Monday, 31 March 2025

The London Housing Crisis: Questioning the ‘Build, build, build’ narrative

 

The first stage of the huge Northwick Park development taking shape. Photo taken today from Northwick Park station platform

 

Earlier this month the CPRE held an-online meeting entitled,  'Is Government taking London's housing crisis seriously?' with Zoe Garbett (Green Party AM and former London Mayoral candidate) and Michael Ball of Just Space speaking. 

With London's housing crisis likely to be a major local election issue in 2026 and the subject of much debate on Wembley Matters I thought it was worth posting the video of the CPRE meeting. 

The video begins with a  presentation by Alice Roberts and Grace Harrison-Porter of the CPRE, followed by a talk by Zoe Garbett at 10.18 and presentation and talk by Michael Ball at 26.00.

In my view the video is well worth watching as a contribution to the debate. It covers issues including affordability, fiancial viability assessments, council house sales, rent controls, estate demolition versus refurbishment and much more. A discussion of Land Value Tax would have been a useful addition. 

Some challenging issues are raised and potential solutions suggested. PDFs of the presentations are available CPRE HERE and JUST SPACE HERE

 

At the same time the CPRE published a very challenging list of 'Housing Crisis Myths'. Thanks to CPRE for this information and video LINK.

 

Myth 1: There are not enough houses for everyone

The census has shown there is more than enough property for the population. In Croydon, the total number of dwellings has increased by 39% since 1971, despite population growth of just 13% over the same period, but house prices have still gone up.

Existing housing stock is not always well distributed – for example, some homes are underoccupied, some are overcrowded, some are second homes, many are empty. Also, some parts of the country have more demand pressure than others. But actually, the crisis is about the price of homes, not the quantity.

 

Myth 2: Building more homes will solve the housing crisis

House prices have spiralled as a consequence of high demand, fuelled by low interest rates, public subsidies, such as Help to Buy, and the purchase of property for investment.

At the same time, the selling-off of social housing has forced many people into the private rental sector. In the absence of rent controls, this has pushed rental prices up too.

Successive governments have allowed, even helped, housing to become ‘financialised’, meaning it is treated as an investment, with an expectation that it will deliver a return. This means homeowners can profit but it also means housing ultimately become unaffordable. Most countries regulate their housing markets to avoid homes being treated as assets, on the understanding that housing is essential and it’s not in the common interest that it becomes too expensive.

 

Myth 3: Building more houses will drive down house prices

The ‘supply and demand’ argument is often used to bolster this myth. But one study suggests that building 300,000 homes a year in England for 20 years would reduce prices by only 10%.

The fact is this logic doesn’t work if demand stays high. And, despite years of adding to housing stock, prices are not coming down. They continue to go up because, in the absence of market intervention, people will pay whatever they have to because they need a home.

 

Myth 4: The planning system is broken

Actually, the planning system is working well. Planning permissions are being granted. London Councils, which represents London boroughs, highlights the 283,000 potential new homes already granted planning permission in London and waiting to be built. The build rate for the past five years is roughly 38,000 so that’s seven and a half years’ supply.

Politicians like to blame the planning system, but in reality it is doing its job. In fact, giving councils more powers and capacity to work with developers could help bring appropriate development forward more quickly.

But the real solutions to the housing crisis have nothing to do with planning. This narrative is a red herring. The real solutions lie in building social housing, ending Right to Buy, bringing empty homes back into use and controlling the private rented sector. In other words, the real solutions lie in tackling the real causes.

 

Myth 5: There isn’t enough land – we need to build on green fields

Local authorities are allocating sites in their Local Plans – many more than can be built on in the next 20 years. So, allocating more land does not translate into more houses being built. It just gives developers a wider choice of sites.

Plus, urban land is constantly recycled, so brownfield sites are available. CPRE research shows there’s space for at least 1.2 million homes on previously developed land and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

Myth 6: Private housebuilders will build affordable housing

Housebuilders are often required to provide a quota of ‘affordable’ housing (not necessarily social rent) in a development. But the number they end up building is usually scaled back when developers say their costs have risen.

Some affordable housing can be delivered via private sector housebuilding. But realistically, the building of social housing will have to be publicly funded if we are going to come close to solving the housing crisis.

