Should a proportion of London's social housing be sold off?

[christonabike]

Can't find the link, but less than 20% would leave

It's do-able, Labour pledged to do it (I remember a very funny Stephen Fry Labour PPP laying out this plan years ago)

They didn't

 

[christonabike]

Even given the money (even with a CPO you'd have to pay for the land) I'm fascinated to know where this great tract of land in Central London is.

There was a compulsory purchase order for Arsenal's new stadium, why not for social housing?

 

[_angel_]

So would Compulsory Purchasing large areas of Central London. Who do you reckon owns most of it...? (You'd also have a severe house-price crash on your hands as people get wary of a Government that Compulsory Purchasese nice bits of town, recession, and a swift change in Government at the next election)

So we end up with nothing being done and madness all round. That's the problem with a free market running the show.

 

[yield]

There was a compulsory purchase order for Arsenal's new stadium, why not for social housing?

Good point.

 

[jæd]

Good point.

Highbury isn't exactly Central London...

 

[jæd]

So we end up with nothing being done and madness all round. That's the problem with a free market running the show.

I'm guessing that the UK moving to a planned economy wouldn't be very popular... If Labour can't do Socialism, I hardly think they're going to try Communism...

 

[_angel_]

I'm guessing that the UK moving to a planned economy wouldn't be very popular... If Labour can't do Socialism, I hardly think they're going to try Communism...

They're not even pretending to do socialism.

 

[yield]

Highbury isn't exactly Central London...

It is from where I live.

When did New Labour become Socialist?

The Free Market which is neither free nor a market. Genius.

as angel said. There needs to be a fairer approach to the taxation of the super-rich. Yes some would leave but so what. Inequality is perhaps unavoidable but fundamentally undesirable.

 

[Mapped]

Its not that people would disagree, more the logistics. How would you get "the govenment" to purchase a large tract of land in Central London...?

Stage the Olympics

I think that London LA's should view thier social housing estates and the land that they are on as assets. I've seen a good few estate renewal projects that increase the density of housing on estates and introduce an element of open market housing with NO loss of social housing.

Selling the open market housing raises funds to provide higher quality social housing than the existing stock. The downside of these projects is the inconienience to the residents whilst the estate is being changed, but you get better quality housing.

 

[Mapped]

There was a compulsory purchase order for Arsenal's new stadium, why not for social housing?

This is happening, land is being cpo'd for housing developments by government bodies, however not for purely social housing schemes, but schemes with large elements of affordable housing. You will not get planning permission for a large purely social housing scheme it needs to be mixed tenure to get approval.

 

[zenie]

We already have many, many such areas- surrey, the cotswolds, berkshire, huge swathes of cheshire.

No we don't, I'm from one of the priciest areas in Surrey and we lived in a council house.

Sell Housing Stock off? What you mean like they did already with right to buy? Cos that worked *really* well for people on low incomes didn't it?

Also, it's all well and good saying 'housing for key workers' but half the people who IMO should be eligible aren't.

 

[zenie]

This is happening, land is being cpo'd for housing developments by government bodies, however not for purely social housing schemes, but schemes with large elements of affordable housing.

*scoffs*

affordable, to who?

 

[Oswaldtwistle]

Sell Housing Stock off? What you mean like they did already with right to buy? Cos that worked *really* well for people on low incomes didn't it?

No, I'm talking about selling it at full market value with the money being raised used to buy/build more housing better suited to todays needs

The complete opposite of 'right to buy' in some ways.

 

[zenie]

No, I'm talking about selling it at full market value with the money being raised used to buy/build more housing better suited to todays needs

The complete opposite of 'right to buy' in some ways.

Today's needs? Why don't smaller properties work for today's needs?

Do only large families and disabled people have a need for social housing?

 

[Mapped]

*scoffs*

affordable, to who?

Social rent from housing associations is a hell of a lot cheaper than renting on the market, I know it's more expensive than renting from a local authority, but LA's aren't really building any new stock.

 

[zenie]

Social rent from housing associations is a hell of a lot cheaper than renting on the market, I know it's more expensive than renting from a local authority, but LA's aren't really building any new stock.

The one's I've seen have been for purchases i.e key workers and didn't seem affordable at all.

Some HA's charge a lot more than LA that said I do appreciate it is cheaper than market value.

 

[Oswaldtwistle]

Today's needs? Why don't smaller properties work for today's needs?

Do only large families and disabled people have a need for social housing?

The simple fact of the matter is only large families and vunerable groups stand a cat in hells chance of being allocated a council property in London this side of hell freezing over.....

 

[Mapped]

The one's I've seen have been for purchases i.e key workers and didn't seem affordable at all.

Some HA's charge a lot more than LA that said I do appreciate it is cheaper than market value.

Yeah the shared ownership stuff can be quite expensive, but HA's aren't allowed by thier regulations to market these properties below market value. So in central London you will get a small share of an expensive flat for a fair bit of cash.

 

[zenie]

The simple fact of the matter is only large families and vunerable groups stand a cat in hells chance of being allocated a council property in London this side of hell freezing over.....

