Policy Exchange - Social Housing

[acooling08]

http://www.channel4....sold-off-report

Expensive social housing should be sold off to fund a wave of new building across the UK, a report by the right-leaning Policy Exchange think tank has said.

Putting the highest-value properties on the market when they become vacant would generate £4.5bn to build up to 170,000 social homes a year, according to Policy Exchange.

The influential think tank, set up by Conservative MP Nick Boles who is a key ally of Prime Minister David Cameron, claims the move could reduce the housing waiting list by up to 600,000 in five years.

Its report, Ending Expensive Social Tenancies, says that properties worth more than the average house price for an area account for one in five of the social housing stock.

The 816,000 homes have a total value of £159bn, with £71.9bn of that in London.

Around 3.5 per cent of the buildings become vacant each year and, after debts are paid off, would raise £4.5bn.

Spending floors

The report suggests that the money should be earmarked to build additional homes and recommends introducing spending floors to ensure standards are driven up in the quality of stock.

Alex Morton, report author, said: "Expensive social housing is costly, unpopular and unfair. That is why almost everybody rejects it.

"Social housing tenants deserve a roof over their heads but not one better than most people can afford, particularly as expensive social housing means less social housing and so longer waiting lists for most people in need."

Housing is increasingly being pushed up the political agenda as demand for new homes continue to grow. Construction is also viewed by many politicians and experts as a way to kick-start economic growth across the UK.

A major study on housing policy, the government-commissioned Montague report, is expected to recommend in the coming weeks that obligations on developers forcing them to build affordable homes as part of any new schemes are scaled back.

'Languishing on waiting lists'

Housing Minister Grant Shapps said: "I've been determined that we get Britain building and help the thousands of families who for years have been left languishing on social housing waiting lists.

"That's why we've introduced radical reforms, including investing £19.5bn public and private funding into an affordable housing programme set to exceed expectations and deliver up to 170,000 homes, and giving councils the flexibility to offer fixed-term tenancies to new tenants to ensure the precious resource of social housing goes to those in greatest need.

"On top of this, councils looking to sell vacant social housing can now keep the receipts to invest in affordable housing, regeneration or paying down housing debt in their area.

"And the reinvigorated right to buy is helping existing council tenants realise their dream of home ownership with increased discounts of up to £75,000, and for the first time a commitment to replace additional council homes sold with new affordable homes for rent on a one-for-one basis nationally."

Sounds like a very good idea to me. The number of people on the waiting list should reduce which is surely the most important thing.

Also, there will be less people living in unneccessarily high quality social properties. I do not think that a social house should be better quality than a normal young working couple for example can expect to be able to afford. Seems unfair imo.

Most importantly, the amount of 'Large Asian immigrant jobless families get £1.5 million London social housing' stories in the Daily Mail will stop

Only possible downside I can see is if these high quality properties get sold off quickly, and then the building of new cheaper ones gets delayed or cancelled at a later point. I wouldn't put something like that past the government.

[sphericalfox]

http://www.channel4....sold-off-report

Sounds like a very good idea to me. The number of people on the waiting list should reduce which is surely the most important thing.

Also, there will be less people living in unneccessarily high quality social properties. I do not think that a social house should be better quality than a normal young working couple for example can expect to be able to afford. Seems unfair imo.

Most importantly, the amount of 'Large Asian immigrant jobless families get £1.5 million London social housing' stories in the Daily Mail will stop

Only possible downside I can see is if these high quality properties get sold off quickly, and then the building of new cheaper ones gets delayed or cancelled at a later point. I wouldn't put something like that past the government.

You do know racist digs don't disappear with a winkey face don't you?

[Daggers]

[I am Rod Hull]

[Nick]

[fleckneymike]

The excellent 'the secret history of our streets' exposed some of the pitfalls of earlier attempts at social housing.

[21st Century Fox]

The excellent 'the secret history of our streets' exposed some of the pitfalls of earlier attempts at social housing.

But governments always learn from past mistakes!

[davieG]

I've never really understood the definition of Social Housing, can someone explain, does it mean no heating, no inside water supply an outside/community shared toilet or maybe they use inferior materials and are allowed to ignore building regs.

Surely inferior building will lead to more expensive maintenance costs and run down Council Estates?

Maybe by expensive they mean in properties off council estates where they can command a high selling price?

[MooseBreath]

Sell an unnecessarily large house to build two more, bit like cut down a tree and plant two more, or sell your expensive foreign striker to bring in two solid box to box midfielders. It's a good idea, but nothing will fix our housing market while the people with the power to make changes have so much of their own money tied up in their properties. Only poor people will benefit from a properly functioning housing market in this country, and that means it isn't going to happen.

[fleckneymike]

I've never really understood the definition of Social Housing, can someone explain, does it mean no heating, no inside water supply an outside/community shared toilet or maybe they use inferior materials and are allowed to ignore building regs.

Surely inferior building will lead to more expensive maintenance costs and run down Council Estates?

Maybe by expensive they mean in properties off council estates where they can command a high selling price?

Essentially social housing are council owned houses which they rent to tenants. Often the exercise rent control to keep it affordable for the tenants.

In London specifically the council bought housing stock in various areas, as time as progressed some areas have prospered and been gentrified whilst others have remained the same, this means the council end up with property in prime locations and some not so much. Obviously in the 'prime areas' they keep the rents at affordable levels for their tenants, many of whom have lived in the same house for generations, which can create huge disparity in terms of local rates.

