Housing Green paper - some thoughts

Tuesday night I managed to get to the first half of an evening at the Council regarding Self financing HRAs - how council housing is funded - the presentation was excellent and extremely useful - I was very sorry to have to miss the second half due to going to the nuclear talk (which was also excellent - see earlier blog). Anyhow the second half of the evening that I missed looked more at the Government's paper 'Homes for the Future: more affordable, more sustainable'.

Stroud District Council are doing a submission re this paper so I enclosed to them and below the notes that I have been working on during the last couple of weeks - they are some of the key issues raised by the Government's paper - the notes below are still very much in their 'raw state' rather than put together as a final submission. Some of the issues come from thoughts from others like the Kent Green party who have already completed their submission. I plan to add comments following the presentation this week and further discussion with Green party colleagues but post them here as several others have asked to see them. Consultation closes Monday so there is still chance to send something in.

Draft submission re 'Homes for the Future: more affordable, more sustainable'

Introduction:


Stroud District Green party have a number of criticisms of the Green Paper which offers too little, too slowly in relation to the imminent challenges of serious climate change, Peak Oil, the serious limitations of current Government housing policies and the legacies of past Governments in these areas.

We note that many very serious criticisms of the Government’s Sustainable Communities programme made by the Sustainable Development Commission have been ignored in this Green Paper. We also note that comprehensive and well-considered ideas about regeneration and new development made by key urban specialists have been ignored in favour of a neo-liberal market based approach to housing and communities. We are disturbed that a high quality and attractive built environment is possible in a number of other European states, like Austria, but is proving elusive here due to excessive power ceded to house builders and developers by the State in the UK.

Key points:

1. Empty homes: Housing stock would be increased much more quickly by bringing empty properties into use than relying on house builders who have no incentive to build at a rate which would bring home prices down. The Green Paper makes no reference to this market failure, relying instead on what we see as misleading criticism of local authorities.

2. Local authorities powers: We believe local councils should have power and budgets to meet social housing needs. This paper goes someway to addressing this issue although in places the report is very ambiguous. Each local council should be able to meet its own local demand with resources transferred to assist them from other budgets or planned expenditures eg. cancellation of two aircraft carriers (£3.9bn); cancellation of the ID card (£10bn); ending subsidies and research for nuclear fission/fusion; stopping further PFI contracts as they are not good value for money, etc. Indeed there should be a complete removal of pressures to move towards privatisation. The new powers should include allowing local authorities to start a new council house building programme and ensuring that local authorities have sufficient revenue to maintain all council homes in future years. Councils should also clearly retain the full rental income from their homes etc - the current situation is wholly unacceptable.

We note that the Institute of Public Policy Research report challenges the idea that dramatically raising supply will dramatically bring down house prices. It says it is a blunt instrument and building more social housing (homes for subsidised rent) and shared ownership is a better way of doing it. Indeed the IPPR report on meeting housing need notes that the key reason for house-building plummeting is because councils have stopped building homes and building by registered social landlords is not properly compensated.

3. Affordable homes: 70,000 more affordable (not purely social housing) units a year by 2010-2011 cannot possibly reduce the 1.5m households on council waiting lists. The trajectory of house price increases, rising repossessions and bankruptcies will inevitably lead to larger council waiting lists. Private sector rents are much too high to be affordable for many people in much of Gloucestershire. We emphasise again, councils must be empowered to buy properties for social housing in their local area. There is no quicker way to relieve over-crowding, dramatically reduce homelessness, meet general housing demand or regenerate areas of empty properties.

4. SE Housing growth: We reject the principle of emphasising housing growth in the South East quadrant of the country. This just serves the desire of the large house building companies for higher prices which they can obtain in the SE. Local housing demand should be met everywhere, not the pressures for more buy to let properties or the desire to migrate from cities into the countryside. In short, there should be local control of planning for housing, not imposed national targets which deliver housing with inadequate employment or infrastructure. Housing is an entitlement which needs meeting by a more effective public sector, not mainly by the private sector. We urgently need to look at rebalancing the economy: it is crazy that in some parts of the country we are pulling down thousands of homes while in others we can't find room for them.

5. Eco-towns and sustainability: Whilst the principle of eco-towns appears appropriate, we need all of our built environment to be energy efficient and sustained by renewable energy in as short a period as realistically attainable. New eco towns will not meet this need quickly enough and should not be built on greenfield sites. The Sustainable Development Commission write: “Increasing the density of existing towns and cities is, in our view, significantly more sustainable in almost all circumstances than creating new communities outside them.” Furthermore the emphasis on sustainability in new homes avoids responsibilities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the existing built environment. This is a fundamental omission in this Green Paper. Many ways forward are possible: for example we cannot see any purpose being served by stamp duty. VAT on new homes would be more useful, to increase developer focus on refurbishment and regeneration.

6. Village homes: Social housing using village brownfield sites should be particularly prioritised to move away from the current over-emphasis on property ownership in villages. Asset rich but income poor households exist in the private sector in villages. Programmes are needed which divide properties in villages, assist the very elderly into smaller accommodation and help people meet their actual housing need rather than be encumbered by properties too large or too difficult to maintain. The assumption that large home means large income is often not true in Gloucestershire’s villages.

7. Public sector land release: this is to be welcomed, especially if it involves a ‘bonfire of the quangos’ and the release of their resources and powers to local authorities.

8. Affordability of homes: this should not mean 70% of average market price in a new development - this is still over-priced for most households. Affordability should mean 50% social housing in any new development leaving the option with tenants of right to buy if they wish. It should be noted that we do think each council should be able to determine whether its social housing is to be available under a right to buy scheme. This simplification avoids the complexities of shared ownership schemes and local authority negotiations with developers who resist social housing and then challenge local councils for non-determination or through planning appeal. The various avenues and tactics used by developers to avoid providing social housing need to be closed. These constitute a right to avoid social responsibility and should not be sustained.

