Miss Georgina Schueller ESH0084
Written evidence submitted by Miss Georgina Schueller
Introduction.
There is a wealth of information and data available which seems to make clear that the proposals from the Government regarding changes to planning in order to speed up house building, will not address the housing crisis, but may, in fact, exacerbate it. The same is true with the negative effects on the environment and of sustainability when building new housing, especially when it involves the demolition of structurally sound buildings. Although some new housing will be necessary, it must be done strategically and to the highest possibly environmental standards to future proof them. I give evidence linking the problem of building many homes without targeting for need, alongside the problematic brownfield site allocation and adjusting methodologies to help mitigate the climate emergency.
Housing crisis.
To help alleviate the housing crisis, which is largely one of unaffordability, the housing target numbers, although welcome, need to be more strategic to build housing that is NEEDED by local demographics. Building any type, can help create a problem eg a market boom in 2nd homes, (ref 1) and property bought as investments, marketed to overseas buyers, skewing the market but not alleviating the housing crisis, (eg in areas like Nine Elms in Lambeth/Wandsworth in London.)
Savills wrote a blog entitled “Does building more council housing make good financial sense?”(ref 2). It stated that 100,000 households each year do not earn enough to access a mortgage or the private rented sector. That was in 2018. Fast forward to 2024, and I’d be surprised if that figure hadn’t risen enormously. One of the main reasons for homelessness is being evicted by private landlords, who will often then raise rents. In London, the rent in the Private Rented Sector has risen by 11.6% this year according to the ONS (ref 3) well above the current inflation rate of 2.6%. Any increase in wages for those on low incomes is soon wiped out.
Private developers and those working in the housing sector (including Savills), are well aware that the most needed type of housing is council housing, (the least expensive of all social housing types and usually with secure tenure). The over reliance on private developers to provide such housing, is ill founded as there is not enough profit for them to do so. Indeed there is much evidence that “viability” is often used to decrease the number of housing units initially agreed with councils, as in the ongoing case of the Aylesham development. (ref 4). Had the local council changed tack, and the estate retrofitted instead, many more EXTRA council homes could have been created, as lots of leaseholders have already sold back to the council.
Retrofitting.
Retrofitting would have been a far better way to improve insulation alongside upgrading facilities, and addressing fuel poverty far more quickly, but appears to have not been actively considered. The examples of retrofitting housing blocks as a much more eco-friendly way than demolition and rebuilding, are there (ref 5). Lacaton and Vassal, for example, two French architects who transformed two large social housing blocks, at less than half the cost of demolition and rebuild, without having to decant residents, increasing the size of people’s homes, and stabilising rents, whilst also keeping communities together. That was in 2018. Why is Britain’s ambition so lacking, especially as the climate crisis is worsening?
Government grants to retrofit.
There are limited Government grants available to help with costs of retrofitting social homes, (Social Homes Decarbonisation Fund) but these do not include leaseholder properties. I have direct experience as a council tenant living on a small estate in Lambeth; Lambeth Council had successfully applied for such funding. Our estate was to be included, but we were informed very recently that we would be pulled from the scheme. Why? Because it was too problematic coming up with a plan as so many leaseholders live on the estate. It would have been too patchwork and an inefficient use of funding, so we are stuck with single glazing, condensation problems and massive energy bills. Any Government funding should factor in that estates are no longer 100% council or housing association tenants. To be effective, all properties need to be retrofitted for cost effectiveness, and economy of scale.
A case study – a change of tack needed.
Meanwhile, in Lambeth there are 6 estates that have been earmarked for demolition since 2012, (albeit 3 are under review at the moment). Plans have stalled, but in the meantime many leaseholders have sold up, and lots of secure tenants have chosen to be rehoused by the council elsewhere, being given Band A status and taking away valuable homes from those languishing on the housing waiting list. In Lambeth there are 27,000 council homes but 43,000 households on the housing waiting list. There are 4,700 households in temporary accommodation, costing Lambeth around £14,000 each household a year. The mental and physical toll this takes on families is huge and another cost to the state and the NHS.
Problematic definition of Brownfield sites.
