Homes are where the money is

I did quite well with the cost-of-living crisis last week, so today I thought I’d solve the so-called housing crisis.

The frothing vitriol of the pro-development lobby was bad enough when the Government announced it was scaling back plans for 300,000 new builds a year, but when Simon Jenkins agreed that we don’t need that many new homes because the housing market isn’t in crisis, anyone would think he’d expressed his undying love for Putin.

(Please, don’t tell anyone I liked an article in the Guardian – my reputation will be shot.)

If you read what Jenkins actually wrote in full, rather than just picking out soundbites in isolation, then you can appreciate his insight, reasonableness and logic. Otherwise, it’s like calling someone a racist on the back of one word or short phrase, when in context what they said was perfectly fine; I should know…

Because the pro-devs couldn’t fault Jenkins' logic, they had a go at individual facts in isolation, clutching at untruths of their own. (A clever blogger would now do something amusing with ‘clutching’, ‘straw houses’ and ‘huffing and puffing’, but I’m not a clever blogger.) Just one out of many examples: Jenkins claimed that Cameron and Osbourne pursued build-and-be-damned policies. This was ridiculed by one pro-dev with reference to a chart showing that the build-rate actually slumped from 2008. In truth, Cameron and Osborne were in bed with the developers and drafted the National Planning Policy Framework that is known, unaffectionately, as the ‘developers’ charter’. And, my Darlings, the build-rate slumped in 2008 because of the banking crisis and recession.

Some commentators suggest the Tory government ditched the 300,000 target because they don’t want to lose the votes of ‘nimbys’, as happened in the 2021 Amersham and Chesham by-election. Because of HS2 and proposals to build even more homes in rural areas, the constituency went from true blue to ‘orrible orange for the first time ever. But aren’t home-owners more likely than renters to vote Tory, so more homes mean more votes? Not necessarily. Once renters become home-owners, they’re more likely to not want their little corner of England ‘ruined’, so they’ll turn their backs on any build-build-build Tories.

What to do? How about we build homes that Britain needs (not what developers and foreign investors want) at a nationally consistent affordable price, adhering closely to the principles of sustainable development? Sounds noble, but is it practical? Here’s a non-exhaustive list of suggestions to point strategists and policymakers in the right direction:

• Our economy, and prices of market goods e.g. houses, is governed by supply AND demand. Upping supply without controlling demand will do diddly squat to control house-prices. I explained all this ages ago - click on the link.

• Devise a national land-use strategy that prioritises agricultural land / food security, protected habitats, landscapes and locally valued areas, and mandate these as development-no-go areas.

• Coordinate the land-use strategy with immigration policies

• Incentivise development of brownfield sites, but disincentivise ‘gentrification’ of urban areas that disadvantages the lower paid.

• Make it easier to change land-use designation from industrial or retail to residential or mixed.

• Overhaul and reinvigorate Neighbourhood Planning – make it quicker, easier and less likely to be overridden by developers and, indeed, local planning authorities.

• Quicken the pace of levelling up and stop the Dick Whittington phenomenon of internal migration to London and the southeast (per Simon Jenkins).

• Limit and punitively tax, nationally and locally, the purchase and ownership of second homes and Airbnbs (if not main residences) – I’m thinking Cornwall, Robins Hood’s Bay ...

• Limit and punitively tax, nationally and locally, the purchase and ownership by foreign entities of homes to rent – I’m thinking Cambridge …

• Incentivise the building of social homes .

• Compulsorily purchase long-term vacant homes, and rental properties owned by persistently offending landlords (including corporates), and get them onto the market or allocate them as social housing.

• Make best use of ex-army/RAF accommodation and land.

• Expand and make more attractive the Rent a Room scheme.

• Help farmers to develop disused agricultural buildings for temporary or permanent residences.

• Redevelop airports as housing estates …

… well, I would say that, wouldn’t I.