Memorandum by Dr Nick Gallent (AFH 05)
I am currently completing two research projects
on second homes and affordable housing for the National Assembly
for Wales and the Countryside Agency (both with Dr Mark Tewdwr-Jones
and Mr Alan Mace from this University). I think it would perhaps
be more useful to draw "evidence" from this work, rather
than make general comments on the wider subject. We are certainly
addressing some of the issues set out in your Press Notice, though
the work is focused on non-metropolitan "rural situations."
On the issue of defining "affordable housing",
there seem to be two questions here: first, what type of housing
(tenure/size etc) is assigned this label and second, how is "affordability"
defined—is there, for example, a formula for relating housing
costs to incomes locally? On the first question, there appears
to be a significant rift between rhetoric and reality. Authorities
tend to set out "tenure neutral" policies in line with
government guidance. But in reality, there are big differences
in the type of housing many would prefer to see built. Some are
more "hands off" and will argue that sufficient affordable
housing is supplied simply when two-bed semi-detached properties
are offered for sale; though given the strength of the first-time
buyer market in many areas, these are often far beyond the price
range of many homebuyers. Others display a preference for low-cost
rental housing under the long-term management of an RSL or shared
equity where a council or RSL retains the "golden share"
in perpetuity.
In other words, our research revealed no clear
view on the form that affordable housing should take. On the second
issue, few authorities define a relationship between local income
and the cost of a home. The assumption often made in rural areas
is that there is a "low wage farming economy" that fixes
an "income threshold" that few local people surpass.
However, the precise relationship between incomes (and their variance)
and housing affordability is rarely made clear. This means that
all too often local debate (and policy) draws on political speculation
rather than hard evidence. This has been a particularly important
issue for us given that the focus of our current work has been
second home purchasing and other "distortions" within
local housing markets.
Our research has focused across England and
Wales and therefore offers some pointers as to the scale and location
of affordable housing need. At a local level, we were faced with
huge differences. Some authorities and RSLs expressed the view
that it would be impossible to let more rented accommodation hinting
at the saturation of the local market. But others pointed to significant
shortfalls. We have collected no national data on the need for
affordable housing, but case study examples (10 in England and
five in Wales) suggest strong housing demand rippling out from
the South East and having a particularly pronounced effect on
more scenic parts of the countryside. There was found to be strong
"external" housing demand in the Cotswolds, for example,
and this focused around rail links back to London. This and other
examples suggested that South East households are seeking second
homes or commuting bases ever further from London, often drawing
on wealth derived from equity growth during the 1990s. This process
places significant pressures on the rural housing stock for two
reasons: first the buying up of a very limited number of rural
properties, and second, incomer resistance to further house building.
In the Cotswolds, the arrival of new households from London was
often accompanied by an increase in objections to new affordable
housing development. The same was true in other areas and particularly
in the English National Parks.
Overall, our work suggests that housing pressure—and
the consequent need for more affordable housing—is extending
further away from London as people resign themselves to having
to live further away from the Capital either because of spiralling
house prices or other urban push factors.
The quality of affordable housing was not found
to be an issue of particular concern in our rural case studies.
There is some concern however that Total Cost Indicators do not
adequately reflect the greater costs involved in developing smaller
rural schemes or those where there are particular design or material
requirements. And this is despite the National Park allowance
made for some authorities. There is a view that the TCI (or a
future replacement) is in need of revision. Unsurprisingly, authorities
quickly identified a shortage of affordable housing as a problem
in the countryside, though it was not the objective of our research
to place a figure on this shortage. However, one interesting point
emerged in terms of resourcing. Participants in the English case
studies tended to suggest that resourcing for affordable housing
was adequate. Any shortfalls in supply were thought to be a result
of planning constraint or—in terms of planning and affordable
housing—the way in which the Social Housing Grant bidding
time-frame can be out of sync with the sudden arrival of development
opportunities. In some of our case studies for example, it was
suggested that a good number of "exception" sites emerge
during the course of the year (and also a limited number of gain
sites). However, because of the prescribed bidding cycle for SHG,
only sites that emerge at the beginning of the cycle can be developed.
Others have to wait until the following year, or may not be developed
for affordable housing at all. The suggestion was that resourcing
is sufficient but the inflexibility of funding rules often means
that these resources cannot be fully exploited. Inflexibility—with
regards to both planning and funding—appears as the biggest
barrier to affordable housing supply in many rural areas.
The link between capital funding (SHG) and planning
gain emerged as being critical in the rural case studies. But
it is also important to note that the gain approach is limited
in rural areas by general planning constraint (ie few large sites
with gain potential are developed in many predominantly "rural"
authorities). This general issue, and not the operation of "planning
and affordable housing", seems to be more significant. However,
a move towards development tariffs, largely replacing section
106 obligations, could bring additional problems. Political resistance
in local councils may gain strength if tariffs are introduced,
allowing councillors to set high tariffs as a means of warding
off more "social housing". Officers in several of our
case study areas expressed this concern. A more general point,
however, is that planning and affordable housing—particularly
the general approach—yields fewer units where large market
developments are fewer and far between. This is a general problem/issue
in the countryside, suggesting that planning gain is more of an
"urban" solution. In our recent study in Wales, we suggest
that gains should be pooled and targeted at particular communities.
