Written evidence submitted by Labour Housing Group [DSH 025]


  1. About the Labour Housing Group (LHG)

1.1.               Labour Housing Group (LHG) seeks to ensure that housing of the highest possible standard is available for all members of the community regardless of their means.


1.2.               Our aim is to develop effective housing policy that will enable Government to meet housing need and provide genuinely affordable, secure, decent quality housing for all. 


1.3.               As a socialist society affiliated to the Labour Party we work within the movement, both nationally and locally, to develop and promote workable socialist housing policies through our members.


  1. Executive Summary

2.1.               LHG does not support the levels of funding identified by the National Housing Federation, G15, and the GLA. Evidently these levels do not meet the cross-party commitment made by the Government in June 2019. It calls on the Government to ascertain the true funding level required to deliver 155,000 homes each year at social rent levels.


2.2.               Existing incentives and programmes have been ineffective and have had serious unintended consequences. LHG calls for the end to Help-to-Buy and believes that supply-side subsidy should be prioritised to support the provision of new homes for social rent.


2.3.               LHG recommends wholesale land reform through the introduction of land value capture mechanisms that have garnered cross-party support. It demands the creation of an English Sovereign Land Trust that will have compulsory purchase powers for the acquisition of land at Existing Use Value +15% for new social housing development.


2.4.               Democratically accountable local authorities should be at the centre of policy as both enablers and providers of social housing over the next 10 years. LHG believes that local authorities should be given the means to acquire land for housing development and internal resources to enable them to have the skills and expertise to build new homes.


2.5.               The Government should adopt the spirit of the first Labour government of 1924 that subsidised both private enterprise and local authorities under the Wheatley Act, in order to provide affordable homes to rent for the communities that needed it most.


2.6.               Other providers such as Community Land Trusts and Community-Led Housing should not be excluded from funding provision being made available. LHG calls for the extension of the Community Housing Fund as recommended in the Labour Party Green Paper, Housing for the Many.


2.7.               LHG argues that the best approach to meet the needs of the different regions by returning to regional home building targets and recognising the Housing Delivery Test is flawed. This can be achieved by devolving more power to assess need locally to best serve their needs. LHG believes regional coordination will be necessary to ensure targets are compatible with adjoining areas.  


2.8.               LHG recommend closer alignment to international norms of other developed economies. This can be achieved through greater devolution of fiscal authority to local government and the reclassification of local authority debt. Both will enable local authorities to get building again to post-war levels.


2.9.               LHG endorses serious consideration of internationally informed radical new solutions. These may include the tax credit approach seen in the United States, endorsed by Professor Michael Oxley of University of Cambridge, and Japan’s flexible zoning system that links local demand to new supply and reduces disparate wealth inequality.


  1. What levels of central government funding will be required to support the delivery of social housing over the next 10 years to meet long-term need?

3.1.               England faces a national housing emergency and the LHG vehemently supports the need for Government to invest in a new generation of social housing.


3.2.               Shelter’s Commission on the future of social housing report ‘Building for our future: A vision for social housing’ identified up to 3.1 million households will need a home over the next 20 years. This would provide an average of 155,000 social homes each year1. Economic modelling from Capital Economics estimated this would cost a net additional £10.7 billion per annum2.


3.3.               In June 2019, Shelter’s report was noted in the cross-party motion was passed and resolved in the House of Commons calling for 155,000 social rented homes. This set out for Government to adopt a policy to build at least 100,000 council homes, each year, from 20223.


3.4.               LHG support these projections because they use population data rather than household formation data. Projections that use the latter may be affected by supply and affordability, which would result in the level of homes required likely to be underestimated. This is a result of not capturing households that are unable to form because they cannot afford to do so.


3.5.               Composite 23 was a motion passed at the Labour Party conference in September 2019. It sought to adopt a policy of building an average of 155,000 social rented homes per annum, with at least 100,000 of these being council homes provided at social rent levels4


3.6.               LHG believes consideration should be given to the remaining 55,000 homes having subsidy made available for all those who are prepared to provide housing, of an improved type, at social rents, providing only a reasonable margin of profit on the portion of the capital found by the promoter.


