Social Housing Weekly - 12 August 2024

A green and pleasant... belt?

Generations-old battle lines up and down England’s Green Belt are being reinforced on an almost daily basis at the moment as experts, the industry and the media digest the complexity behind the new Government’s house-building goals. 

A solution to just one small part of the issue has been suggested – to cap landowners' profits from the sale of green belt sites. Ministers are preparing to give Councils the power to compulsorily purchase cheap land that would then be set aside for new homes. The policy, to follow after the consultation on the NPPF has closed, would set a low ‘benchmark’ value that landowners could receive in an attempt to stop price gouging by those who own land that currently is not earmarked for development. So far so controversial, and that is before we fully understand where famously cash-strapped councils are getting the funding to buy all of this land.

Elsewhere the Guardian has outed a few members of the new Cabinet as the dreaded NIMBY, the Royal Institute of British Architects have called for social infrastructure to be embedded in ‘new towns' and of course councils are lining up to complain about their new housebuilding targets.

Read on for all the latest housing news and more from LCA’s housing correspondent Peter Lord.

Jesse Peacock

LCA Associate Director

Tailor Your Experience

At LCA, we believe in catering our insights to your specific interests. Choose the content that aligns with your needs and stay informed about the areas that matter most to you.

Yes in someone's back yard

Stress-testing the government's pro-building agenda - by Peter Lord

Last week, the Guardian had a (minor) splash with the news that five members of the Cabinet* had opposed planning applications and housebuilding efforts in their constituencies. While this revelation is interesting, it is really symptomatic of a wider problem for the government. It has been widely reported that Labour could face problems with its pro-development agenda from the cohort of new backbenchers who find themselves suddenly representing leafy commuter suburbs, where voters are (strangely) cautious about new housing.

So it seems the rallying cry is "Yes in someone's back yard" and while I doubt that the soubriquet YISBY will gain much traction, it should be remembered that numerous Labour MPs have been actively campaigning against development in their constituencies, even before the government's new housing targets come into effect. 

This reluctance to see the local impact of increased housebuilding is only natural of course. It would also put these MPs in a similar position to the population at large when it comes to this issue. Last month, YouGov found that while 62% of Britons are generally supportive of a ‘large increase’ of new housing, only 52% support a similar increase in their local area. Meanwhile 21% of people are recorded as strongly opposing new housing in their local area, increasing to 42% for new housing on the Green Belt.

So what is the end result of this YISBYism? Doubtless it won't dampen the government's housebuilding ambition. However, one could be forgiven for sympathising with Labour MPs for areas which have seen large increases. For example, spare a thought for Alex Baker, newly-minted Labour MP for Aldershot whose constituents from the local authority areas of Rushmoor and Hart expect to receive housing target increases of 129% and 147% respectively.  

Finally, what of those solidly-Labour cities where housing is in unquestionably high demand? Well, their targets have, perversely, dropped dramatically. (For more commentary on the "mutant algorithm" behind London and Birmingham's plummeting housing targets, read Josh Coupland's article on this very topic.) However, Wes Streeting has proved that even London MPs are not immune from YISBYism.

More homes? Yes please! Just not in Labour constituencies thank you...

* The full list is Angela Rayner, Rachel Reeves, Yvette Cooper, Wes Streeting and Pat Mc Fadden

Housing in the headlines

"Mutant algorithm" responsible for London and Birmingham's plummeting housing targets

The Centre for Policy Studies has warned that the Government’s proposed update to the National Planning Policy Framework does note reflect the high demand for housing in large towns and cities. Writing in City AM, Josh Coupland states that the Government’s change to the formula for measuring housing need ‘distorts’ the demand for housing in less built-up areas and does not reflect population trends.

Mixed views from the sector on achieving housing targets

The Sunday Times reports on the housing  sector’s response to the Government’s reintroduction of mandatory housing targets. Redrow’s CEO Steve Morgan warns that the workforce capacity for more building ‘is just not there’, while Taylor Wimpey’s Chief Executive Jennie Daly believes it would take a ‘concerted effort’ to reach the Government’s targets of 1.5m homes by 2029. Meanwhile, Legal & General has warned that the Government’s ambition to deliver 1.5m new homes by 2029 and tackle the affordable housing crisis will need a ‘decades-long-plus investment programme.’ 

However, Persimmon is reporting ‘positive momentum’ following the announcement of the Government’s proposed planning reforms and anticipates to meet the ‘top end’ of its annual housing targets for 2024 at 10,500 homes.  The leading housebuilder also reports securing planning consent for more than 6,000 homes in 2024 so far, 1,000 of which were granted permission in July alone.

Alarming rise in homelessness amongst asylum seekers

New data from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government shows the number of asylum seekers made homeless or at risk of homelessness between January and March 2024 has nearly quadrupled to 6,110 households. Figures also showed a 15% increase year-on-year in the number of children in temporary accommodation, recorded as 151,630 at the end of March 2024, with 117,450 households overall registered as homeless.

Grey belt development could lead to "isolated communities"

President of the Royal Institute or British Architects (RIBA), Muyiwa Oki, has warned that the Government’s plans to develop so-called ‘grey belt’ land on the Green Belt could lead to ‘isolated communities’ due to a lack of services and amenities. Oki said the Government’s proposed update to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) needed to ensure that housing on grey belt sites is ‘appropriate’ and will produce ‘the best possible outcomes’ for communities.

Calls for developers and councils to deliver infrastructure to "unlock" new homes

Chief Executive of Home Counties developer Thakeham Homes, Rob Boughton, has said that residential developers ‘should be delivering infrastructure’ themselves to ‘unlock’ new homes. He adds that local councils should be ‘forced’ to spend Section 106 contributions and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funds earlier to speed up delivery of housing.

Let's get political

Will Reeves stick by government's fiscal rules?

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has refused to rule out changing the Government’s self-imposed fiscal rules to allow greater borrowing to increase public spending. On a trip to the US to generate investment potential, Reeves stated that the Government would ‘balance tax receipts with day-to-day spending’, but refused to rule out changing tax policy to align capital gains tax to the higher rate of income tax.

This comes as the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has warned that proposed changes to the Government’s fiscal rules to allow greater borrowing would amount to ‘fiscal jiggery-pokery’ and would not deliver more than a ‘fairly modest’ amount of headroom for additional public spending. The IFS stated that any change would still require higher taxes to increase spending.