Chancellor Rachel Reeves' announcement of new measures to accelerate housebuilding in the UK is welcome news for the short lets sector, a trade group has claimed.
Andy Fenner, chief executive of the UK Short Term Accommodation Association (STAA) says: “It’s reassuring that Labour recognises the only way out of the housing crisis is to accelerate housebuilding, not lay the blame at the door of the holiday let sector. Holiday lets represent a small proportion of total housing and are even outnumbered by long-term vacant homes in more than half of the UK’s local authorities.
“In 2023, we found that there were nearly 2m homes identified by planning authorities as ‘deliverable’ that simply hadn’t been built. Only 189,260 dwellings were completed across the UK last year - nowhere near enough to meet demand.
“Britain needs bold, decisive action to cut through the red tape that has held back development and growth for decades. So, while the new Chancellor is absolutely right to decry the planning system as ‘antiquated’, Labour’s reforms must swiftly move from rhetoric to reality.
“The holiday let sector is frequently scapegoated as a cause of Britain’s housing crisis. In reality, holiday lets play a critical role in supporting the UK’s tourism industry, bringing money into local businesses, creating tens of thousands of much needed jobs and supporting local communities often in areas with no other industry. Labour has a real opportunity not only to address the root cause of the housing crisis but also to end the blame-game culture that has unfairly targeted holiday lets for too long.”
Labour’s housing commitments, outlined earlier this week, are:
- Restore mandatory housebuilding targets;
- Build 1.5m homes by the end of this parliament - including affordable and council homes;
- End the onshore wind farm ban;
- Create a new task force to accelerate stalled housing sites - starting with 14,000 new homes across Liverpool Central Docks, Worcester, Northstowe and Langley Sutton Coldfield;
- Support local authorities with 300 additional planning officers across the country;
- Review planning applications previously turned down that could help the economy - planning appeals for data centres in Buckinghamshire and in Hertfordshire are already being reconsidered;
- Prioritise brownfield and grey belt land for development to meet housing targets when needed;
- Reform the planning system to "deliver the infrastructure that our country needs" - unresolved infrastructure projects to be prioritised; and
- Set out new policy intentions for critical infrastructure in the coming months.
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)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
Shame the NRLA dont stand up for Landlords in the same way!
Exactly my thoughts whilst reading this. Ben Beadle should take note. He prefers to tinker over each policy whilst this guy gets straight to the heart of the matter telling the government to back off demonising landlords and deal with the real causes!
Where are they going to get the tradesmen from? The universities do not train brickies, plumbers etc.
Presumably from immigration?
Boatloads of tradesmen coming over every day and staying at Yvette’s.😂
From the Kent beaches, no?
Building 1.5 million houses during this parliament is a pure dream. There is not a sufficient workforce to make them. Dear labour: stop with easy slogans, please
Ian - The councils do not have sufficient funds to build many new houses. I can see Council Tax sky rocketing to help fund these homes.
Cutting CGT would release loads of houses onto the market. How many people simply won't sell houses that aren't their main residence because the CGT is obscene? Maybe BTLs, maybe holiday homes, maybe a house they have inherited a few years ago. Actually introduce a policy that will result in better utilisation of the housing stock we already have.
Agreed but unfortunately Labour might well increase CGT to income tax rates which for most people will mean 40%. If they don’t introduce taper relief as we used to have, this will be a high tax on inflation.
Jo - You are absolutely right regarding CGT. Under the Blair government they did exactly that and there was more money for the treasury coffers. Better to get less tax than no tax. Of course they get the money in the long term by increasing inheritance tax. This current government are greedily going to increase both taxes. People will always find ways around eg giving away their assets to family members seven years before death. If Labour ban evicting tenants for any reason the property’s value will be reduced and less CGT!
Labour did state they would not increase CGT. Let's hope they stick to this.
Yes, bring back taper relief. This was a fair way to treat house owners. W don't mind paying our way but there is no recognition for the gamble we take, the costs we incur and the current unfair tax policy.
Labour also need to make competition in the market. Section 24 is a real hurdle for this. However, I very much doubt that they will remove this.
William, right the University don’t train brick layers, plumbers, carpenters, plasters etc’ they train them keyboards to invent regulations to cripple them and order Shipping Containers from China to put up high rise substandard Flats, Pink Polly foam for walls cladded with tin panels not a brick to be seen.
Modular housing could surely be built quickly? Starter homes, social homes, temporary homes - homes to get people out of hotels & living while they sort themselves out & while those long term social homes are being built.
The actual homes could be done in days but the roads and drainage would take a while.
