Saturday, December 29, 2018
Government scrimp on cash for new homes in England and poorest lose out
So, as predicted here and elsewhere, Theresa May's pledge to build a “new generation of social homes“, has turned into a damp squib. The reasons for this are many, but it largely comes down to a reluctance to commit the resources needed to the project, and a lack of understanding amongst Ministers of what is affordable and what is not.
As the Independent reports, only 12,500 of the 250,000 homes to be built with the affordable homes budget by 2022 will be social homes – equivalent to 2,500 per year. The other 237,500 are likely to be more costly “affordable homes” or intermediate market homes, which can be sold for hundreds of thousands of pounds or rented out at up to 80 per cent of full market value:
There were 1,409 social homes built in England last year. With ministers now promising a total of around 2,500 per year until 2022, it means the increased funding will deliver only an additional 1,000 each year.
In contrast, 39,402 were built in 2009-10 – the year before the Conservatives came to power.
In October, Ms May announced that her government was increasing funding for the Affordable Homes Programme by £2bn, taking the total to almost £9bn.
Heralding the move, the prime minister said she was making it her personal “mission” to tackle the housing crisis and assured those in need of a better home that “help is on the way”.
But in answer to a parliamentary question from Labour, housing secretary James Brokenshire said just one in 20 of the new homes to be built will be social homes.
He said: “The £9bn Affordable Homes Programme will deliver at least 250,000 homes by March 2022. At least 12,500 of these will be for social rent outside of London.
“The Greater London Authority has the flexibility to deliver social rent in London.”
Although there is clearly a demand for intermediate rented accommodation (why should somebody be subsidised more than they need be?) the real demand is for social rented housing where the rents are lower.
The government have opted for the more expensive housing because it needs less subsidy, and as a result, they can get more housing units for their money. This feeds directly into Tory Party spin when it comes to the next election. Those most in need of the cheapest housing are the losers in this political sleight of hand.
Instead of playing this numbers game the Government need to spend their £9 billion on meeting the demand for social rent homes. They will build less units as a result, but the outcome will be greater social cohesion and fewer families facing homelessness.
Isn't that the Christmas present we were led to expect?
As the Independent reports, only 12,500 of the 250,000 homes to be built with the affordable homes budget by 2022 will be social homes – equivalent to 2,500 per year. The other 237,500 are likely to be more costly “affordable homes” or intermediate market homes, which can be sold for hundreds of thousands of pounds or rented out at up to 80 per cent of full market value:
There were 1,409 social homes built in England last year. With ministers now promising a total of around 2,500 per year until 2022, it means the increased funding will deliver only an additional 1,000 each year.
In contrast, 39,402 were built in 2009-10 – the year before the Conservatives came to power.
In October, Ms May announced that her government was increasing funding for the Affordable Homes Programme by £2bn, taking the total to almost £9bn.
Heralding the move, the prime minister said she was making it her personal “mission” to tackle the housing crisis and assured those in need of a better home that “help is on the way”.
But in answer to a parliamentary question from Labour, housing secretary James Brokenshire said just one in 20 of the new homes to be built will be social homes.
He said: “The £9bn Affordable Homes Programme will deliver at least 250,000 homes by March 2022. At least 12,500 of these will be for social rent outside of London.
“The Greater London Authority has the flexibility to deliver social rent in London.”
Although there is clearly a demand for intermediate rented accommodation (why should somebody be subsidised more than they need be?) the real demand is for social rented housing where the rents are lower.
The government have opted for the more expensive housing because it needs less subsidy, and as a result, they can get more housing units for their money. This feeds directly into Tory Party spin when it comes to the next election. Those most in need of the cheapest housing are the losers in this political sleight of hand.
Instead of playing this numbers game the Government need to spend their £9 billion on meeting the demand for social rent homes. They will build less units as a result, but the outcome will be greater social cohesion and fewer families facing homelessness.
Isn't that the Christmas present we were led to expect?
