Four former Conservative housing ministers have backed a think-tank’s proposals for more housebuilding as a way to resolve the UK’s supply shortage.
Sajid Javid, Simon Clarke, Kit Malthouse and Brandon Lewis are backing a Centre for Policy Studies report which shows that while the country has a massive shortfall in homes, especially compared to our neighbours, current policy to rely chiefly on brownfield development cannot deliver the properties required.
‘The Case for Housebuilding’ - by think tank writers Alex Morton and Elizabeth Dunkley - accepts that many of the criticisms of the housing sector are completely valid. But it takes aim at a series of myths that are helping to reduce support for much needed new homes.
First, that Britain does not have a housing supply problem. Second, that increasing supply would do little to reduce the price of housing to affordable levels, because it is primarily driven by monetary factors. Third, that there is sufficient brownfield land that there is no need for greenfield development. And fourth, that building new houses is invariably unpopular.
The report notes in the 1960s Britain built 3.6m while in the 2000s and 2010s we built around 1.5m homes a decade, despite far higher population growth. It also says the size of new homes has fallen - currently the smallest in Europe.
Meanwhile since the 1970s house prices have increased dramatically. In addition, prices have risen fastest where supply and demand are most imbalanced. In countries that built more, price rises have been far lower.
At the same time rents are also climbing as a share of income. Whereas private renters spent 10 per cent of their income on housing from the 1960s to the 1980s, rising to 15 per cent in London, the share of income spent on rent has risen to 30 per cent in recent years, and almost 40 per cent in London.
The study suggests that housebuilding is roughly keeping pace with new household formation are flawed, as are claims that the enough houses can be delivered simply by building on brownfield land or building out existing planning permissions.
The report also urges politicians to stop assuming that new homes are unpopular or to worry that new homes might push down house prices. It claims over 80 per cent of voters say that the housing market is not working properly. On a national level, there is overwhelming support for a large number of new houses being built, and on a local level people support small or moderate numbers of homes being built in their area.
You can see the report here.
Want to comment on this story? Our focus is on providing a platform for you to share your insights and views and we welcome contributions.
If any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.
Please help us by reporting comments you consider to be unduly offensive so we can review and take action if necessary. Thank you.
.jpg)
%20(002).png)
.png)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
It’s all down to simple mathematics, we have added millions of people to our shores over the last 10 years, where are the equivalent properties? 🤔. Like it or not, we are full up and those people have to live somewhere.
Trouble is the population has increased at 4 x our building rate at a time when we couldnt even cater for the then current population. Add in the whole green belt issue and we are where we are with net migration still running twice as fast as we can build. We need a 10 year breather to catch up.
Giving local people more power is the worst idea the government has ever had. We build quality, A rated homes that are always appreciated once they are built. But the road to planning is a nightmare, no one wants any change in their back yard, added to that we have single minded blinkered councils that stop any sensible proposals because they are told by an inspector that they have hit their target, yet another inspector previously said more than 50% were undeliverable! There should be a government planning office that oversees decisions in real time, and a set of criteria to deliver housing that is in and around infrastructure. Planning should give the developer a restricted time to start and deliver a certain percentage of the housing, otherwise that developer is excluded from building on that site and has to pass it on to another developer. We need to create competition in delivery as much as competition in purchase. But we also need a streamlined planning system that does not hold sites delivery up for years. What’s wrong with an online system that automatically approves planning if all the criteria is hit with all consultants not objecting, subject to a design check. It then becomes a process to approval with no emotions.
I agree, local planning departments are a farce run by people who don't know what they are doing, and the planning committees are worse still
Far too much focus is put on the FTB and young family end of the market.
It would make more sense to focus on the retirement market as we have an ageing population with very different requirements to previous elderly people.
Firstly retirement housing can be higher density and make very good use of the brownfield sites.
Secondly if decent, well located retirement housing was readily available to all tenure types vast amounts of family size homes would be released for young families. Those houses already have schools, shops, amenities, etc close by.
Thirdly it may be highly attractive for older people as an IHT planning method if secure long term rental was a major part of it. It would enable pre inheritance distribution of wealth more easily, thus enabling younger generations to afford appropriate housing earlier and thereby resulting in more rooted communities.
People are often theoretically keen to downsize but can't find a suitable property. It isn't the same property a FTB would want. Giving up a massive garden and a couple of bedrooms is fine. Giving up an en suite, utility room, study, rooms big enough for full size furniture and private parking is a step too far.
The other group that is completely ignored are the young 16 to 20 year olds who are overcrowding their parents rental properties. It's insane that a family can be deemed to be overcrowding and entitled to a bigger house purely because one child has a birthday. Wouldn't it make more sense to build student style housing for non student teenagers instead of rehousing the entire family in a house that will be too big for them as soon as the teenager leaves home?
I can’t see how selling early would reduce your inheritance tax. Sell a second home and you’ll pay c/gains probably 28% then you’ll have to wait until you die to pay an other 40% inheritance tax that’s not tax planning it’s death and 68%.
Suppose you sell your house tax free and go renting you are quickly go to eat into the spoils and for the mostly part taxable interest you get is not going to keep up your bank balance.
Please login to comment