This is the only way to reduce the vast sums of money councils are spending on temporary accommodation – a situation that is not just costly but will have lifetime impacts on the people in it. Government can make this more financially viable by building on land already in public ownership (see myth 8 below).

 

Myth 7: Building on the Green Belt will solve the crisis

Building on Green Belt won’t lead to more houses being built and it won’t speed up house building. The speed at which the market delivers is related to what it thinks it can sell, as well as constraints like lack of labour, materials and financing.

And it won’t deliver affordable housing. Green Belt developments are rarely affordable – they are expensive ‘executive homes’ in unsustainable locations, marketed for people on high incomes who can afford cars. New roads, and new water and power infrastructure all have to be built, so there’s no money left for affordable homes.

Building on Green Belt is the worst of all worlds – we tear up the countryside, with a massive environmental impact, and fail to solve the housing crisis.

 

Myth 8: Parts of the Green Belt are grey

Even where Green Belt is unattractive, “low-value scrub land”, there is no reason it can’t be restored. Planning authorities are required to improve sites that require it and even scrubland is a much-valued wildlife habitat.

This kind of misleading statement hinders progress by driving speculative purchase of Green Belt, which pushes land prices up further. Plus, the Green Belt is increasingly valuable in tackling the climate and nature crises.

Also, there is a real grey belt – car parks and road layouts, often in town centres, that take up huge amounts of space while underpinning car-centred travel. This forces disinvestment in public transport and has social, health and environment impacts.

Ironically, the real answer to the housing crisis lies in the real grey belt – national and local government owns 7,555 hectares of surface car parks. That’s enough land to build 2.1 million low-cost homes. Crucially, there is no cost for the land, so new homes are much cheaper to build.

Housing developments on town centre car parks could be built without car parking, so won’t worsen traffic further. People who don’t drive or own a car can live close to amenities. The reduction in car parking encourages more people onto buses. This makes them more financially viable, so more frequent services and new routes can be introduced. A win-win scenario.

 

Myth 9: Those who challenge the housebuilding policy are NIMBYs

CPRE London, like others given this label, strongly agrees that we need to build new homes. But the crisis is one of affordability, so we challenge the idea that increasing housing supply (building more houses) alone will bring down the cost of rent or house prices. This does not make us ‘NIMBYs’.

 

Myth 10: There’s nothing I can do to help

Yes, the housing situation in London is dire. And it might seem like there’s little we can do. But by learning more about the real causes and the real solutions, talking to people and encouraging them to challenge the build, build, build narrative, slowly we might be able to affect change.


Comments that keep to the topic welcome.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

What about all the properties being rented out as Air B&Bs because of all the huge Wembley Stadium events - these properties could instead have long term tenants.

Martin Francis said...

Interestingly Krishna Court in Salmon Street, Kingbury was approved as flats to replace a family house but is actually a high grafe Air B&B advertised on hotel sites. This was pointed out to Brent Council but no action was taken. An application has been made for a similar demolition and house build on the opposite corner. Brent Council itself proposed an airB&B on the Barham Park site,

Anonymous said...

Government policy such as the Renters Rights Bill, minimum EPC of C for rented property and punitive tax changes will kill off the small landlord sector over the next few years, so expect things to get much worse for lower income households.

Anonymous said...

How very interesting, and makes total sense. If we stopped wasting money on subsidising private rents through housing benefit and housing the homeless, that money could be used to create Social Housing that would house the homeless (who can't afford the private rents) and make homes affordable negating the need for housing benefit. As for AIRBNB, Brent ought to charge business rates in line with other hotels. All AIRBNBs should be reported to HMRC, and all income taxed in this country, and not avoided by send the money out of the country.

Let's face it, we are being ripped off and our elected representatives are allowing it. This is what happens when you build an economy on house prices and land value. One day there be no fat left to be stolen from us and the entire phallus will shrink and wither, and who will pay, of course, us as we did in 2008/10.

Anonymous said...

Is population management discussed in this? It seems population is being increased without a substantial reason. It is worth looking at population forecasts around the world?

Anonymous said...

It's also council houses being mismanaged with no proper regular checks to see who's living in them...

Wonder how many Brent Council properties are being illegally sublet...