On paper selling these prime assets seems logical as you get money to reinvest in new affordable housing, sadly its often not that straight forward as families have jobs in the area, kids in local schools etc and moving them isn't a simple case of moving a few doors down. Speaking from personal experience one of my friends lived in social housing in Angel Islington, his family had lived in that house for close to 40 years, when they moved in the area wasn't a very desirable place to live but over the years prices rocketed and their modest 2 bed lower floor terrace became surround by houses worth millions yet they paid very modest rent. To suddenly decide that someone is too poor to live in their house is a dangerous precedent as you risk creating ghettos in the areas to which you move people. There also has to be employment in the areas into which people are being rehoused otherwise you're creating new unemployed poor people where once you just had employed poor people.

[Zingari]

Essentially social housing are council owned houses which they rent to tenants. Often the exercise rent control to keep it affordable for the tenants.

In London specifically the council bought housing stock in various areas, as time as progressed some areas have prospered and been gentrified whilst others have remained the same, this means the council end up with property in prime locations and some not so much. Obviously in the 'prime areas' they keep the rents at affordable levels for their tenants, many of whom have lived in the same house for generations, which can create huge disparity in terms of local rates.

On paper selling these prime assets seems logical as you get money to reinvest in new affordable housing, sadly its often not that straight forward as families have jobs in the area, kids in local schools etc and moving them isn't a simple case of moving a few doors down. Speaking from personal experience one of my friends lived in social housing in Angel Islington, his family had lived in that house for close to 40 years, when they moved in the area wasn't a very desirable place to live but over the years prices rocketed and their modest 2 bed lower floor terrace became surround by houses worth millions yet they paid very modest rent. To suddenly decide that someone is too poor to live in their house is a dangerous precedent as you risk creating ghettos in the areas to which you move people. There also has to be employment in the areas into which people are being rehoused otherwise you're creating new unemployed poor people where once you just had employed poor people.

I'm think councils and housing associations stopped allowing that years ago . I think they will offer to rehouse in other accomadation , but i don't think grown up offspring have any rights to continue in the property .

[ADK]

Surely the problem is too many people thanks to wholesale immigration?

[fleckneymike]

I'm think councils and housing associations stopped allowing that years ago . I think they will offer to rehouse in other accomadation , but i don't think grown up offspring have any rights to continue in the property .

Many of them did but there are still people living in a house in which they were born.

[Zingari]

Many of them did but there are still people living in a house in which they were born.

Yes you're quite right Mike , but I think they allowed 1 generation to take over the lease of a deceased parent , but I think even that is getting more rare .

i think now there are many council tenants ( who are claiming benefits) who are being told to leave properties that are considered too large for them , such as an old lady on her own in a 3 bed house

In some ways I can understand this policy , but i do see the personal problems too .

Maybe attitudes will have to change and tenants will no longer expect to be able to stay in rented houses that are too big .

[fleckneymike]

Yes you're quite right Mike , but I think they allowed 1 generation to take over the lease of a deceased parent , but I think even that is getting more rare .

i think now there are many council tenants ( who are claiming benefits) who are being told to leave properties that are considered too large for them , such as an old lady on her own in a 3 bed house

In some ways I can understand this policy , but i do see the personal problems too .

Maybe attitudes will have to change and tenants will no longer expect to be able to stay in rented houses that are too big .

True but do we want to move an elderly lady away from her community to a one bed flat?

[Corky]

When I saw the thread title, and the author, I expected a comment about people living in £1 million homes.

You didn't let me down cooling.

[MooseBreath]

True but do we want to move an elderly lady away from her community to a one bed flat?

The article says "when properties become vacant". No mention of forcing anyone to move.

[Jon the Hat]

As I read it, the proposal would only apply to properties which fell vacan for some reason. So it would not in itself lead to people having to leave their community. The only reason this has not happened already is that 75% or so of the proceeds of council house sales used to go to central government. Now councils can keep the proceeds I can see this happening anyway. No doubt it will make sense in many cases.

I don't really buy the argument of creating ghettos. If an area is expensive I don't see why those who have social housing should benefit from living their if others cannot. That thinking is what lead to insane rents being paid by councils, which is partly to blame for the dramatic increase in private rent levels.

[Jon the Hat]

The article says "when properties become vacant". No mention of forcing anyone to move.

Indeed. There is however another policy which covers encouraging people to downsize - not sure of the means / incentives. Conceptually it feels right that you don't get more than you need when you are relying on the state to house you.

[Steven]

So what happens when you have nothing left to sell?

[ADK]

So what happens when you have nothing left to sell?

True, it can hardly be touted as a policy when in effect it is a one way, one time only sale of public assets. Still this is what the Tories are famous for, flogging public assets in order to bribe the electorate in an election year.

[Webbo]

So what happens when you have nothing left to sell?

They're going to use the proceeds of sales to build new houses so presumably that won't happen.

[The People's Hero]

So what happens when you have nothing left to sell?

Don't ask these sort of sensible questions! You're being obstructive. Ignore the obvious flaws and embrace it!

[MooseBreath]

If you sell one house to build two, one would expect running out of houses to sell not to be a problem.

[Zingari]

True but do we want to move an elderly lady away from her community to a one bed flat?

When you put it in stark terms like that it does sound heartless , I agree .

But I come from a very large extended family many of whom lived in council houses . They brought the children up and when they had all left home most of them continued to live in these 3 bed family houses for upwards of 30 odd years( mostly just the woman for much of the time ).This must be quite a common situation . At the same time there are young families living in bed sits and other unsuitable housing who should be benefiting from this type of property . It just seems so wrong to me . I think it's time now and not unreasonable for social housing to be allocated on need , not on sitting tenancy , and tenants should be judged on a regular basis to judge if the circumstances have changed and rehoused accordingly . In this way no-one will just assume that the house is theirs for life or generations and they should be expected to make provisions sooner