9. Zero Carbon homes: the move towards zero carbon homes by 2016 is too slow and applies only to new homes. We suggest one way forward similar to Germany is a ‘dash for solar’: all new homes (with immediate effect) to have multiple social panels, solar water heating, top grade double glazing, cavity wall insulation, improved loft insulation etc. Plus grants for renewable energy installation on homes and businesses should be increased in value with no upper limit on solar PV grants. There is no reason for more years of prevarication. Retrofitting the entirety of the built environment must be planned and where necessary funded over a realistic and preferably short time period eg no more than 15 years. Water butts and rainwater capture for flushing toilets should be standard features of new housing and an essential part of renovations when roofs or gutters are replaced. Building standards can be improved now. The Government has caved in to the volume house builders on this topic.

Every town should be an eco-town and every building should have its environmental impact reduced. All local authorities should be adopting a Zero Waste approach and should be pressed by legislation to become ‘transition towns’ – moving away from a carbon based economy. The rate of new build with new standards, when implemented in 2016, is simply too late to assist in bringing UK emissions down, especially as these are 12-14% of global greenhouse gas emissions as Christian Aid has reported, not the misleading 2% figure Government ministers often quote.

10. Government action on Climate change: the paper notes that more action needs to be taken concerning climate change - this begs the question of where the Government has been living during the last ten years. Government allocation of funds to all environmental policy budgets is low in relation to other areas of spending and environmental policy integration does not exist. It is impossible to resist climate change without rapidly improving existing and new building stock, or dealing with aviation, marine and surface transport emissions.

11. Rural transport: the Green Paper notes only 12% of homes in villages are social housing. This is scandalously low, but many of Gloucestershire villages are afflicted by poor public transport coverage so whilst we support having more social housing in villages, the market provision of public transport would need to be adjusted upwards. Research by Lynn Sloman suggests typical rural bus spending in western Europe is 50% higher than in the UK.

12. Developer delay in the planning system: this is not addressed effectively in this Green Paper or the Government’s recent Planning White Paper. Rather than rewarding councils for identifying building land it makes more sense for outline planning permission to cease after 2 years with renewal by the same developer for the same site costing far more in terms of planning fees than the first time. It is not in the interests of developers to bring house prices down. The Housing Green Paper admits “slow down in the rate of house price increases can lead to house builders slowing production even when overall prices remain very high.” Cynics might say that the Labour leadership also does not actually want to bring house prices down – as demonstrated by its inaction over the last ten years. It is certainly true they have benefited from the electoral effects of high house prices - but note point 2 above.

13. Empty property relief for business rates: this just encourages disuse. Property should be used or subject to compulsory purchase after 12 months by the local authority for allocation to other purposes including housing or public infrastructure/service needs. We emphasise that the current allocation of public funds to quangos should be revised in favour of more funds for local authorities.

14. Flooding: Note 31 suggests that ‘…flood defence infrastructure cannot be continuously expanded…’ However, given the UK and global failure to radically cut greenhouse gas emissions, the UK Government and many others elsewhere have effectively committed themselves to continuously rising flood protection spending and new resources for coastal protection as well. We note that the Environment Agency wants £1bn a year for flood protection alone, and is promised only an increase from £600m to £800m pa. This suggested policy cannot be sustained politically and adds to the general impression of Treasury-led neglect of environmental concerns that has characterised Government since 1997. Note 32 suggests building on flood plains will be stopped but neither the Green Paper nor the Planning White Paper suggest local authorities would have the power to stop development on flood plains, and we have even had ministerial pronouncements saying development on flood plains will have to continue in the midst of the summer floods! This is confused, contradictory and devoid of morality or logic.

15. Community Land Trusts: We applaud this innovative move to develop land trusts, particularly noting their success in other countries. The New Economics Foundation propose Community Land Trusts as a good way of countering house price growth: “The aim of mutual home ownership is to provide a way of separating the cost of the land from the purchase price of the housing on it. This is achievable in practice by taking the land out of the marketplace through a Community Land Trust.”

16. Debt and the unmanaged housing market: We note that home ownership dropped in 2006 and may drop further. The unmanaged housing market is increasing house prices - that is not properly addressed by Government policy. The issue of increasing personal debt as a potentially destabilising factor to the economy is not addressed in this Green Paper, and 80% of personal debt is mortgages. We should be learning from the mistakes made in the US, not emulating them. Restrictions on who can obtain a mortgage in order to reduce personal debt and increase savings make sense if this is done in stages whilst more social housing is being provided. See points 2 and 12 above.

Housing quality reflects actual household income, so the curiously phrased prospect of ‘..raising the financial capability of consumers..’ begs questions like when does the Government intend to permit pay increases to the public sector to meet rises in housing costs and associated bills? When will it ensure that the Minimum Wage becomes index-linked to inflation and backdated to when it was introduced? When will taxes be applied fairly and effectively to the top 20% of households? Inequality is being maintained and reinforced by Government policies, with implications for housing. We note the recent Sheffield Hallam University study saying the real level of unemployment is 2.6 million.

17. Regulation of construction: Markets will not provide sustainable construction or satisfactory building standards until the construction sector is regulated and inspected effectively p.101 . So the idea that sustainable construction will not involve ‘..introducing new legislation..’ is plainly daft. Indeed the last change to building regs was going to give us new builds that were 40% better, the govt (eventually) admitted that the final regs would only give 25% better, but in fact the AECB and others note the actual figures are much much lower.