The utilities take an age. No more looped electric suply for new builds because of the car charger requirement. If they do fit a loop then the cables and whole supply network are going to need upgrading. Either that or Big Brother is going to decide how much current you can draw. Turning into a nightmare already for the network provider.
Remember the prefabs after the war, many lasted a long time and provided homes for many, a lot of my school friends in the 60s lived in them
You are right Jo it's the ground works that take the time and costs the money
Targets are great but seldom meet reality. As identified above, the UK suffers from a shortage of skilled trades but worldwide, there is a shortage of raw materials such as sand which is a vital ingredient in construction.
Our new government are promising lots of things apart from building all these houses, they are going to sort out hospital appointments, planning, shortage of teachers, security of our borders and illegal immigration. Given that the UK doesn't actually produce and export much any more, how is this all going to happen and why has it not happened already? Simple really, the only way the UK could fund all these targets and dreams is by raising taxes, not palatable given that government record on spending our taxes is not great.
Personally I would pay more tax if I could choose where it was spent but will that ever be a reality?
I would only be happy paying more tax if the numbers taking out, having never paid in, were reduced drasticaly.
In my view, this is a good plan: Build 5 million new social housing homes around major employment areas over the next 10 years. Ring fence the finances. Provide additional surgeries, dentists, and retail units in the housing estates. Provide transport to suit demand. Force Local Authorities to instigate planning and oversee estate building and infrastructure. Tax wealthy billionaires and corporations to pay more for estate infrastructure. Have a long-term industry employment plan so new estates don't get abandoned. Large retail supermarkets should pay more tax as they gain by having more residents in their catchment area. This tax goes toward estate infrastructure similar to S106s. Dentists and doctors should make a minimal charge of say £5 to help pay for new estate infrastructure. Reduce weapon spending by £5billion / year to go toward new social housing estates and their infrastructure. Design the estates so the residents can be proud of where they live eg, with parks play areas, safe zones and flats that have eco-friendly energy preinstalled. Design the estate so it looks beautiful and cleverly laid out. By all means increase the quality of THE PRIVATE RENTAL SECTOR but don't tax them out of existence or millions of private landlords will simply invest elsewhere which will defeat the object of providing more social housing. Finally, stop right to buys as they are counterproductive to providing more affordable homes. Finally, the government should put the whip away and sit down with all the parties that can - and do - help with the provision of new homes - and get an agreed plan that works for all. One party alone eg the government cannot do this by legislation. It needs local authority planners, investment companies, house builders, local authority highways etc, to agree on plans and costs and provide a final product ie. a flat that is affordable for those on lower incomes. The provision of housing by local authorities should not only be given to those most in need but 50% of the new stock to those who are employed and making an effort for their family and community - if they know that working hard will lead to a small flat and home they will continue to work and ensure that income is coming in and their children well brought up. It has to be said the standard of behaviour in England is dropping and income, education and their poor estates have a lot to do with the reason why.
I'm not convinced too much of it should be Social Housing, at least not in its current format. The attraction with Social Housing should be the security of tenure, not ludicrously cheap rent. Most people like a bargain but in reality it can be a trap. How many people turn down promotions because they don't want to lose their cheap Social house and they can't exchange it for one where the new job is?
There's no good reason for rent to be below LHA. Anyone on a low income would receive extra UC to meet LHA level rent. Anyone on sufficient income not to qualify for UC can afford LHA rent. If Social Housing was at LHA the housing associations and Councils could afford to maintain their existing stock and build or buy more. Recently a number of Housing Associations have been selling properties at auction because they can't afford to bring them up to modern standards. How does that make sense?
The type of housing Councils should really be focusing on is retirement housing so Social tenants can easily downsize and avoid the bedroom tax for under occupying. This would free up loads of family size houses which already have schools and infrastructure. Retirement housing is much higher density than family houses so greater numbers could be constructed more quickly and cheaply.
Robert & Jo - Another way to free up family homes would be to give a big incentive to retired owner occupiers. They may be persuaded to downsize if they are freed from stamp duty on their next purchase. Also any remaining funds should be allowed to be invested in one lifetime ISA and if they go into a care home instead of their threshold being £85,000 before government aids with funding it is zero.
Margaret - Social tenants and owner occupiers have very different objectives when downsizing.
Social tenants will want to escape the bedroom tax but will usually want to stay close to their current neighbourhood or move close to family. If the new place is modern and cheap to heat so much the better. Room sizes in Social Housing are usually far more generous than in other types of housing. The Local Authority will often pay their moving costs and some will even give them a lump sum as an incentive to downsize.
