Selling expensive council houses can't accommodate the future

"What might be an appropriate tactical response in some cases could not be considered to be a comprehensive strategic solution."

According to the latest government figures, the number of households in England is expected to grow by 232,000 per year over the next twenty years. Last year, we completed just 109,000 homes, with rates falling again in the first quarter of 2012. How can we bridge this gap and what combination of tenures would best meet the needs of the population? With the economy in double-dip recession and access to mortgages constrained, most of these homes need to be for rent, although an element of housing for sale, possibly using a rent now, buy later model, would help to ensure more balanced communities.

A recent Policy Exchange report proposes that the volume of affordable housing could be increased by at least 80,000 homes per year by selling off social housing properties in high-value areas and replacing them with new homes in low-value areas. This might be an appropriate tactical response in some cases but could not be considered to be a comprehensive strategic solution to providing sufficient affordable homes.

There are a few difficulties with the Policy Exchange approach.

Firstly, it is a reactive approach that can only come into play once a home becomes vacant, so it is difficult to plan a new development when the timing of the cashflow to fund it is so uncertain. Inevitably, there would be a delay with fewer affordable homes available, before the new homes could be constructed.

Secondly, over the long term, we risk denuding high-value areas of all affordable housing, pushing families on lower incomes away from their places of work, reducing their disposable income and putting additional pressure on the transport system. It would also create greater pressure on public services in low-value areas. Having said that, many social landlords are making judgements about the appropriateness of their existing stock as they become empty, so this approach is already in place in some areas. Alternatively the homes may be retained by the landlord but let at 80 per cent of the market rent, which would generate a better income stream for the landlord while retaining the housing mix in the area.

The efforts of the coalition government to encourage house building, by streamlining the planning system and giving some support to stalled schemes, have failed because they are largely relying on the private developers to deliver the increase and they will only build where they can make a profit, difficult when first-time buyers find it so difficult to access mortgage finance. There are few private companies undertaking development for rent so this is a gap in the market that social landlords could exploit, at the same time as making a significant contribution towards bridging the gap between the number of new homes and new households.

Housing associations have access to relatively cheap finance, they have established development teams who know their areas and have good relationships with local councils, and they have the scale and housing management expertise to manage a large portfolio of rented stock efficiently. Under the current Affordable Homes Programme, most new affordable housing is being let at 80 per cent of market rent, well above social housing rent levels in most areas. This model requires relatively little capital subsidy (in many cases, none) but the higher rent levels are increasing the housing benefit bill for households on low incomes. Indeed the properties in high-value areas could be relet at market or sub-market rates and the cashflows from these used to support borrowing to build more homes.

Using their scale, financial strength and community knowledge, housing associations should be able to increase the volume of new rented housing without subsidy, while still being able to let at rents a little below the market rent level. These should be secure homes in which families could remain long-term without the fear of being pushed out at the end of a fixed-term tenancy introduced under the current regime. There would also be no requirement to means test the tenant population to identify the high earners who would be paying higher rents under the proposed “pay to stay” policy.

The government has begun to recognise that increasing the rate of house-building would also have a significantly positive effect on the economy, reducing unemployment and largely sourcing materials from within the country. An announcement is expected soon that the government will guarantee housing association loans, enabling them to further reduce the cost of capital and thus their costs of development. This is an opportunity to scale up the delivery of new homes for rent well above the level envisaged in the Policy Exchange report.

A man walks in late afternoon sunshine on the Heygate housing estate near Elephant and Castle on February 11, 2010 in London, England. Photograph: Getty Images

Chris Mansfield is a managing consultant at Hargreaves Risk and Strategy, a consultancy working in the housing association sector.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.