E N D
1. The Case forInvesting in London’sAffordable Housing Christine ME Whitehead
LSE
27 June 2011
2. Objective of the Study
To clarify the case for investment in affordable housing in London
To show why government funding is core to success
3. Three Main Criteria
Housing need to achieve a decent home for every household
The wider benefits of affordable housing to health and wellbeing, the economy and the public purse
Numbers that can be provided
4. Housing Need
More households than dwellings and this balance is set to worsen
Far less space per person then in the rest of the country
40% of all overcrowded households
25% of all homeless households
75% of all households living in temporary accommodation
Rents much higher but incomes at lower end of the scale similar to the rest of the country
5. Wider Benefits 1: Costs of Poor Housing
Strong relationship between poor housing and
Health costs
Education costs
Reduced employability/productivity
Crime and anti-social behaviour
The lack of affordable housing a major concern to the business community and therefore economic activity
Costs of poor housing concentrated in London because of numbers – especially in temporary accommodation - and unit costs of alleviation
6. Wider Benefits 2: Use of Resources
Land used more intensively and infrastructure usually already in place
Homes used more intensively – only 10% of new homes allocated above minimum occupancy standard as compared to 40% elsewhere
Affordable housing mix includes a higher proportion of intermediate (shallow subsidy) homes
Affordable housing in London levers in more private housing especially since the financial crisis
Construction multiplier benefits the whole country
7. Numbers (1)
To maximise numbers from a given quantity of grants would mean building tiny flats in low demand areas
London is the opposite – high demand and high cost and needs larger units
But the case for subsidy should be based on value for money and on capacity to deliver and to lever in additional housing - not simply on subsidy per unit
This is especially true as the alternative cost of income related subsidy in the private rented sector is much higher in London than elsewhere
8. Numbers (2)
London is currently providing 30% of new social housing across the country
Although rents can be raised to provide greater borrowing power there are major limits
The existing pipeline and slow turnover
Low wages
The effect on the benefits bill
The negative impact on work incentives
The increased risks of borrowing
The impact of the welfare cap especially on larger households
Makes sense to concentrate subsidy where added value is highest not where rents already close to market
9. Conclusions
Without London’s contribution the national pledge of 150,000 affordable homes in this Parliament cannot be met
The case for investment based on housing need is overwhelming
Affordable housing investment is used more intensively and has the greatest effect on alleviating the social costs of poor housing
Affordable housing in London supports the growth agenda, provides more employment and helps the labour market
Subsidy is a necessary part of delivering affordable housing and London has the greatest need for that housing