Social housing supply

The Welsh Parliament’s Local Government and Housing Committee have issued their long-awaited report on Social Housing Supply.  The WG have committed to delivering 20,000 low carbon social homes from 2021-26 and wiser people than me have suggested that is an ambitious target which fails to meet the need for social housing in any event.  The context for all this is what is generally regarded as a “housing crisis” in Wales.  I am particularly interested in the idea of a housing “crisis”, and the work that claim does.  There is a variety of academic work being published in this field – most recently, my old mucker has sent me a paper by Steve Iafrati at Nottingham, who argues for “varied crises and experiences within housing rather than a single crisis”, and focuses on housing precarity.  Others have argued that the idea of a housing “crisis” is particularly of value to those free marketeers in the private construction field as it contributes to their campaign against planning controls/regulation (see also here and here).

These are also themes in this report as the Committee tease over the really difficult questions of housing supply in the absence of proper (or, perhaps better, convincing) data about housing needs, the temporality in its assessment (the 20k target is based on a 2019 assessment that may not have dated well), but understanding that 15,539 households were assessed as homeless in 2023-24 and 11,384 people were in TA in July 2024.  We simply don’t know how many households are sofa surfing or living in inappropriate accommodation.  The Committee was also made aware of particular needs for one bedroom accommodation (something which has come up again and again in my research in Wales) but the paucity of available data about housing need is a problem.  They note, for example, that “There is currently no public information about the progress or content of local authority [social housing] prospectuses across Wales” ([29]), and the process of local housing market assessments is, well, in process (as the Cabinet Secretary recognised, “there’s still a long way to go” ([40]).  Even of the 5,775 homes reported to have been delivered by the WG in the first two years, data is only available for the second year.  And, the target includes “homes for social rent, intermediate rent, shared ownership and housing units leased to provide accommodation for homeless families where the lease is for more than a year” ([43] – don’t get me started on shared ownership; see also the Westminster Parliament’s housing committee report on shared ownership and my co-author, Alison Wallace’s evidence.  In summary, I’m not a fan).

But also, broadly, most people seem to accept that, despite the ambition of the 20k target, it probably needs to deliver more homes and, even with the 20k target, it will need to spend significantly more to achieve that target – see the Audit Wales report which the WG have accepted – particularly given the increased costs and skills deficit in the context of the Welsh Housing Quality Standard (WHQS23).  What is particularly helpful in the Committee’s report is their tracing of the history of the development corporation in Wales and the drift of tis functions.  The recommendation (which has taken up most column inches) to re-create a national development corporation and the Development Bank of Wales given a role as a direct funder of social housing developments.

The other recommendation, which is perhaps less sexy than money, is a commitment to long-term planning and recommendations to think beyond Senedd cycles.  We know that we are stuck with mixed funding and private finance plays a significant role in social housing development.  We also know that long-term sustainability of social housing is best guaranteed and the best rates available when we think long term – recommendations, for example, to plan social housing supply beyond Senedd terms (in the context of a desire to push social housing up to 20% of supply, meaning a requirement for 60k, not 20k, social homes) and to give long term certainty on social rents will encourage investment.  We also know that the need for TA in Wales is growing and the Committee’s recognition that there needs to be flexibility, or a degree of pragmatism, in meeting the WHQS  is welcome ([124]).

Planning obviously gets a significant discussion as does land value capture.  The usual discussions about planning reform are nuanced by a recognition of the effects of local government cuts on planning departments, which now need greater resources to meet the targets set.  On land value capture, it’s great to see the Committee taking advantage of research being done at Cardiff Uni by Edward Shepherd.  It is also good to read that the WG is still keen on making progress towards agreeing with Westminster for a vacant land tax ([175]).  However, my sense is that much is being slowed down here by the WG’s commitment to develop a long term land strategy.  Yes, we need one, but so much can be done in the interim.

My next posts will be catching up on stuff that happened before this blog started – the Legislative Consent Memorandum on Renters Rights Bill and possibly the Committee’s report on private renting (from 10th October, but still interesting).

A reminder to let me know if there is anything going on that is worthy of a blog post.