For owner occupiers downsizing is the hardest move. Finding a house with only 2 or 3 bedrooms and an ensuite, utility room, study, garage, parking and rooms big enough for full size furniture is a challenge. Throw in proximity to public transport and shops, doctor, dentist, etc and it gets really hard. Obviously SDLT is a major issue but the other moving costs such as estate agents fees and solicitors fees are also a powerful disincentive to move. Personally I would like to see far more purpose built PRS retirement housing. One of the main reasons people don't downsize is because they leave it too late and get to the point where they think the expense just isn't worth it for the potentially short time they have left. If there was a good rental option which also freed up money to make their last decade or two far more enjoyable it could be an attractive option.
Not everyone wants to downsize.
My partner and I live in a large semi-detached with a drive and good size gardens. Two rooms are used as our offices since we both work from home.
As I have got older my health has suffered a little and I no longer climb the two flights of stairs to the top floor where my office is located. we haverelocated the computers etc and our cats now enjoy the extra room.
If I find I cannot manage the one flight upstairs, we will buy a stair lift. As it is, we have a bedroom with large en-suite on the ground floor which comes in very handy during the night when my prostate and bladder kick in. I would not want to downsize because I could not find anywhere that would be suitable for our dogs and cats.
Jo and AL - Moving out your family house which you have created through your hard work is a tough call. I agree not everyone wants to downsize nevertheless a good incentive with expenses paid might persuade 25 percent of older homeowners to move.There needs to be purpose built retirement villages similar to the ones in America (I have lived in USA) to move to.
Margaret
One of the reasons we bought such a large house was that the ground floor was self contained once we updated the kitchen etc. The idea was that, should they need it, my parents had a place where we could look after them. Indeed, they enjoyed many holidays with us until my mother became seriously ill. It took a family intervention to get them up with us, whee sadly she died. She wanted to move but my late father didn't want to leave his home. Sadly, two years later, with Parkinson's and Dementia he did not have the choice.
AL - I agree your house suits your personal circumstances and a lot of people do future proof their homes. I am just thinking of single elderly people rattling around in their homes. Often they are quite lonely. I am not speaking from personal experience as I have a husband. I do like the idea of inter generational homes. I once considered that option for my mother with the creation of an annex.
We actually downsized in 2011 when our Local Authority decided to put our previous house in an Article 4 area. It was close to the university so we had to sell to someone who wanted to let it to students before we were trapped in a virtually unsaleable house. We started looking at 2 beds. Nothing suitable. Then 3 beds. Nothing suitable. Then 40 miles away. Ridiculous. Then we exchanged contracts on a 4 bedroom 3 storey townhouse as we were running out of time. Not long term suitable but highly lettable if we found something better. A few weeks later a 4 bed detached with my husband's dream double garage came on the market, so we bought that as well. It's bigger than we'd hoped for but significantly smaller than the previous one. The stairs are straight so easy if we need a stair lift. Plenty of space to park a mobility scooter. Level walk to Tesco, a railway station and bus stop. It's as future proof as we could find. We have different ideas about what we would do when either of us pop our clogs. I would probably move into something smaller. My husband would plan to have a live in carer/companion.
My son is doing the intergenerational thing with his mother-in-law. It's not going well.
Jo - I think we will have to move. We live in a village with no amenities and land to take care of.
Shame it hasn’t worked out for your son. Presumably they have separate quarters from the mum. Very important to have their own space.
They do have their own quarters. The problem is the household composition has changed radically since they bought the house together so the allocation of space no longer really works and the balance of care/support has massively shifted.
Initially mother-in-law, father-in-law, son, wife and 3 children. Since then father-in-law has died and twins have arrived. MIL can't drive, can't see much, can't babysit and now needs quite a bit of support. Kids are crammed into too few bedrooms.
Moving would be tricky and the Council are being awkward with planning permission to extend due to the vague possibility of bats.
I’am trying to figure out whether I should be in the day Centre or a Care Home but no would you believe I am up on the roof talking down 10’ Chimney that shifted in the storm and causing my neighbour some concern. It had the finest Chimney King Pot I ever seen about 1m tall 8 venting flutes to take the smoke out automatically away ahead of it time, weighs 120 kg and dated 1789 I kid you not and withstood all winters for 235 years even the Blitz, obviously it’s been on other properties before or Palaces over the centuries. Now don’t be morbid I don’t want anyone wiping my bum.
Congratulations to England great game well done.
Michael - Doesn’t sound like you are ready for care home/day centre. Keep doing what you are doing as it keeps you fit!
Rather you than me!! They say you don't have to be mad to be a landlord, but it helps!!!
No doubt more luxury flats sold to foreign investors
Would be interesting to see a breakdown, by local authority, of the number of empty properties, number of holiday lets, and number of properties approved but not yet built.
Please login to comment