The state of, and solutions to, Britain’s social housing crisis | Adam James Pollock
As the coronavirus pandemic enters its ninth month in the United Kingdom, the worst of the consequences are only beginning to be felt. Small businesses are shutting their doors for good en masse across the nation due to insufficient government funding to help see them through this time. Consumer goods are subsequently being purchased from large multinational firms who have the capacity to stave off any shock to their business, leading to a 27% increase in the wealth of the world’s billionaires during this period. Wealth inequality has drastically increased as a whole, with more than a third of families who received Universal Credit or Child Tax Credit prior to the crisis now also having to rely on help from charities for food and clothing. This vast inequality, and lack of adequate help from government for the less fortunate in our society, has radically increased the importance of a renewed focus and investment in new, sustainable and safe social housing, with more freedom for local authorities to act quickly for the benefit of their own communities.
Throughout this country’s history, poor living conditions has been viewed as an ongoing public health emergency, with the first Housing of the Working Class Act (1885), introduced by then Conservative Party leader Lord Salisbury, being a public health act rather than a housing act. Five years later, a second Act was introduced which empowered local authorities to purchase land and fund new housing developments for those less fortunate. This focus on homebuilding continued for many years as key to the country’s continued development, with almost 150,000 new homes being built yearly by local authorities by the end of the 1960s.
In spite of house prices increasing at an alarming rate in recent decades, government funding for building affordable housing has decreased. Before the 2008 financial crash, the government funded approximately 50% of the cost of new, affordable housing; now they provide just 12%, according to G15, the largest of London’s housing associations. Part of this problem arises from an increase in funding given to private landlords, approximately £9 billion in 2018– twice as much as a decade previously. From an economic perspective, the government’s funding policies are even more dire: housing benefit payouts per year now amount to approximately £22 billion as the housing shortage has precipitated increasing numbers of families needing government support. This amount is now more than the combined government spending on the police and international development. While the current conservative government has been hailed for their commitment to increasing police funding to help keep local communities safe, they have neglected to consider how much safer they would be had their atrocious housing situation been dealt with adequately.
In a detailed and thoughtful report published in November by the Royal Institute for British Architects, entitled Homes for All – Putting council housing at the heart of local recovery, a plan has been recommended to the government to set an example of achievable higher living standards in social housing. This report gives a multifaceted recommendation to the government on a best-fit strategy to deal with the housing crisis, focusing on financing, procurement and oversight of an increase in housing development. At the heart of their recommendations is a focus on giving local authorities increased control over housing affairs in their own areas, including removing borrowing and spending restrictions on local authorities, as well as giving them the freedom to set their own planning fees to ensure resources and responsibilities can be appropriately invested in. Not doing so, on the other hand, would be to attempt to deny a truth; that creating sufficiently beautiful, homely communities requires investment. An initial financial vote of confidence whose turnover is not instantaneous, but no less actual.
While these recommendations would certainly present many new challenges for local authorities and would require an immense devotion of time, effort and belief, it is welcomed that attention is finally being paid to arguably the largest public health crisis facing our nation at present.
An increase in the number of council houses and other social housing is a positive thing towards which the government must aspire, it would furthermore simply not be enough to neglect quality in favour of quantity. Where we live, not just our home, but our street, our neighbourly community, affects everyone around us, having a fundamental impact on the quality of life of everyone whom it comes into first-, second-, and even beyond third-hand contact with. Indeed, such an incremental and interrelational tie between one’s home environment and one’s behaviour is underlined here.
The government may be beginning to realise this. Three years on from the Grenfell Tower disaster, a Social Housing White Paper has been drafted by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government which promises, among other things, that residents should expect to have a good quality home and neighbourhood to live in. While the aforementioned report by the Royal Institute of British Architects does a fantastic job in outlining the need for more housing and what this housing should achieve, its views diverge with mine when looking on the case studies of good placemaking which it cites, aligning itself explicitly with the Housing Ministry’s National Design Guide. This naturally gives way to modernist glass-and-railing structures, where a balcony constitutes outside space and a tree on the street outside is exemplary evidence of “proximity to nature”.
Chester Long Court, Exeter.
While the National Design Guide espouses some irrefutably important points on creating sustainable, happy communities– such as “Local character makes places distinctive. Well-designed, sustainable places with a strong identity give their users … a sense of pride”– it is evident that in recent years this advice has been far from completely or properly adhered to. I look at the case studies provided by RIBA and see no local character or identity, and nothing that would inspire pride. There is nothing about Chester Long Court in Exeter which is distinguishable from any other whitewashed modernist structure you could find anywhere else in Europe, let alone evoking a sense of pride in the local character.
New builds at Goldsmith Street, Norwich.
I am, however, filled with a slight glimmer of hope upon viewing the inclusion of Goldsmith Street, developed by Norwich City Council and with a fully social rent tenure, as a good example of community identity. Designed with a traditional Georgian-Victorian terrace identity in mind, albeit altered to fit with Passivhaus standards of sustainability, the development’s back streets are entirely landscaped with paths down the middle to allow safe spaces for children to play, keeping them off the busy main streets. The architect, Mikhail Riches, opted to take on this project under a traditional contract rather than the more common Design and Build contract usually undertaken for social housing, which meant that the architect also acts as administrator. The involvement of Mikhail Riches throughout is likely the reason for the success of the development, with a distinct, attractive identity sympathetic to local contexts being delivered for the benefit not only of residents but also of passers-by.
Such a development is anomalous in current contexts, but Goldsmith Street shows that it is possible to build attractive, distinctive, safe and sustainable social housing, and can even be achieved within budget restrictions. The government must be made aware of cases such as this, along with the recommendations for an increased local authority involvement, in its upcoming social housing reforms. While more social housing is certainly preferable to the alternative, a conscious effort must be made to realise that business as usual does not work, and that a radical rethink in what constitutes good placemaking in the eyes of government is a necessity. While many have been complaining about the use of the phrase ‘build back better’ and which connotations it may have, RIBA President Alan Jones posited recently that “If the Government is serious about ‘Building Back Better’ it needs to back local authorities to invest in their communities and build homes fit for the future.”
–
If you liked this article and want to help our organisation expand, please consider donating. Every little helps.