3.7.               Crisis and the National Housing Federation Commissioned Heriot-Watt University to model a housing supply forecast in November 2018. The assessment found a need for 145,000 affordable homes per annum, of which 90,000 homes would be for social rent, and determined an intermediate rent target of 30,000, with a further 25,000 for shared ownership5. These projections have drawn on household projections to forecast the level of need, which is argued to result in underestimation as outlined in 3.4.


3.8.               Based on the Heriot-Watt supply forecast, analysis by the National Housing Federation, Greater London Authority and the G15 in London estimated this will cost £14.6 billion per annum, a real terms sum of £12.8 billion. This amount would equate to 44% of total scheme costs6.


3.9.               These costs were supported in September 2019 by the National Housing Federation, Crisis, Chartered Institute for Housing, G15, GLA, Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) and even Shelter7.


3.10.           Given the number of social rented homes the Government has committed to build, we believe the £14.6 billion grant funding requirement outlined above falls considerably short of the mark. The figure is not enough to provide 155,000 social rented homes, where market failure has hit hardest, and uses methodology argued to understate the need. LHG calls on the Government to conduct funding analysis to deliver the number of social rented homes it committed on a cross-party basis to resolve in June 2019.


  1. How effective are existing government incentives and programmes?

4.1.             Between 1946 to 1979 the average number of dwellings being built each year was 248,357. Local Authorities were building an average of around 121,563 homes each year. Private Enterprise 130,174 per year. Housing Associations 6,604 homes per year8.


4.2.             Between 2010 and 2019 the average number of dwellings being built each year was 135,364. Local Authorities were building an average of around 1,674 homes each year. Private Enterprise 107,637 per year. Housing Associations 26,058 homes per year.


4.3.             Existing incentives and programmes of the incumbent Government have clearly underperformed against historic norms. The apparent improved performance of Housing Associations is not resultant from direct output per se, but largely forward funding arrangements off private developers. LHG recognise this has come at a significant price for tenants, leaseholders, and local authorities due to stock transfer.  


4.4.             Changes in landlords business models and service delivery has been cited as one of the reasons behind a significant increase in complaints entering the remit of the Housing Ombudsman, which has seen over 100% increase since 20159.


4.5.             Many of the completions by housing associations are not self-delivered and have been through Section 106 partnerships. This has resulted in housing associations admitting a lack of control over quality and risking their balance sheets to the impact of delivery partners going bust10.


4.6.             There has been a recent trend to shift away from this model towards land-led deals and self-delivery, which will see more housing associations take on new risks akin to a housebuilder. This is a highly cyclical business that has already led to many housing associations' pre-tax surpluses fall for two years in a row (almost halved in some cases). In large part this has been a result of changes in market conditions causing large drops in sales profits11.


4.7.             Right to Buy has led to over two million homes being sold off since 1980, which has seen only one home built for every five sold12. This has seen a significant net effective loss of homes that are genuinely affordable. LHG acknowledges the negative impact this has had on local authorities’ ability to provide socially rented housing and calls for the end of Right to Buy as recommended by the Labour Party at its conference in 2019.


4.8.             Recent evidence at an APPG on Leasehold and Commonhold reform in March 2020 stated that shared ownership provides a less secure, unequitable form of tenure. The definition of shared ownership sees costs that are not shared and in effect it is not ownership13. It is an Assured Tenancy for a fixed term of 99 years or 125 years and has a possession process that follows the Housing Act 1988. This excludes relief from forfeiture as would be the norm with long leasehold. It means shared owners can be evicted by the court under ‘Ground 8 for as little as 2 months’ rent arrears. LHG calls for reform of shared ownership to ensure it becomes a more fair and secure form of tenure.


4.9.             Share owners are buyers of an option that results in them having significantly unfair liabilities for repair and maintenance in buildings that typically cost significantly more to run and upkeep than a typical two-bed terrace. Professor Yolande Barnes referred to an ‘eye-watering’ difference between what you would expect to spend on a simple second-hand terraced house versus a typical building built over the past ten or twenty years in London14. This is unfair, as many of the providers, most of whom are Housing Associations, do not share the liabilities while taking a share (often the majority) of any value uplift.


