Forum Topic

Affordable to whom?

Fascinated by the articles on new housing being built featured in this issue of Hounslow Matters. Apparently at the 'High St. Quarter' 41% is going to be 'affordable', at the Lampton site 50% 'affordable', and at School Rd. the split is also 50%- 50%. By virtue of that description this means that in turn 59%, 50% and another 50% over these three sites will be un-affordable. Of social housing there is not a mention. 'Affordable' is reckoned at 80% of market rents, where I live an ordinary house, nothing special, has just been put up To Let for £1700 a month! Seems Hounslow's Labour councillors are following in the footsteps of their comrades in Southwark - pricing out ordinary working families.

Vanessa Smith ● 2788d24 Comments

But you are playing politics John, and you're well aware of the measures introduced by 'your' government which I cited - measures which you may well not agree with (as reflected by how several Tory-led Councils tried to prevent the prior approval provisions being forced on their areas).Not that I'm defending LBH, but I did note whilst reviewing a Runnymede Council (Tory led) document some months back that over a period of several years that authority had implemented 3 (yes, 3) affordable homes !.My point (made as a local resident who happens to be involved in the planning business) is that political point scoring attempts are unhelpful and counter-productive, and I don't like how it reduces serious issues to little better than school playground tit-for-tat taunting.My professional 'vision' (if indeed I even have one !) is that all I ever expect Councillors to do is to make planning decisions based on the legislative constraints they are under - generally speaking I think many politicians, before taking any position of direct power/influence, have laudable ambitions about improving the planning system and tightening it up, but then they take up that position and realise that the legislative constraints of the system prevent those ambitions from being delivered...the Mayor being a good example.A cynic would say they're fully aware of that from the outset but they do what they have to do to secure votes, no different to some of the planning committees I frequent where Councillors 'play to the public gallery' and refuse applications without any justification, resulting in a subsequent appeals process where appeals are not only allowed but costs awarded against the Council for refusing the application in the first place.Like many I don't think, on either a professional or personal basis, that the current planning system is great, but at the same time some of the recent 'improvements', like the prior approval procedures, have actually only made the situation worse in many respects.

Adam Beamish ● 2774d

Dear AdamI wasn't endeavouring to bait you or anyone else. Perhaps though your vision is tinted a tad  thru your professional status rather than a plod Cllr like me. I just extract dataVanessa makes an original point about social housing needs. LBH has built only 400 council houses yet has currently £30m in right to buy receipts that are or were left dormant.It's playing being a developer thru it's Lampton venture but to date not one property built or even a brick laid. This romantic dabble in development ties up millions, has a languishing £30 million loan facility yet the leader bleeds about needing a greater loan facility to build.Guy and mates ignore procurement testing and we  cop a £22 m plus bill for a new waste depot. Not required if we renewed our contract with commercial waste/ recycling contractors I feel baited though when I see Cllr Curran congratulating his colleagues in council for outstanding  financial  (In) competence.Stockholm syndrome in action I'm advisedJohn

John Todd ● 2774d

It's a real shame and disappointment.During the Mayor's pre-selection campaign, he was the first prominent politician to highlight the abundance of luxury homes being built in London and the complete lack of affordability.His proposals to ban overseas tax avoiding sales, reign in developers desires and apply pressure on land hogging were all sound and positive.He has dropped the lot and as with several other issues has become a typical slippery lawyer type politician who never quite fully or succinctly answers the questions.  His appointees a all pretty much dismal and he is not cracking the whip.So now we are down to desperate measures of overdensification and clutching at straw type solutions.None of which will do anything for quality of life and none of which factor in proper infrastructure for a lasting cohesive stable society.His handling of TfL has led to early retirements and resignations of some of the most capable people, nearly all of whom had high hopes for him.I feel that he has been undermined by his own appointees and is now bound by them.Where else have we seen that happen I wonder?

Raymond Havelock ● 2775d

The eyes of the world!

Philippa Bond ● 2775d

Unfortunately you are 100% spot on.

