James Cusick, political correspondent at the Independent, opened the debate by highlighting the “chronic” shortage of houses and the need to address a systemic problem within the market. He suggested, without drastic change, the UK would be back to the position of the 19th Century, where people could only own homes if they had large incomes or inherited from their families.
Looking at Labour’s recent target for homes, and their “brownfield first” policy, Cusick suggested the clarity was not there. He noted the Homes for Britain campaign, as a call to politicians across all parties, to end the housing crisis within a generation.
First to speak on the panel, Brian Berry, chief executive, Federation of Master Builders, began by saying that small building companies were the “backbone of the building industry”. He spoke about the huge importance of small and medium enterprises (SMEs), as well as the need to invest in training for apprentices and increase support for the industry.
In terms of housing targets, he suggested the last time the UK built the number required to effectively house people, was in 1988. Berry noted over 1.8 million households were on social waiting lists, and approximately 90,000 people lived in temporary accommodation, not to mention the number of children living in overcrowded homes.
On building homes, Berry drew attention to the fact the SME sector was in decline, falling from two thirds of all new homes built by SMEs, falling to 27 per cent in recent times. He suggested this was a concerning trend, as smaller builders employed local people and put the money back into the economy, producing local houses and settlements which were more in tune and sympathetic to local towns.
Berry identified three key barriers, which any government needed to address. The first, and most serious barrier, was the lack of access to finance, which 61 per cent of FMB’s members had identified as an issue.
Secondly, he said there was a lack of supply for small sites in the planning system, as local authorities tended to release large parts of land which were only suitable for large volume house builders.
Thirdly, he suggested the complexity of the planning system and local authority fees meant smaller builders had to pay an extra £30,000 to £40,000 to build on smaller sites.
Berry said the coalition government had been good on the demand side of housing, with the Help to Buy scheme, to kick start the housing market. However, on the supply side, he suggested there had been little to no impact to stimulate housing development.
The Builders Finance Fund, he noted, had a condition of 15 units or above, which most micro companies were unable to deliver. Of FMB’s membership, only 8 per cent of companies would be delivering the number of units required to qualify for the fund. He called for the government to address the conditions.
In terms of solutions, he suggested local authorities should carve up smaller pieces of land for smaller builders, and look at the level of fees charged in the pre-application process.
On the question of “Greenfield vs Brownfield”, he said it made sense to use existing land, however it was often very complex and expensive to actually free up brownfield sites. He conceded, if the government were looking to build 300,000 homes a year, they would need to use greenfield land as well.
Finally, he spoke about the importance of existing building stock and bringing empty homes back into use, as well as re-using industrial and commercial sites. Berry suggested the primary way to achieve this, would be reduce the VAT from 20 per cent to five per cent, to bring the charges in line with new housing developments.
With housing being such a key issue, Berry said he had yet to hear a real “political vision”, and commitment on the issue.
Question and answer session
In a brief question and answer session, Berry was asked about the capacity of the building industry, which he agreed had shrunk in recent years and there needed to be support to get employers back in the industry
Heather Kidd, deputy chair of the people and places board at the
Local Government Association(LGA), spoke about the rural aspect of housing and developers not taking into consideration the real needs of local communities in these areas.
She suggested, under the National Planning Policy Framework, developers were building four, five and six bedroom properties, which were unsuitable for younger people, and families looking to downsize. Kidd highlighted that young people were borrowing twenty times their local wage, in order to secure a property.
She commended the work of the Homes and Communities Agency for supporting infrastructure projects, and self-build schemes, and called on the government to do more to tackle the crisis. Primarily, she said the LGA had called for the cap on housing revenue accounts to be lifted, so councils could borrow more.
Speaking about local plans, she said it needed to be easier for local communities to come forward, as at moment it was a long and tortuous process.
Cusick intervened, to ask whether the government’s rhetoric on “cutting the red tape and giving communities power” was just gesture politics, and whether decisions were still being taken at a higher level of government.
In response, Kidd said a lot of local community control had been lost through the National Planning Policy Framework.
Chris Turner, representative from West Dorset, asked whether there needed to be a change in culture for rented properties, as in continental countries this was seen as the norm.
Kidd suggested that people were concerned with shorter tenancies, and the impact of six month contracts, when families had to move and take their children out of school. She said the LGA were looking at rental contracts, and how the government could supply to sustainable communities.
Neil Sinden, policy and campaigns director,
Campaign to Protect Rural England, agreed there was a serious need to build more homes, but was concerned with the kind of housing being built, and where it was being developed.
He said CPRE believed the planning system had played a key role in determining where and what housing was built, and there was a need to incorporate sustainable development, the efficient use of land, and availability of brownfield sites.