4.10.         Shared ownership is not even ownership, it provides buyers with an option to purchase a property, and a contractual right to a percentage of the equity of a property when it is sold. In effect a right to a share of the sales price. The premium paid for the property gives the purchaser a right to staircase to 100%, of which evidence stated at the same APPG argued to be in a single digit percentage of all participants. It has been described by leading housing commentator for the BBC, Henry Pryor, as a housing tenure the ‘child catcher would sell’ 15.


4.11.         LHG is of the view that subsidy should be focused on providing homes for rent to low-income households. It should focus on making more homes affordable, rather than making people try to afford the homes they cannot afford. The Heriot-Watt supply forecast makes no justifiable grounds to focus subsidy that will create further upwards pressure on property prices in an already supply constrained market. We believe the prevailing evident issues with shared ownership could see the tenure become the next ground rent scandal, particularly hitting key workers and other affordable homeowners.


4.12.         LHG calls for a Competition and Markets Authority review16 into leasehold housing to include shared ownership within its mandate, and for councils to seek greater protection for shared owners from unfair practice.


4.13.         Help to Buy expands housing credit and thus increases the demand for housing. This has resulted in the unintended consequence of making housing less, rather than more, affordable. It has stimulated construction in the ‘wrong areas’ and not where new housing is most needed. LHG would argue because of this it has not been an effective use of Government subsidy.


4.14.         The main beneficiaries of Help to Buy in unaffordable areas have been developers and landowners, rather than struggling first-time-buyers. It is argued in a recent LSE research paper that Help-to-Buy has had limited effects on affordability and may have in fact been regressive17. LHG trust this research will result in a Damascene moment for the Government to acknowledge Help-to-Buy is an ineffective solution to the housing crisis.


4.15.         In London, the maximum subsidy available is up to £240,000. The average subsidy per equity loan across all London boroughs equates to £144,000. £3bn has been granted since its inception with 21,515 loans made between 2013 and 2019. This average subsidy reduces to £57,700 over England with 248,075 equity loans made in total18. LHG recognises the Government has chosen to prioritise pecuniary benefits for housebuilders in London by more than 80% higher levels than what is has been typically allocated for social housing grant provision on a per unit basis+.


4.16.         LHG condemns the focus of market distorting demand side subsidies that have exacerbated the affordability crisis, notably favouring home ownership19 over rental homes for those on low incomes.


4.17.         There are over one million people – families, children, vulnerable groups – on council housing waiting lists. The number of people on our streets has risen by 165 per cent since 201020. LHG believes a long-term funding settlement would give providers of social homes for rent the financial certainty and capability to end rough sleeping by 2024. 



  1. Are reforms needed to land value and the planning system to increase delivery?

5.1.             Former Conservative Chancellor, Sajid Javid, has backed a “morally justifiable” tax on land that can help fund more affordable homes, schools and hospitals in November 2019. In his interview with Liam Halligan, detailed in Home Truths, the former Chancellor admitted to developing proposals that split planning uplift 50-50 between local government and landowners. Javid went on to state housing is the most important domestic policy we face and has admitted Conservative Government leaders did not understand the impact of the housing crisis on ordinary families21Halligan has termed the reform needed as Land Value Capture. This type of amendment to the law has garnered a broad coalition of support, which includes, but is not limited to Shelter22, Berkeley Homes, and many Labour MPs and Council Leaders23.


5.2.             LHG agrees with the former Chancellor that reform of land compensation law can strengthen democratic control over development, assist local authorities in ensuring an adequate supply of affordable housing, and enable them to retain a fair share of land value uplift arising from new development. A level of 50% would represent a fair share of the uplift any local authority grants to cover its own increased costs.


5.3.             In ‘Housing for the Many’, a Labour Party Green Paper, John Healey MP outlined policy proposals for an English Sovereign Land Trust in April 201824; the aim of this is to work with local authorities to enable more proactive buying of land at a price closer to existing use value.


5.4.             Existing Use Value is a term synonymous with Financial Viability Assessments, which has been described as a loophole by Shelter for developers to justify lower affordable housing contributions25. LHG firmly believes that this loophole should be closed in its entirety and urge the Government to do the same.