What does that have to do with what I said?

n1 Buoy - I see, thanks for clearing that up

 

[bluestreak]

I can see where Oswalkthistle is coming from - it's a practical middle-ground solution designed to trouble as few people as possible. How many tenants would take it? Quite a few would, but a lot more wouldn't. I've worked in the field for a couple of years now and believe me, there are plenty of people who would rather live three to a room near their family, friends, and communities than move to a one-a-room house outside london. Is it better to serve in Heaven or reign in Hell.

This idea could be added quite successfully to the current list of options. I however would prefer to actually provide efficient council housing at point of need if I got to run the thing.

 

[lighterthief]

I'm no fan of Monbiot, but I've just read this on his blog. Pillory me for my suggestions, call me everything from a cat to a dog, but I insist you read the below piece first

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/11/27/three-million-homes/#more-1093

Two bedroom flats in Kensington and Chelsea- great for young professionals. Maisonettes in Wandsworth- a home for a young couple. This stuff must be worth millions. Yet it is totally unfit for the purpose it is currently being used for- housing the disabled and large families.

So would it not make sense to sell this this stuff off on the open market and use the money to build houses (proper houses with gardens) elsewhere in the UK?

Interesting post.

I'm involved with a housing association with a modest number of units (around 2000) in central London. It's a real issue for our housing services division, who have the responsibility of maintaining these properties.

These flats are generally small. They are generally old. They are generally very expensive to maintain to what many people would consider a half-decent standard, principally because of their age and the fact that each property is different (no economies of scale to be gained, unlike refurbing a large estate, for example). Because of their location they could be sold for (in most cases) between £400k > £1mill plus.

There is a massive temptation - and a compelling business case - to gradually sell off this stock and build modern, purpose built social housing on the fringes of London with the money.

Couple of problems with this:

1) you are, almost literally, selling off the family silver. Once it's gone you will never, ever get it back. That is the reality.

2) what will remain are enclaves where only the super-rich can buy - no diversity of tenure here

3) the less well-off will be excluded to the margins of London which, if they work or study in London (as many do) will impact on their quality of life.

On the upside:

1) you can house many more people than would otherwise be the case, in accommodation more physically appropriate for their needs

2) maintenance is cheaper, and therefore accommodation can be kept to a higher standard more easily

3) modern buildings are way more efficient and environmentally friendly in terms of power consumption, insulation and so on.


Hobson's choice, really. Lobbying for increased funding for housing associations operating in central London (to recognise the expensive peculiarities of operating in this area) would be a start.

 

[bluestreak]

Good post lighterthief.

Also, btw, many HAs do sell off stock occasionally to fund new builds. This causes a lot of contention and bad feeling - Peabody Trust especially have copped flack for it.

 

[Oswaldtwistle]

Good post lighterthief.

Indeed. And an interesting couple of posts from yourself as well

 

[marty21]

Obviously more social housing is needed in London.

But I have sometimes wondered if it wouldn't make sense for councils to flog off a few places where prices have gone through the roof and use the dosh to build many more places somewhere cheaper. Although only when they become empty - I am not in favour of kicking anyone out of their homes.

Giles..

housing associations have been doing that for about 5 or 6 years

 

[scifisam]

The simple fact of the matter is only large families and vunerable groups stand a cat in hells chance of being allocated a council property in London this side of hell freezing over.....

Council perhaps, but not housing association.

There are more than enough small families to occupy the small flats in Kensington and Chelsea, and many people in other vulnerable groups would be absolutely fine with a small flat - not every disablity requires ground-level access and physical adaptations to property.

If, by some strange chance, the number of such families and vulnerable people falls too low, then the flats could be let to people without kids - key workers, maybe. Then Central London would have a few low-paid keyworkers or other essential workers (cleaners and so on) who wouldn't have to rely on long-distance commuting to get to work, so would be there even in the case of a strike or snow or other such problem.

Plus, consider why those flats are worth so much: they're a great location for central London work and socialising, and have excellent transport connections. Should those benefits only be available to the seriously rich?

I can see some logic in the idea in some ways, and I know that it's well-intentioned; it's just that a) I revolt against the idea of poor people all being sent to the suburbs, even though I know that's not what you were intending to say; and b) if and when property is sold and new property is built, what's the betting that the property is way undersold, and then half the proceeds are lost in the costs of the sale and admin?

Then the new homes that get built will end up also being 2-bed flats, only further out of London, like in the social housing newbuilds on the Thames Marshes, which are almost entirely 2-bedroom places for some reason.

 

[marty21]

we have started to build more 3 beds to meet the demand for them, a recent devlopment i was involved in had about twenty 20 odd 3 beds, four 4beds , and only about four 2 beds, so housing associations are building larger properties in response to demand - it won't totally meet demand because Housing Associations simply can't build the properties fast enough

 

[Maurice Picarda]

the fringes of London . ..

the margins of London which . .. will impact on their quality of life.

I revolt against the idea of poor people all being sent to the suburbs

Why do you hate our suburbs?

 

[zenie]

Why do you hate our suburbs?

Perhaps because the poor have been 'dumped' there all throughout the last centruy?

 

[scifisam]

Why do you hate our suburbs?

A hundred different reasons, having lived in the city and the suburbs. I'm a person with a central London flat who would choose to stay here rather than have a bigger place farther out.

@Marty21 - that's good to hear. I'm thinkng more of the developments from about ten years ago that line the riverside in Essex, and all the keyworker, affordable housing and shared ownership properties I see being advertised.