Sinden highlighted an important aspect of the planning system, was to secure public consent and suggested this had come under threat. He was concerned there had been an increase in commissions for greenfield land, despite not seeing a significant increase in the level of house building. He suggested rural communities were feeling the pressure of these developments, and villages felt “under siege”.
Looking at two key areas of policy, he said firstly, local planning authorities could no longer control the location and type of housing in their area. He suggested many areas did not have local plans, and often the most damaging proposals from developers were still likely to go ahead.
CPRE research had found that three quarters of planning applications that had been initially turned down, were later approved via the appeals process he said and suggested the five year land supply was pivotal in preventing this.
Secondly, Sinden suggested volume house builders were not talking about the delivery of housing, but instead, looking at strategically increasing their land banks, and gaining higher margins through higher priced housing. He stressed the importance of supporting smaller builders, to help build affordable homes, in local areas where they were needed.
Sinden advocated a government that valued planning, and took a brownfield first approach, as well as a sequential approach to land release. He suggested better strategic planning, would mean local authorities could work together and maximise the brownfield opportunities that already existed.
Speaking, about NPPF guidance, he suggested developers often cited “viability and deliverability” as reasons for not moving forward on housing sites, and using land banks.
A district councillor suggested his local council had put in place a local plan to deliver housing in their area, but commercial developers had reduced the number of affordable housing units available, due to a problem of viability. He called for the process to be more transparent, and asked where the LGA and CPRE could help with this.
Kidd agreed that a number of commercial decisions took place behind closed doors, and the LGA had been concerned about the planning process in this area. She called on the minister to speak about the issue.
Stephen Williams MP suggested the manifesto policy motion on affordable housing, if passed, would mean the Liberal Democrats had set themselves a target of three million new homes over a decade. This would equate to 300,000 new homes a year, which he agreed was an incredibly tough target to deliver.
In order to meet this new target, he said there would need to be some changes, and both brownfield and greenfield sites would need to be used. He suggested brownfield land would undoubtedly be preferable and should be used first, but greenfield land would also need to be released.
Williams suggested the state was not releasing enough land, and as a significant land owner, they needed to be more transparent about sites that could be made available or put to better use.
Building on local plans, the Liberal Democrats would call for a 15 year land supply, with local authorities looking to set ambitious housing targets in these areas.
Speaking about small builders, he said a number of SMEs had been shaken out of the market, and he questioned whether it was an attractive prospect for them to return to. He suggested housing associations could be part of the answer, providing mixed use development with private rented housing, as well as social housing units. Williams suggested Sovereign housing association, and London and Quadrant had developed some interesting plans for that.
Too often, planning was seen as something that as “done to communities” as opposed to be “done for communities”, Williams noted. He said neighbourhood planning was a major opportunity to involve local people, and decided whether housing expansions should take place.
He suggested the Liberal Democrats would be making an announcement on garden cities shortly, which he said would contribute to the housing problem, although not make an enormous impact.
Williams also spoke about the need to build purpose built accommodation for older people, and deliver higher quality in the private rental sector.
Finally, he suggested there needed to be political will behind housing policy, and suggested it would be one of the cornerstones of the Liberal Democrats appeal for the next general election.
Cusick suggested the housing targets set by all the parties were highly ambitious, but he wanted to know whether they were realistic or achievable.
Williams said the policy motion would be the “most ambitious housing target made in our lifetime”, but needed to be in order to meet the housing problem.
A representative from St Albans, spoke about the importance of architecture and ensuring new houses were designed well and suitable for the people in need of them.
In response, Berry agreed more people were living on their own and looking for smaller bedroom properties, which would only increase with the rising population.
A member from the Modern Masonry Alliance suggested local authorities should be looking at a thirty year vision for housing, and there was a big opportunity to get Scotland building as well.
Cusick stressed the importance of a “chronic and systemic” crisis, which meant the last thing needed was a long term thirty year plan.
A member from West Sussex called for landlords to be registered and perform to higher standards, which she suggested would enabled investors to have more confidence in the housing market.
Williams said the government were doing more to regulate the market, and make it safer for tenants. He mentioned the model tenancy agreement, and supported Shelter’s campaign to ensure the private rented sector was held to safety standards.
Speaking for the constituency in Leeds, a member suggested the answer to the crisis was the public possession of houses.
Sinden suggested a number of volume builders were controlling the land supply, and he said the HCA were increasingly concerned about their dependence on these volume enterprises.
Williams suggested most people didn’t want to live in a state owned house, and he said the government’s role would be to try and build more affordable homes.