Nicholas Beard ● 2775d

Politicians can hide behind all the statistics they like but there is no stronger evidence than the evidence of one's own eyes, and it is starkly obvious to anybody with eyes to see that the number of homeless people living in shop doorways has risen exponentially in recent years, inside and outside of London.Maybe if Sadiq Khan spent more time addressing the issue at the pointed end and less undermining his own leader he could do something to reverse the decline in London, but he obviously bears no responsibility for the crisis that exists outside the capital.  Closing one's eyes and chanting statistics is, I would suggest, the moral equivalent of the proposal by the local authority in Windsor to address their own homelessness problem by removing the victims from the street to an unknown location so that the eyes of the royal couple are not offended during their impeding celebrations.

Phil Andrews ● 2775d

I'll take the bait John - although not for any political points scoring.Might it be that the recent reduction in the number of new units built across London is partly down to very high levels of new housing units created from 2013 to 2016 under the prior approval permitted development rights, which enabled office floorspace to be converted into residential units without having to go through the rigours of a full planning application, including any need to provide affordable housing or indeed housing that  complies with relevant local, regional or national space or amenity standards ?.Given when first introduced in 2013 this right was only temporary until 2016 (although is now permanent) there's no doubt (and if needs be I'll get out the stats) that many of the 'new homes' created between 2013 to 2016 resulted from that initiative, an initiative introduced by the Tories which effectively created a two-tier system of development control - one where greedy developers could provide substandard (in terms of failure to comply with any space/amenity standards) housing and without any affordable housing provided regardless of the number of units created (again flying in the face of both local, regional and national planning polices and associated guidance), and often without developers needing to pay any CIL because the converted floorspace had been in recent lawful use as offices.The intentions behind the introduction of the prior approval process may have been well-intended, i.e. to utilise vacant/redundant office floorspace for residential purposes, but the practical application of it  was completely misguided and has opened the door (or perhaps more accurately built a fast flowing motorway) for greedy developers to provide substandard housing without any affordable provision or infrastructure.And yes I've acted on behalf of clients utilising the prior approval process, many of whom were is disbelief when the process was first introduced at how easy it made things for them.So on housing provision and affordable housing in particular I really don't think the Tories are in any position to try to score political points I'm afraid.

Adam Beamish ● 2775d

Mayor's actions fail to match his words on Housing Before his election, Sadiq Khan made bold pledges on housing in London. This included promises to build 80,000 new homes a year and for 50% of new homes to be ‘genuinely affordable’. However, not only has he failed to live up to these promises, his delivery has been woefully inadequate. In Khan’s first year in office, just 17,130 new homes were started across London, a 20% reduction from the previous year under Boris. This included 1,000 fewer affordable homes. Just 9,690 new GLA-funded homes were started, a fall in 25% reduction from the previous year. The Mayor talks a good game on housing, continually asking the government for more money. Yet so far he has failed to spend the generous government funding he has already received. In 2016 the GLA was given £3.15 billion by the government to provide 90,000 affordable homes. Yet in the first eight months of this financial year, just 723 new affordable homes have been started with this money. And since his election in May 2016, Khan has failed to build a single home for social rent. This compares very badly with the 100,000 affordable homes built by Boris, between 2008 and 2016. Londoners urgently need to see a lot less talk from the Mayor and a lot more action.

John Todd ● 2775d

This was raised again and again over the Morrisons Development by Essential Living.It is not affordable in real terms.They see residents of their development staying not more than 3 to 7 years.They would not answer how much they would pay in service charges and deftly avoided the very few pertinent questions asked of them by the Planning committee.In fact it seemed most of the pitch was made by the planning officer who did a better job than the developers representative.But again the worst bit was not one question asked by West End of the Borough councillors who one would think, given the housing crisis. Choosing to sit in silence and then vote for another below par and inadequate development that does nothing for a stable cohesive community at any demographic level of affordability.

Raymond Havelock ● 2783d

That's what you get when you wont to buy an apartment on the  LBOH affordable home scheme in Chiswick Gate, by Hogarth Roundabout.Were the Apartments you found new build? and you could bye them trough the Local Authority affordable home scheme?The developer at Chiswick Gate did drop the council scheme or the council withdrew from it, now they are running there own.If you find a new build near to you and running the Local Authority scheme, have a go and go through the assessment process and see if you can by it based on what a 25 year earning between £17500 to £19000 a year

Bernard Allen ● 2784d

"One bedroom apartment available from £132,500 for a 25% share based on the full value of £530,000 "£530,000 seems like a lot for a one bed apartment. Surely there must be something cheaper available. Rightmove shows one in Chiswick High Road for £475,000. £270,000 in GWQ. From £330,000 in TW7...

