Social Housing Weekly - 27 August 2024

Spot the difference

Now that the Labour Government's honeymoon period seems to be all but over, cut short in its prime by the right-wing riots that brought us crashing back to reality this month, we have chosen this week to ask the perennial political question. Aren't politicians all the same?

Specifically, what's the difference between the one Michael Gove and his Labour replacement Angela Rayner. Now, the personality differences are obvious - you couldn't choose two people further apart in terms of style and substance when you consider them as people.

But...the difference between the erstwhile DHLUC and MHCLG are, perhaps, less obvious. Both interventionist Housing Secretaries, with similar priorities in terms of rental reform, quality housing, and building at scale, some might argue Rayner's approach is pure continuity governing. Well, Peter might argue that (see below).

Personally, I take the view that personality matters. Angela's policy may not seem massively different to Michael's when it comes to landlords but her general 'vibe' is one of being on the side of tenants. And vibes matter. When she says that she wants her legacy to be the next generation of council homes (as she did on the podcast The Rest is Politics), you believe her. 

There's also the fact that while Rayner might be intervening in planning applications, much as Gove did, she is intervening in an entirely different way. Gove generally sat on applications, causing untold delays to delivery - notably in Lambeth, a borough that suffered a disproportionate amount of Gove call-ins to such a degree that there was speculation abound that the then Housing Secretary liked to call in applications for sites he could see from his office window. Meanwhile, our Ange has called in her first application to push a housing scheme through - using central Government power to force a local authority to allow building. 

The central difference between DHLUC and MHCLG is, of course, the reintroduction of housing targets. The proof will be in the pudding on this point given that the industry remains unconvinced that targets are meaningful if they are, in their view, unachievable. However, we never had a Housing Secretary at DHLUC who seemed willing to compromise their own beauty standards to deliver new homes...

Harriet Shone

LCA 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.

New name, same priorities?

Understanding the character of Rayner's MHCLG - by Peter Lord

With the news that Housing Secretary Angela Rayner has issued her first recovered appeal decision for a major residential development*, it seemed an opportune time to revisit a subject that we touched upon several times before the election: how will the new Housing Ministry, and its Secretary of State, differ from the last one?

Clear ambition and willingness to intervene

It seems clear from the outset that Rayner is willing to borrow heavily from her predecessor's playbook in terms of intervention. Gove was seemingly permanently poised with his finger over the button, ready to weigh in on aesthetic or environmental concerns especially. The two also share a willingness to drive forward housing policy based on their own ambition, whether it was Gove's drive for beauty or Rayner's goal of beautiful attractive homes.

There was even something Gove-like about Rayner's decision to so publicly red-pen her predecessor's work; with the new-look NPPF being published in a tracked changes format, the reader can almost sense the delight with which each reference to beauty was expunged with a sweep of the pen. Of course, this semantic difference reveals the underlying similarity; both Housing Secretaries had a strong vision for the way homes should look and the kind of communities they should create. Housing, for Gove and Rayner at least, has been a highly personal policy area, and their solutions have been no less idiosyncratic. 

Whose side is it anyway?

One area where Gove's agenda was slightly less clear was his relationship with the different actors involved. Very keen to publicly name-and-shame landlords, particularly social ones, over failings, he will ultimately be remembered as having capitulated to landlord Tory MPs over the Renters' Reform Bill. Rayner, meanwhile has pledged to revitalise renters' reform legislation, with promises to end Section 21 evictions - the detail that ultimately proved most challenging for Gove. However, it would be naïve to assume that the Labour Government is immune from conflicts of interest over landlords' interests. Analysis by the Financial Times has shown that three of the top five private landlords in the House of Commons are Labour MPs, with new MP for Ilford South and former Leader of Redbridge Council, Jas Athwal, now the biggest MP landlord. 

Whatever the relationship between politicians and landlords, there is a need to bring all three elements - developers, landlords, and tenants - on side in order to fix affordability issues in the rental market. A fact that that Rayner seemingly recognised when she resisted Sadiq Khan's calls for rent controls, instead claiming that increasing the supply of affordable and social homes will be the best solution to the problem.