It seems immoral to me that the 6 estates mentioned have been designated as brownfield sites, from a time when they were fully lived in. These estates have been left in a state of further managed decline for more than a decade, but being nearly empty and with fewer leaseholders, makes them far more suitable for the Government grant funding (as it stands) to retrofit. In this example, the plans to regenerate on “Brownfield sites”, (which the Government now seeks to wave through more quickly with less scrutiny), would see nearly £2,500 extra private for sale built, but only 40 additional council homes, according to the Kerslake Review. (Ref 6). Yet if retrofitting and refurbishment was done instead, hundreds of EXTRA council homes would be created, with the possibility of building rooftop extensions where viable. Many of these unaffordable private homes would likely end up as investment properties, as second homes, or used for private renting at ever increasing unaffordable costs to the renter. This is not a good sustainable practice.
I have long thought that such examples of estates earmarked for demolition, with lack of funding and the cross subsidy model in tatters, would be better used as a training ground for the future retrofit workforce that we need. It would be a unique opportunity to use the conflation of so many issues – ie unusually empty estates with very few leaseholders, the increase in building costs, lack of construction workforce, lack of retrofitters, and lack of truly “affordable” housing, to help rectify the injustice of moving council tenants, and worse still, those in temporary accommodation, on and away from their community networks. Climate justice and social justice should work hand in hand.
There is no route to net zero that doesn’t include retrofitting, yet we do not have a workforce capable of doing it, neither do we have enough people being trained, or enough training courses. These highly skilled jobs are necessary to help mitigate the climate emergency. Where is the urgency to provide training? Where is the Government investment? I point you towards the Sustainability Development Foundation “Retrofit at Scale” document, (ref 7) to peruse and hopefully to help the Government devise policy to fit the need.
Another issue that needs addressing urgently, is to put retrofitting on a level playing field with the construction of new housing, by removing VAT from all retrofitting materials and measures.
Reliance on failed models.
Reliance on two failed models to create more social housing does not seem good policy, especially when the social and environmental costs are also factored in.
One model, of using private developers to build social/council housing is non-viable, as illustrated in this example (ref 8). London Square/Lambeth Council initially had plans to build 200 new homes on publicly owned land in Brixton, 50% of which would be “affordable”, and 70% of that 50% (ie 35%) would be at social rent. Fast forward to 2024, and news has just broken that there will be no affordable homes built, because Lambeth Council does not have sufficient Housing Revenue Account money to be able to buy them back. This is not only a problem for Lambeth Council. Registered Social Housing providers also cannot afford to buy back housing built for them by private developers, (ref 9).
Meanwhile, the cross subsidy model used by councils, to build private housing on publicly owned land to help pay for building social/council housing is clearly proved to be a failure in the report – “The promise of cross subsidy – Why Estate Demolition Cannot Solve London’s Housing Crisis” - produced by Dr Joe Penny for the Public Law Interest Centre (PILC), (ref 10). Estate demolition is not only very bad for the environment with so much embodied carbon and wasted materials, the use of finite materials like sand, is highly problematic too when building new.
Ongoing climate change, renewable and systems research in the Netherlands has very recently revealed that the amount of fossil-derived material used in construction, manufacturing and industry is now outpacing growth in the burning of oil, gas and coal, amounting to what scientists say is a "ticking time bomb" of emissions.” (ref 11) This was published just days ago, on the 21st December 2024.
Ref 1 - The London borough where the number of second homes has more than doubled - MyLondon
Ref 2 - Savills Blog | Does building more council homes make good financial sense?
Ref 4 - Berkeley drops Aylesham Centre affordable housing offer to 12 per cent – Southwark News
Ref 6 - Kerslake Review Terms of Reference Final_3.pdf
Ref 7 – Retrofit at Scale – Sustainable Development Foundation
Ref 8 - Lambeth Council and London Square announce Brixton town centre development project
Ref 9 - Housing associations unable to take on hundreds of affordable homes in London - The Fitzrovia News
Ref 11 - New Research Reveals Carbon ‘Time Bomb’ In Our Homes, Appliances
December 2024