Written evidence submitted by Professor ADH Crook CBE FACSS FRTPI, Emeritus Professor of Town & Regional Planning, The University of Sheffield [FSS 077]

Introduction

In my oral evidence on 12th June I mentioned the results of three pieces of research which might be relevant to the Committee’s inquiry. The Chair asked that I submit a note on these.  I am pleased to do so and in the paragraphs below I summarise the key results that I respectfully suggest may be helpful to the committee’s deliberations. I also list in each paragraph the paper where the full results of the relevant research can be found

Housing Associations and Private Rented Housing

Professor Peter Kemp (Oxford University) and I have investigated this recent phenomenon. We found that several large associations were building significant numbers of new private rented homes and that their output represented approximately a quarter of all new build to rent housing over the years .  They were doing so for two key reasons: first to provide a wider ‘mix’ of homes to those seeking new housing (but primarily not to those in need of affordable homes) and second to use the profits from renting these to help subsidise the construction of new affordable homes.  The income represented a significant proportion of their non-social housing turnover (c £150m in 2015) and on average were making profits of just under £5k annually per private rented dwelling.

The results can be found in:

Crook, A.D.H. & Kemp, P.A. (2019), In search of profit: housing association investment in private rental housing, Housing Studies, 39 (4), pp 666-687  

https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2018.1468419

Use of planning obligations to fund affordable housing

I have given much evidence on this issue to the Committee’s previous inquiries including that of land value capture. With colleagues I have recently completed a study of the incidence, value and delivery of S75 planning obligations for the Scottish Government. After publication of our report we summarised and contrasted the results of that study with our other recent work on S106 in England for DLUHC’s predecessor department.  In England, the use of planning obligations (ie. via S106) is significant, with this mechanism contributing about half of all new affordable homes mainly provided on site in a mix of market homes and thus also contributing to the mixed communities agenda. In my oral evidence I pointed out that little of the new affordable housing provided by this mechanism was social rented housing (but mainly affordable rent and shared ownership) and I contrasted this with the experience of similar mechanisms in Scotland  (i.e. S75 planning obligations) where 70 percent of new homes secured via this method are social rented homes). This arises because in Scotland significant grants are made available to mix in with the developer contributions (albeit with an impact on higher land prices being paid for S75 sites).

The paper describing and discussing that contrast can be found at:

Boyle, J. Crook, A.D.H., Smith, S., & Whitehead, C.M.E (2022), Developer contributions for affordable homes and infrastructure — anglo-scottish comparisons and lessons, part two: Scotland and England compared — a three-stage story? Town & Country Planning, 91(2), pp 104-109.

Shared ownership

I was asked during my oral evidence about the contribution that shared ownership makes to social housing. In my answer I referred to the way this has made important contributions to the mixed communities agenda.  In some recent work we analysed the entire Homes England (as it now is) database of new housing association development and mapped this onto a fine geographical data base of 1km squares so we were able to link what had been built, who had moved into them to the social composition of those locations.  Our results showed how important planning obligations were to enabling those (mainly families) in deprived circumstances to move to new rented homes in non-deprived locations but also enabled young couples in work to buy shared ownership on the same sites, both of course mixed in with full market homes). We also showed how housing association involved in inner city regeneration projects had not only provided new affordable rented homes but also shared ownership homes significantly moving into such areas new households in work and helping to change the social composition of those mainly once deprived areas.

The relevant paper can be found at:

Bibby, P.R., Crook, A.D.H., Ferrari, E.T., Monk, S., Tang, C., & Whitehead C.M.E. (2016), ‘New housing association development and its potential to reduce concentrations of deprivation: an English case study’ Urban Studies 53(16), pp 3388-3404, (DOI: 10.1177/0042098015613044)

June 2023