5.5.             The principle of Existing Use Value Plus a Premium (EUV+) has been well established for the purposes of Financial Viability Assessments (FVA). While the Labour Manifesto commitment did not set out a specific percentage, LHG would recommend that a level of EUV plus 15% should be adopted for land acquired by the English Sovereign Land Trust. FVAs have seen these levels accepted by the market to determine an acceptable level considered that reflects adequate incentive for a landowner to become a willing seller.


5.6.             Evidence from the UK’s past and from equivalent countries shows that strong compulsory purchase powers can shift the balance of incentives in the land market. Aware that the land could be purchased by the state closer to EUV, landowners would be encouraged to part with land at a fair price. This would increase the supply of land and rein in value increases driven by over-zealous speculation and allow for acceptable hope value.


5.7.             An analysis by Daniel Bentley for Civitas estimates that such a change could reduce the cost of building affordable housing by 50% on greenfield sites in the South East, or by 33% in the case of a high-density apartment blocks in London26.


5.8.             Under the current legal framework, public authorities in the UK are prevented from purchasing land at close to existing use value as legislation protects the landowners right to ‘hope value’ through the Land Compensation Act 196127.


5.9.             Research by the New Economics Foundation of Government public land sales has resulted in only 6% of homes built on public land being for social rent with 56% of sold-off sites resulting in no social rent homes at all28.


5.10.         LHG recommends land reform to enable the setting up of an English Sovereign Land Trust that can acquire land at Existing Use Value plus 15%, as seen acceptable by the market in Financial Viability Assessment settlements. It also calls for local authorities to obtain rights to Land Value Capture at a level of 50% of all planning uplift on all permitted consents. The consents should be a contract to build, as opposed to a permission, with 50% payable on planning grant and 50% payable on a longstop basis.


  1. What should the role of (a) local authorities – as enablers and providers, (b) Homes England (c) housing associations and (d) other providers be in that long-term delivery?

6.1.               Local authorities (a)


6.1.1.         Democratically accountable local authorities should be at the centre of policy, as both enablers and providers of social housing over the next 10 years. This should be achieved by having a duty on councils to provide housing at social rent levels in their area, ensuring that all councils, including those that do not own housing stock, have the skills and resources to do so.


6.1.2.         Local authorities will need to continue to expand their programmes if they are to make a significant contribution to the Government's target to build 300,000 new homes by the mid-2020s. The Government will need to address the obstacles, including skills shortages, that prevent councils from doing so. An apprenticeship programme linked to conditions of grant provision could be one way of reducing the skills gap in the construction sector.


6.1.3.         LHG believes local authority housebuilding at scale is the missing key policy to long-term delivery and could play a more active role as both enablers and providers if given the power to acquire land for development.


6.1.4.         Changes in supply-side funding and planning rules should enable local authorities to determine that all new developments provide an appropriate level of social rented homes and other sub-market homes.


6.1.5.         LHG believes increased powers should be made available for local authorities to raise local revenue to enable more supply, to be able to set up Direct Labour Organisations (DLOs), and Housing Revenue Accounts (HRA) where they do not exist. The historic 2012 debt transaction of HRAs should be cancelled given the precedent set to write-off £13.4bn of historic debt across the NHS announced in April 2020.


6.1.6.         Right to Buy (RTB) must be ended to enable local authorities to sustainably business plan for a social housing programme without fear of providing homes that will be bought back at less than what it paid for it. LHG believe in its current form is not a sustainable funding model.


6.1.7.         Local authorities should not be subject to the Government’s current plans to withdraw all central government revenue support to local authorities by 2020, which will result in the diversion of resources that would otherwise go into funding new housing supply.


6.1.8.         LHG believe local authorities should have the right of first refusal to use publicly owned land to provide new homes at low rents with security of tenure.


6.1.9.         Local authorities should be able to provide soft loans to private developers in exchange for improved affordable housing provision.


6.2.               Homes England (b)


6.3.               Should return to its former remit as it existed under the Housing Corporation, where it should distribute grant for development purposes to local authorities to distribute within their areas on a per capita basis. It can regulate registered providers against national criteria.


