“People think immigration and the health service are the big
issues – but actually, if you want to reduce people's perception of the impact
of immigration, you have to deal with housing,” explained David Orr, chief
executive of the National Housing Federation (NHF) umbrella group of social
housing bodies. “…It's all part of the same narrative. “Britain's small, we're
overcrowded, there's no land, we haven't got any space. It's rubbish.”
High housing costs are at the root of just about everything.
They swallow up household budgets. A generation ago, the deposit typically
required to buy your first home was, in today’s money, about £3,000; now, it’s
10 times that. The average household income among first time buyers today is
£34,000. The median household income is only £32,000. In other words, Orr says,
“We have precluded more than half the population from becoming new owner
occupiers.” One might think that a government would look at this situation and
conclude that housing costs were too high. One would be wrong. Instead, all
talk is of clamping down on an over-generous benefits system.
Fewer owners means more renters, and in booming cities like
London, rents, too, are through the roof. Salaries, unfortunately, aren’t. “The
government quite often says that housing benefit is out of control, and they're
right. It is. The public narrative is that it’s out of control because of
scroungers and feckless people screwing the state.” Actually, though, the
amount of housing benefit being paid to people who are unemployed has remained
pretty much constant over the last five years. The real increase has been in
benefits for people who are in work. “There are people who are on above median
incomes who are eligible for housing benefit. We've created an environment
where work doesn't actually take you out of poverty.”
Most authorities think we need at least 250,000 new homes a
year to keep up with demographic change.
“It’s no good expecting the industry
to step up, Orr argues: the major developers consistently say they're most
comfortable building around 130-140,000 a year. “It doesn't matter how many
kicks up the backside they get, their economic success is predicated on
collectively building that many houses. So if you want to get to 250,000, don't ask them.”
Orr also pointed out. “There
is no shortage of land. None, zero, anywhere. There is a significant problem of
rationing of land – through the planning system, the green belt, NIMBYism and
so on – but that's all just noise. There is more land in Surrey set aside for
golf courses than there is for human population. We don't have a shortage of
land at all.”
No comments:
Post a Comment