Alan Bryce, author of the report, said: “There are nearly 50,000 tenancy frauds in London.
Tackling this type of fraud is quicker and more cost effective than building the new homes needed to accommodate the approximately 70,000 London families in temporary accommodation or the over 300,000 families on the London housing waiting list."

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/social-housing-council-homes-fraud-taxpayers-cost-b1216532.html

Philip Grant said...

Over Grey belt land, already in public ownership, (see Myth 8 above) the CPRE document rightly says: 'Crucially, there is no cost for the land, so new homes are much cheaper to build.'

And yet Brent Council decided not to have all 250 homes on the former Copland School site, land which it already owned and received full planning consent for in 2021, built as Council homes. It could have started building them then, when the interest rate on the money it would have to borrow was at an historic low level (in two years BT - before Truss!).

Instead it chose to spend nearly two years to appoint a "developer partner", who then spent another year before starting construction in March 2024 on a project that will give the developer 150 of the 237 Cecil Avenue "Council" homes to sell privately for profit.

That decision was officially made at a Cabinet meeting in August 2021, but it had been agreed privately by the Council Leader and then Lead Member for Regeneration (whose project it was) in late 2019. The details and evidence are here to see on "Wembley Matters" in a number of guest posts on the subject which I have written since August 2021.

And, to add insult to injury, when that former Lead Member for Regeneration was questioned last year by one of Brent's Scrutiny committees about why more affordable Council homes for rent had not been provided on her Cecil Avenue development, she said that it would not have been viable to do so because the Council had to buy the land! That was untrue, but when I wrote to point that out to her, she did not bother to reply.

In May next year, Brent residents will have the opportunity to vote out councillors like that. Please don't forget the actions which they have done, to the detriment of our community. Please make the most of your once in four years chance to change things for the better.

Paul Scott said...

Yes I completely agree with both of these CPRE London and
Just Space Groups that a radical change needs to happen in the manner of housing development policy across Greater London. Over the past two decades there have been far too many high rise tower blocks built here which generally do not particularly benefit London in any social or environmental respects at all. The sheer amount of house building is not reducing homelessness or the amount of people living in temporary accommodation either. Also greater numbers of people are in Houses of Multiple Occupancy too which means that regardless of how many housing units are built it still does not fully address our demand for genuinely affordable homes.

Paul Scott said...

Yes I agree.

Anonymous said...

We also need to look at the poor decisions made by highly paid Brent Council Executives ...

Apparently 27 staff members at Brent Council earn more than £100K per year but only one staff member in Richmond Council earns more than £100K per year?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-town-hall-rich-list-westminster-city-council-chief-executive-pay-b1219972.html

How can Brent afford these huge salaries??? And if there so many highly paid Executives at Brent Council why is our borough in such a mess with no proper strategies in place to address the lack of affordable housing, the flytipping, the littering, the street drinkng etc???

Average Band D council tax in Richmond is £2,372.07.

Average Band D council tax in Brent is £2,133.15.

Philip Grant said...

The reasoning goes that you have to pay top salaries (plus good pension benefits) to attract the best Senior Council Officers to come and work in Brent.

Whether we have got the best top team in Brent is a matter of opinion. The Council Leader would probably say that they are, because he Chairs the Senior Staff Appointments Sub-Committee which hired them all.

Anonymous said...

Most of the Senior Council officers have worked at Brent Council for decades, they are not recent hirings.

Anonymous said...

I wish we had Richmond as our council

Anonymous said...

It such a shame Cllr Butt can't read (this), if he could, he'd surely realise what a complete fool he's been by facilitating such over development, and all for the benefit of other countries at the expense of his residents.

Jaine Lunn said...

It's a sad state of affairs when 2 working people with 2 primary school age children still need to claim Housing Benefit support for the Private rented accommodation, despite being on the Housing List but have zero chance of being housed by Brent.

Anonymous said...

And the worst ones are still there

Anonymous said...

Housing Benefit finance should have been spent on building Social Housing. But the Government, like its predecessors, rely on high land and property values for their economy. But what happens when it is impossible for values to increase any more?

Anonymous said...

At what point do you blame fellow residents rather than policies. It’s a behaviour change that’s needed.