6.4.               Housing Associations (c)


6.4.1.         LHG believe housing associations need to be returned to their social aims with public accountability and local management boards.


6.4.2.         Local authorities should be given powers to take over housing association assets within their jurisdiction under direct council control (with an option for compensation), where housing associations are not fulfilling their social aims or are proving to be unaccountable. Local authorities will have the size and scale to leverage the income from these assets to borrow to build.


6.5.               Other Providers (d)


6.5.1.         Under the first Labour government the Minister of Health, John Wheatley, legislated the first mass housebuilding programme of rental homes under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1924. It criticised the Addison Act of 1923 for subsidising the private sector, which had only built homes for sale. Yet the Wheatley Act broadened this funding regime to permit both local authorities and private enterprise29 to produce houses for the section of the community that needed it most.


6.5.2.         LHG believe in the spirit of John Wheatley consideration should be given to grant being provided to non-profit organisations, local authorities, and private enterprise for the delivery of homes at social rent levels, where private institutional investors can demonstrate a long-term owner operator model as found in build-to-rent or later living.  Non-profit and private enterprise should be made to compete for subsidy allocated with conditions set by the local authority.


6.5.3.         LHG believe the Community Housing Fund should be extended, as outlined in the Labour Party Housing for the Many Green Paper in 2018. Community Land Trusts and Community-Led Housing should have a role to play in providing new supply as seen with much success from Labour-led councils, such as Southwark and the GLA working alongside Leathermarket CBS to deliver 27 homes for social rent.


6.5.4.         Reform to the Apprenticeship Levy is needed to make it work for small to medium sized construction firms, as these firms train two-thirds of all apprentices in the sector. Nearly two-thirds of all construction firms are struggling to hire carpenters, joiners, and bricklayers. The Federation of Master Builders argue that enabling large construction companies to pass down the supply chain 100 percent of the annual value of their Apprenticeship Levy funds, instead of the 25% limit, could reduce the skills shortage30.


  1. How can the Government’s approach to delivery best meet the different needs of individual regions and areas?

7.1.               Standard methodology used within Objectively Assessed Housing Need (OAN) was argued by economists WYG to be over simplified and offer no discretion over the data sources or its interpretation. WYG concluded in 2017 that this will lead to less housing being built in several parts of the country31. This turns out to have been the case.


7.2.               Current national formulas within the Housing Delivery Test (HDT) targets for local authorities without a local plan is flawed and take no account of specific local conditions, argued by Leigh Palmer, Head of Planning at Eastbourne Council32. This is true where there are topographical interruptions synonymous with constrained seaside towns, areas with flood plains, and authorities with large designations of national parks or green belt.


7.3.               LHG would be willing to support a review of such a reform of the green belt provided it is done in the context of a full review of land held for conservation, environmental and amenity purposes.


7.4.               Local authorities should be given the devolved power to enable them to make autonomous decisions about what number and type of tenure they deem appropriate for their area. They should be required to periodically assess local housing need and to draw up plans based on local requirements in terms of size, tenure, and demographics.


7.5.               Individual local authorities should collaborate with regional neighbours to avoid housing strategies of adjacent authorities becoming incompatible with each other. This is particularly relevant for addressing housing needs of areas suffering from secular population decline. Regional targets should take precedence to ensure supply burden is appropriately shared in line with identified regional need.


7.6.               Local authorities should be allocated grant on a per capita basis by Homes England, whereby they can allocate themselves to build or grant to other providers on a competitive basis on their conditions such as rent level, tenure type, and location criteria.


7.7.               Minimum room space standards, as seen in London, should be applied nationally. Local authorities should be empowered to ensure such standards are applied.


7.8.               Every region of the UK needs to play its part in tackling carbon change and reducing carbon emissions. LHG believe it is of vital importance that any long-term delivery funded by Government is sustainable and applies a tough new zero carbon home standard for all new homes, along with low energy whole house refurbishment of existing assets.



  1. What lessons can be learned from alternative approaches to social housing delivery in other countries and jurisdictions?