So does the new-look MHCLG really differ from what came before? Well, the key difference (so far) has been over nationally-defined housing targets, both what they should be and the utility of having centralised targets at all. Nonetheless, the critical dilemma of central versus local decision making is all too familiar; it's a conflict we know Gove felt keenly.

So are Rayner's priorities any different? Well, in short, yes, but the striking similarities remind us that while the politics are evergreen, the issues are perennial; the seasons change but the problems, and the available solutions seldom alter.

* Issued formally by Housing and Planning Minister Matthew Pennycook, the recovered appeal approves plans by Bellway Homes and County Durham Land to deliver up to 2,288 homes north of Sniperley, County Durham on former Green Belt land. The developers appealed against Durham County Council’s non-determination of the plans in 2022.

Housing in the headlines

Reeves to provide funding to keep a lid on social rent increases

Rent controls may not be on the government's agenda, but the Financial Times reports that the Chancellor is to introduce a 10-year funding formula for social rent in the autumn Budget on 30 October, which would increase social rents annually by CPI level of inflation plus 1%. The social housing and local government sectors have called for a long-term rent increase settlement to improve stability in finances, allowing the delivery of more social housing and repairs, but could also lead to an increase in households claiming housing benefit.

How do you fix a housing crisis?

Last week, the Social Housing Weekly team offered its own critical take on mooted solutions to the housing crisis. This week, Head of Political Economy at right-wing think tank Policy Exchange, James Vitali, has provided his take on eight ways to fix the housing crisis, drawing on the think tank’s July report on the housing market. Vitali writes that the Town and Country Planning Act should be suspended and overhauled to pilot a new ‘rules-based’ system, while reforming the Infrastructure Levy, Green Belt definition, council tax, and stamp duty.

New look NPPF

The Telegraph reports that the Government’s proposed update to the National Planning Policy Framework will include extending the new ‘grey belt’ definition to allow councils to allocate traveller sites on Green Belt areas where a long-term supply of land is unavailable. Shadow Housing Secretary Kemi Badenoch has said this would create ‘two-tier planning’ system which would be ‘counterproductive and threaten to undermine good community relations.’

Meanwhile, The Times claims that the Government’s proposed update to the NPPF will include the ‘loosening’ of rules related to upward house extensions, dropping existing rules which require upward extensions to not exceed the height of surrounding buildings. Government officials have said there has been a ‘disproportionate emphasis’ on mansard roofs in permitting upward extensions which reduce overall floorspace through sloped roofs to reduce its street visibility.

Let's get political

Reeves to raise taxes as government borrowing soars

The Guardian reports that Chancellor Rachel Reeves is planning to raise both inheritance tax and capital gains tax, while maintaining plans to increase government spending by 1%, which could lead to cuts in some departments. Following figures from the Office for National Statistics showing the Government increased borrowing in July to £3.1bn, Reeves is expected to alter fiscal rules to change how government debt is measured, excluding the Bank of England to increase the Treasury’s borrowing limit. Reeves is reported to be maintaining the Government’s plans to keep the two-child benefit cap, despite significant pressure from backbench Labour MPs and civil society groups.

Tory faithful favour Cleverley, while Tugendhat leads Starmer on public popularity

A poll of Conservative Party members by Techne shows Shadow Home Secretary and MP for Braintree, James Cleverly, as the most favoured candidate for the party leadership. 26% of members backed Cleverly, followed by MP for Witham Priti Patel on 20%. Wider polling by YouGov of the public reveals MP for Tonbridge and Shadow Security Minister, Tom Tugendhat, is the only leadership contender with a higher personal rating than the Prime Minister.

Government balances affordability of pay rises with cost of industrial action

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has insisted there are ‘no blank cheques’ for negotiations with public sector trade unions following criticism that the Government is ‘caving in’ to industrial action from Aslef and the British Medical Association. Reeves said the cost of not accepting pay review body recommendations for public sector pay would be ‘very damaging’ for economic activity, as well as recruitment in the NHS, armed forces and teaching professions. Senior business leaders have also called on the Government to water down proposals to trade union law which would require companies to recognise unions representing a smaller minority of employees, warning it could damage business confidence. The Times reports that union leaders are ‘knocking on the door’ with demands to business leaders ahead of draft legislation expected this autumn.