control, Brighton only managed to deliver 77% of the homes it needed in 2015 – 2018, well below the 130% average of local authorities nationally. Meanwhile, data from 2019 – 2022, after four years of Labour control, shows the council delivering 130% of the homes required by the Delivery Test.

While many on the left may not be concerned with overall housing delivery, since these are mostly market rate homes from private developers, building these homes is crucial. Not only will this have a positive impact on rent levels, but it will result in more social housing being built, since Section 106 contributions from developers are responsible for delivering nearly half of all affordable and social housing. More private homes is, for now at least, key to more social homes. 

Focusing on housing myths

Meanwhile, the Greens have often peddled myths and mistruths in order to avoid focusing on real solutions.

The party’s response to Labour’s announced planning reforms was a perfect encapsulation of this, as the Greens’ Co-leader, Adrian Ramsey, claimed that:

  • There were a million empty homes, only a quarter of these are actually long-term empty
  • There were a million homes with planning permission that developers were refusing to build while not a straight debunk, a report by the Competition and Markets Authority showed, while developers do engage in a degree of ‘land banking’, this is largely due to uncertainty of a steady supply of homes, a symptom of our broken planning system which Labour seeks to reform.
  • That developers intentionally build over-large ‘executive homes’ the average newbuild home is in fact 20% smaller than its counterpart from the 1950s.

Similarly, the Greens’ manifesto included a completely redundant pledge on making developers pay for local infrastructure, which they already do through Section 106.

This was also reflected in Denyer’s answer when quizzed in the aforementioned Laura Kenssberg, where she said:

“The problem is that in so many parts of the country what we’re seeing being built is not what people need. For example what we see are large, out-of-town developments of luxury, executive homes, 4, 5, 6 bed, double garage, and yet no bus service, no doctors or dentists, no more school places. And to be honest they’re not affordable to most of the people living in the area.”

That a key part of a national political party’s housing messaging contains such blatant myths is worrying, and an irresponsible injection into the political discourse.

The allure of populism

But why focus on these areas, rather than have a discussion about the solutions needed?

In part, it may be because the Greens know that their policy platform is not yet one for national government, and so is more of a political document. Rather than providing solutions, it is instead a powerful tool to point fingers and identify ‘baddies’ that their voters can rally against.

This is exactly what its manifesto seeks to do. By advocating for rent controls, impractical or redundant development standards, and action on empty homes, it implies that all of the faults of the housing crisis are down to its ‘villains’, greedy landlords, overseas buyers and corner-cutting developers, and that regulating their activity is all that is needed to fix it.

Opposition allows minor parties the luxury of an incoherent policy platform, but the Greens’ success merits them being taken more seriously. And by playing such obvious political games, they are taking their voters for fools.

Categories
10-year plan for housing Blog Post

A call for accessible housing

We are thrilled to have launched a powerful new campaign, led by a collaboration between Invisible Creations, our partner company PROCare, and Foundations, the National Body of Home Improvement. This initiative is calling on housing providers across the UK to create homes that are truly accessible for everyone.

Launched on July 11, 2024, at the House of Lords, our campaign aims to meet the growing needs of an ageing population and ensure that homes are designed to be accessible for all.

Sign up to red brick’s free newsletter

The Growing Need

Did you know that 24% of the UK population lives with a disability(1), and 4 million of them are older adults with long-term health conditions?(2) As our population continues to age, the need for accessible homes has never been more urgent. At our launch event, Lord Richard Best put it perfectly, almost half of social housing residents are over 60. He made a powerful point: adapting our homes today will help people live independently and reduce pressure on our health and social care systems.

The importance of these changes goes beyond convenience. Falls, for instance, remain a leading cause of injury, particularly among older adults, with around 76,000 hip fractures occurring each year in the UK, costing the NHS over £2 million annually.(3) Preventive aids like grab rails and shower seats can significantly reduce the risk of falls, prevent emergency hospitalisations, and lower NHS costs by keeping people safer in their homes for longer.

Building the Right Future, Together

Dr. Rachel Russell and Paul Smith from Foundations, at the launch, shared their vision of affordable, simple changes like grab rails and shower seats that can transform lives. David Orr, Chair of Clarion Housing, also joined the conversation, stressing the importance of creating a national vision for accessible housing. He put it best when he said, “Let’s stop installing cheap, short-term solutions and focus on beautiful, sustainable changes that bring joy, safety, and independence.”

A Vision for the Future

At Invisible Creations and PROCare, we’re not just addressing today’s needs; we’re focused on designing homes that are future-proof. With over 20 years of experience, we’ve seen the profound impact of thoughtful design. We advocate for modern, intuitive features like sleek grab rails and contemporary, accessible kitchens and bathrooms, built in from the start to adapt to people’s changing mobility needs throughout their lives, empowering them to age in place and maintain their independence for longer. These changes can make a massive difference by promoting mobility, preventing falls, and providing peace of mind, all through thoughtful design and strategies for lasting change.

Why We Need Long-Term Solutions

The reality is that most homes in the UK don’t meet basic accessibility standards, and temporary adaptations often fail to provide lasting solutions. Many people resist accessible features until they’re absolutely necessary, often because these features are seen as low-quality and unattractive. When residents move out, they frequently remove these adaptations, leaving the property inaccessible for the next person.

This is where we need to rethink our approach to home design. What if we viewed adaptations not as short-term fixes, but as permanent, sustainable upgrades? By incorporating long-lasting materials, inclusive design concepts, and flexible components, we can create lasting solutions that benefit everyone and ensure homes are truly accessible for the long term.

A Call to Action

I’m urging all housing providers and professionals in the industry to join the Fit for Our Future movement. This is our chance to improve wellbeing, reduce accidents and waste, and make homes more adaptable for the future. Accessible housing isn’t just a temporary
fix, it’s a lasting investment.

We’re offering free resources and toolkits to help you take action and make homes more accessible for everyone. Together, we can create homes that not only meet today’s needs but are prepared for the challenges of tomorrow.

Visit www.fitforourfuture.today to learn more and get involved.

Categories
Blog Post

Planning reforms for small and community-led builders

Building work by Brett Jordan licensed by Unsplash

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe to Red Brick’s newsletter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We could reduce the uncertainty in a few simple ways.

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

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

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

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