This breaks the link between development and gain, but seems fair
and logical if certain communities—with a proven need—look
unlikely to ever benefit from the present system.
On the issue of different social housing options,
it needs to be accepted that a preference for ownership has been
created over the last two decades. The desire to own is now part
of the collective psyche and it is increasingly difficult to convince
people of the virtues of renting their homes. Rented housing—whether
in the private or social sector—is viewed as a transitional
tenure, perhaps more suited to the requirements of younger households
that have not, as yet, put down permanent roots. (There will also,
of course, be a wider role for renting determined by household
wealth and income.) But because it serves this transitional role,
particularly in large urban areas, there seems to be an obvious
need for continued and further investment in social renting, particularly
in London where the private rental market is overheating.
But related to investment in different forms
of social housing, we unearthed serious resistance to social (particularly
rented) housing in some areas. Though perhaps of less relevance
here, there were cases in Wales where local officers dismissed
the need for social rented housing (arguing that it would be resisted
by local people) despite acknowledging the existence of strong
demand for low-cost housing. They often attributed this resistance
to the view (amongst some local people) that social housing is
a "Trojan Horse" for "problem families from elsewhere"
(quote). It needs to be remembered that in some areas a stigma
remains attached to social housing and that this drives politicised
resistance.
As some of the pressures creating/negating the
need for affordable housing appear regional in scale and nature,
it would appear sensible to introduce regional targets. These
should refer, of course, to other policy objectives, such as the
need to deal with low housing demand in the North West or wider
economic considerations and determinants of future demand. The
targets would probably need to be scenario-based with scope for
amendment judged primarily against these economic considerations.
They may well be expressed as proportions of general demand rather
than independent and absolute figures. They might also make reference
to relative investment in different forms of affordable housing,
reflecting different regional needs including the importance of
increasing rental opportunities (for the young) or assisting young
families to purchase homes for the first time. Judging from our
recent work, I think that regional targets would bring positive
benefits in some rural areas where the need for affordable housing
is too easily suppressed beneath local concerns. A stronger regional
framework alongside targets might be used to support the case
for sustainable village growth.
This is probably as far as our current research
takes us in terms of the general affordable housing debate, as
much of work focuses on broader housing market issues and second
home purchasing. I would end, however, by saying that obvious
barriers remain to be overcome. The planning system is rarely
employed in a positive way: more time needs to be spent by local
planning authorities in defining a local vision for sustainable
growth. At the moment, inadequate resourcing of local authority
planning means that the system is dominated by (or has entrenched
into) the development control function. It merely reacts to development
proposals under the direction of members who see little political
gain in being "forward thinking", and prefer simply
to represent the views of a vocal and often anti-development minority.
This view is frequently dismissed as conjecture, though it was
confirmed in our recent English case studies. I would view this
political/planning restraint link as critical in terms of the
delivery of affordable housing.
On the issue of mixed communities: this is clearly
not being achieved in rural areas where planning constraint coupled
with a more competitive market is resulting in many parts of the
countryside becoming socially unbalanced, dominated by the old,
the rich or a combination of the two. But in many instances, general
market distortions would appear to defy resolution through any
conventional policy response. Free reign to provide sufficient
affordable housing would result in significant growth in some
areas, and would court strong opposition. The introduction of
tariffs could worsen the situation in terms of social mix, giving
the opponents of growth (or social mixing itself) a new means
of preventing development. The current system of planning obligations
might work reasonably well in London (where authorities do not
resort to accepting commuted sums in lieu of on-site contributions)
but such mechanisms have less bite in the countryside.
Our rural (stress) case studies suggest an urgent
need for further green field development if rural communities
are to meet a mix of housing needs now and in the future. It is
also the case that many of the issues/problems I have described
above are being played out at Stevenage West in Hertfordshire.
Despite a great deal of up-front pre-proposal investment by Stevenage
Borough Council, the automatic resistance to green field development
poses a serious threat to meeting future housing need in this
part of the South East. It is interesting to note that the same
people who oppose this type of development tend to worry about
the spiralling cost of housing and the effect this will have on
their children in 10 years' time. Research reveals a great deal
of contradiction, often between the housing that people think
is needed nationally and what they would be prepared to accept
locally. This is nothing new, but continues to be a major barrier
to housing affordability.
Market distortions, local resistance and planning
constraint are causing a shortage of affordable housing in many
parts of rural England, and particularly in those areas more accessible
to London. This is a key message emerging from our work for the
Countryside Agency.
Dr Nick Gallent
Senior Lecturer in Town Planning
The Bartlett School of Planning
University College London
|