8.1.                  LHG believes there is a strong rationale to devolve fiscal authority to local government based on current international norms. It can achieve this through reallocating its proportion of central government debt more in line with other developed economies.


8.2.                  The UK has the highest proportion of gross government debt pertaining to central government (93.2%) in comparison to the USA (81.0%), Japan (84.4%), Germany (63.7%), France (80.4%), Italy (92.7%), Spain (74.5%), Holland (78.9%), and Sweden (70.7%)33.


8.3.                  Calls for to change the classification of local government debt have been renewed in 2020 by John Perry of the Chartered Institute of Housing. He argued the Government should adopt international accounting conventions to take borrowing for council housing investment out of the main measure of government debt 34.


8.4.                  Government has heard these recommendations before in 2012. Under the General Government Financial Deficit (GGFD) model, trading activities like housing development can be viewed as off-balance sheet and off the national debt figures. This is the approach that will enable Local Authorities to align with housing associations in their ability to borrow35.


8.5.                  The UK still uses the Public Sector Net Cash Requirement (PSNCR) and Public Sector Borrowing Requirement (PSBR) as the main measure of public finances, which is argued by Professor Jim Vine to include ‘public non-financial corporations’36 such as local authority housing departments.


8.6.                  Professor Michael Oxley of the Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research (CCHPR) has said for countries with large affordable housing needs and a desire for new radical solutions, the tax credit approach is worth of serious consideration37.


8.7.                  The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) in the United States is one of the main tools the federal government uses to encourage the development and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing38. It has seen over 3.13 million low-income rental housing units have built between 1987 and 201739.


8.8.                  LIHTC has been found to have a “more successful track record than other supply side affordable rental housing programs”40 and has in the past provided funding for approximately one-third of all new multifamily housing units built in the United States41.


8.9.                  The LIHTC programme has enjoyed broad cross-party support since its inception, supporting 3.4 million jobs and generating $323 billion in local income and $127 billion in federal, state, and local tax revenues42.


8.10.              The largest form of federal assistance to state and local governments is not a direct expenditure but rather an indirect tax expenditure in the form of a tax credit. LIHTC combines production and investment incentives with conditions that ensure minimum quality standards, sub-market rents and social allocation criteria.


8.11.              Local allocation of tax credits makes the system flexible to local circumstances and adds to political popularity, with political support enhanced by the fact that tax credits substitute tax foregone for direct public expenditure.


8.12.              The U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines affordability on the basis of whether a family pays more than 30% of their annual income on housing; if it is in excess of this amount the rent level (including utilities) is considered a “cost burden”43.


8.13.              The programme gives state and local LIHTC allocating agencies the equivalent of $8bn per year to issue tax credits for the acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of rental housing targeting low-income households.


8.14.              In Australia, the success of US tax credits has been recently advocated to the NSW Treasury by the Industry Superannuation Association as a method of tackling the housing crisis44.


8.15.              LIHTC does not appear to be on the government's radar. For example, it was not one of the options put by Daniel Kawczynski to George Clarke when he asked “… which department would you cut? Would you increase borrowing, or would you increase taxation on people like yourself in order to fund it?45.


8.16.              Government currently pursues economic and social objectives using tax expenditures for £155 billion each year, of which none pertain to the new development or rehabilitation of affordable rental housing. Currently exemption of Capital Gains Tax in the UK for ‘Private Residence Relief equates to £26.5bn of tax foregone each year, which is equivalent to 1.2% as a share of GDP46.


8.17.              LHG recommend exploration of how this fiscal tool may be used to subsidise non-profit and for-profit providers to produce affordable rental housing and stimulate new economic development in both high cost areas and those suffering from deprivation. 


8.18.              LHG recognises the planning system makes inequality worse and threatens financial stability. Planning reform is needed to allow housing supply to respond to local demand and end shortages in cities. Anthony Breach of Centre for Cities argues flexible zoning systems seen in Japan would stabilise growth in housing wealth over the long-term47.


8.19.              LHG acknowledges the current tax regime does not incentivise occupancy levels to their maximum level and results in many existing dwellings underutilized. We would welcome a review into the impact of the existing council tax and capital gains tax relief regime on housing markets that have systemic under occupation.



