The Disraeli Room

The Disraeli Room

Blog Post

Building the right homes, in the right places, for the right people

29th April 2015

Moat’s recommendations for the next Parliament

In the middle of an election campaign, the last thing we expect to find is consensus. Yet in contrast to most other issues, we have found near-universal agreement that the UK is not building enough homes. But aside from the low numbers, we are exacerbating the problem by not incentivising development in the right places, or for the people who need housing the most.


The last five years

The 2010-15 Parliament delivered unprecedented changes for housing. In particular, there has been a significant shift in the government approach to funding, with less investment in bricks and mortar. This has been partially offset through higher rents and therefore higher spending on Housing Benefit. In other words: a shift from capital to revenue subsidy.

Over that time, we have also witnessed weakening affordability running parallel to a resurgent housing market – fuelled by strong demand and hesitant supply.

Our recent study, A tale of two regions, finds an undercurrent of real deprivation, poverty and homelessness across the South East. It finds evidence of worsening spatial polarisation in terms of affordability, and a gradual shift in the distribution of affordable development from poorer to more expensive areas, where higher values can enhance opportunities for commercial tenures to cross-subsidise affordable homes.

A tale of two regions also highlights the fact that affordability pushes many low income households towards areas that are already among the most deprived. These areas are experiencing acute and increasing pressure on services as a result, and are generally unable to provide the employment opportunities and access to transport that are essential if people and communities are to prosper. The next Parliament must work hard to end this cycle of deprivation.


Solutions over the next five years

All major parties agree that we are not building enough homes; so the next government will need to have a credible plan for funding a real and sustainable construction surge. We need to lay the foundations for the future rather than be overwhelmed by a plethora of bit-part solutions to what is now being recognised as a housing crisis. Market solutions alone are not the answer and if housing associations and local authorities are to form part of the solution then the shift from capital to revenue subsidy will have to be reversed to some extent.

Compared to five years ago, Housing Benefit now makes up a higher proportion of the funding required to build each unit. The primary consequence of this is that the Housing Benefit bill – and therefore the overall cost to the taxpayer – has risen under this model.

To correct this, the next government will need to be bold – both in terms of policy decisions and in terms of funding solutions. Perhaps the first order of business should be to ensure that housing objectives align across government departments. It is clear that DWP’s aim of reducing Housing Benefit spending is fundamentally contradictory to DCLG’s objective of increasing housing supply through the Affordable Rent model. This paradox must be dealt with, either by changing the funding model, or by ensuring that decisions on welfare are guided by their impact on housing supply.

Housing associations will need to be equally innovative and bold. Many believe that a social purpose can co-exist alongside commercial imperatives. I agree. The sector is past the point where commercial activities can be seen as an ‘add on’. They form a critical part of our work, not only because they help to cross-subsidise social tenures, but because some market tenures have become a legitimate solution to some groups’ housing needs in their own right. This is perhaps a reflection of the overall shortage of affordable stock, and the pressure it has placed on the private rented sector.

Housing associations have a number of important strategic questions to answer: is our greatest contribution to society through the provision of additional homes? Or should significant investment be diverted into social activities to improve and support existing communities? In spite of Moat’s strong development ambition, our objective for the communities in which we work is to influence outcomes beyond bricks and mortar – with the aim of creating thriving communities.

The regulatory system will also need to play a role over the next five years to ensure that housing associations are given the flexibility to innovate without leaving social housing assets unprotected. Despite movement in the right direction, I believe that friction still remains between the need to stimulate supply and a regulatory system that is overly focussed on the avoidance of risk. I will continue to argue that some level of well-managed risk is not only appropriate, but necessary for the sector.

So it is clear that the next government will need to quickly get on top of the housing portfolio to ensure that things don’t become worse before they get better. With that aim in mind, we’re launching our Recommendations for the next Parliament. I hope it stimulates conversation about what will be needed over the next five years, in which places, and for whom.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.

COVID-19: Are we truly free or merely enslaved to ourselves?

‘Through discipline comes freedom’. Over two thousand years ago Aristotle warned that freedom means more than just “doing as one likes”. Ancient Greek societies survived...

Airtight on Asbestos – A campaign to save our future

On the 24th of November 1999, the United Kingdom banned the use of asbestos. Twenty years later and this toxic mineral still plagues public health,...

Rationality & Regionality: A more effective way to dealing with climate change | by Hamza King

Liberalism relies heavily on certain assumptions about the human condition, particularly, about our ability to act rationally. John Rawls defines a rational person as one...

The Disraeli Room
What are the Implications of proroguing Parliament?

During his campaign, Boris Johnson made it very clear that when it comes to proroguing Parliament, he is “not going to take anything off the...

ResPublica’s submission to CMA

Download the full text of the submission On 3rd July 2019, the CMA launched a market study into online platforms and the digital advertising market...

The Disraeli Room
Productive Places | WSP and ResPublica

On Wednesday 31st October ResPublica and WSP hosted a panel discussion in Parliament to launch WSP’s Productive Places paper and debate its findings. The report...

ResPublica’s Response to the Autumn Budget 2018

The 2018 Budget delivered by Philip Hammond was the first since 1962 to be delivered on a day other than a Wednesday, and was moved...

ResPublica Response to changes to the National Planning Policy Framework

The Government’s housing announcements on the 5th March were the first substantial change to the planning system since the Coalition reforms six years ago. The...

Food poverty: Time to lift the veil?

A century on from Charles Booth’s famous Poverty Map of London, accurate information on poverty has never been more important. So the findings of...