May 2020


1 Shelter: 'Building for our future: A vision for social housing’ – January 2019



2 Capital Economics: Increasing Investment in Social Housing – October 2018



3 Hansard: Volume 661 Social Housing – June 2019



4 Labour Party: Conference Arrangements Committee Report 5 to Conference - September 2019



5 Crisis: Housing supply requirements across Great Britain – November 2018



6 National Housing Federation: Capital grant required to meet social housing need in England 2021-2031 – June 2019



7 Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee: Long-term delivery of social and affordable rented housing inquiry, Written Evidence – September 2019



8 Live tables on house building Table 244: permanent dwelling started and completed, by tenure, England, historical calendar year series



9 The Housing Ombudsman Service 2018-19



10 Social Housing: Are HAs becoming more like house builders? October 2019



11 Social Housing: Special report: how do housing associations’ finances compare to others?



12 Live tables on social housing sales Table 678: annual social housing sales by scheme for England



13 Leasehold Knowledge Partnership: Shared ownership: a misnomer that can be worse than renting and worse than leasehold, says solicitor – March 2020



14 London Assembly Housing Committee: Transcript of Item 6, Help to Buy in London – May 2019



15 Henry Pryor: Tweet response to Paul Hackett (CEO of Optivo) – September 2018



16 CMA: Leasehold housing update – February 2020



17 Centre for Economic Performance: On the Economic Impacts of Mortgage Credit Expansion Policies: Evidence from Help to Buy - March 2020



18 GOV.UK: Help to Buy (equity loan scheme) statistics, April 2013 to 30 September 2019, England – February 2020



19 MHCLG: National Planning Policy Framework – February 2019



20 MHCLG: Rough Sleeping Statistics, Autumn 2018, England (Revised) – February 2019



21 The Telegraph: Sajid Javid backs 'morally justifiable' tax on landowners to tackle housing crisis – November 2019



22 Shelter: Chancellor and Berkeley Homes boss back the campaign for land reform: 'An efficient and morally justifiable tax' – November 2019



23 UK Onward: Sharing land value with communities: An open letter – January 2019



24 Labour Party: Housing for the Many Green Paper – April 2018



25 Shelter: Slipping through the loophole, How viability assessments are reducing affordable housing supply in England?



26 Civitas: Reform of the land compensation rules: How much could it save on the cost of a public-sector house building programme? - 2018 https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/reformofthelandcompensationrules.pdf


27 Civitas: Land of Make Believe: Compensating landowners for what might have been - 2018



28 New Economics Foundation: Mass selloff of public land fails to deliver social housing – September 2019



29 Hansard: Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill Second Reading – June 1924



30 Apprenticeship Levy is exacerbating construction skills shortage, says FMB – March 2019



31 WYG: Objectively assess housing need – March 2018



32 Inside Housing: How low scoring councils are responding to the Housing Delivery Test – March 2020



33 OECD: Government at a Glance 2019 – November 2019



34 House of Commons: Financing of New Housing Supply – May 2012



35 House of Commons: Tackling the under-supply of housing in England – March 2020



36 ONS: UK government debt and deficit: December 2019



37 Housing Finance International: Tax credits for affordable housing in the USA: could they work elsewhere? – March 2015



38 Congressional Research Service: An introduction to the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit - February 2019



39 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: Low-Income Housing Tax Credits - May 2019



40 Novogradac: Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Assessment of Program Performance & Comparison to Other Federal Affordable Rental Housing Subsidies – January 2018



41 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: What happens to Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Properties at Year 15 and Beyond – February 2019



42 National Multifamily Housing Council: Low-Income Housing Tax Credit – October 2019



43 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: Affordable Housing Overview - March 2020



44 Real Assets IPE: Housing affordability: Is Australia missing a trick? – February 2020



45 HCLG: Oral evidence: Long-term delivery of social and affordable rented housing, HC 173 – March 2020



46 NAO: The management of tax expenditure – February 2020



47 Centre for Cities: How the planning system creates housing shortages and drives wealth inequality – June 2019