Alex Shpinkov ● 2784d

Of course none of this factors in council tax, utility bills, food, travel, and so on. Why are Labour councils complicit in this? Instead of taking every opportunity to highlight the appalling toll on working families and people just starting out, there are enough of them to speak out against the government's lack of initiative.

Vanessa Smith ● 2785d

Peter I am talking about affordable homes, for someone like a single nurse, fireman or policeman, as a lot cannot live in London because of the high cost of renting and buying a property.This is a new flat on right move today using the share purchased schemeOne bedroom apartment available from £132,500 for a 25% share based on the full value of £530,000 You take out a mortgage on the 25% share of £132,500.00 = a monthly paymentMonthly Payment of £728.75 is the rent for the Freeholders 75% share of the property added on to you mortgage department Service charge - £247.99 is a monthly service charge Approximate figures - full price list available from out sales consultants. I applied for a similar property a year ago and was turned down because my yearly earnings had to be between £45,000 and £47,000 a year  So if these properties are being built as affordable, who can afford them, I cant, neither can any member of my household, or our friends.Going by the news over the last couple of days, there is going to be another year of no pay rises. So wages going down and property going up.When or at what age our Parents purchased a property doesn't really equate to the years of low wages and rising property prices of today. If I remember rightly my father was made to jump through hoops to get a mortgage on a near enough commended property, then spent the next fifteen years on his own working on it until it was up to scratch. There was no way he could afford to hire anyone to do the work for him.   

Bernard Allen ● 2786d

What chance did a single person around 25 to 30 EVER have of buying their own home? My parents didn't buy their own home until they were well into their 40s.

Peter Evans ● 2787d

After going through the affordability assessment with the Local Council and Government schemes for a affordable studio flat. The developers replied back that we were not earning enough to pay off the mortgage on our share of the property and pay the rent for the remaining freeholders share plus the maintenance charge. The minimum wage we would have to earn was worked out at  Between 45K and 47K per year. This is for paying off your own mortgage on this amount of £159000.00 (your one Share of the property) and paying the rent and maintenance costs of the Company's share. Which was between £600 to £850 monthly depending on the size of the property.OK so there may be cheaper schemes out there but I cannot quote on them as I didn't applySo what chance does a single person around 25 to 30 earning 18 to 20k a year  get on the property ladder? Even if there are two of them they still don't meet the minimum requirement

Bernard Allen ● 2787d

Much easier, and safer, to score political points by opposing government policy than to construct a radical programme for change.  Then with a bit of luck people will vote for you on the back of what you oppose, rather than what you propose.  It's the political equivalent of what a football manager might call "parking the bus".

Phil Andrews ● 2787d

"Nobody I know in the Labour party is that enthusiastic about affordable housing under the government's definition,"A suggestion - then bloody well stop using the 'government's definition', why aren't Labour authorities working together to get the change desperately needed, there's enough of them to have some clout surely. Especially when the government keep saying that we have a housing crisis, the impression is, that rather than kick-up a stink, Labour authorities are content to roll over again and again. So many are also going down the road of exacerbating the situation by their 'social cleansing' antics of decanting social housing tenants in favour of re-building their estates into gentrified housing. Southwark being the latest and most prominent offender, if Labour can't, won't, isn't interested in standing up for people from ordinary working backgrounds who need homes then who is going to? What happened to fighting for your principles? I thought that was why people went into politics, not to ponce around playing the big I am.

Vanessa Smith ● 2787d

You are spot on. Affordable implies there is a number of UN AFFORDABLE. Well post Brexit things will get worse with less regulation. People will be able to do a 60 hour week but the housing will still be un afffordable. Robots will be taking a large number of jobs away and our goverment have not proposed a wage for displced people as Sweden has done. So the definition of affordable needs to change but clearly will not.

Nicholas Beard ● 2787d

The whole system is screwed up, has been for far too long and too many have fingers in the pies and are doing very nicely out of it.  Mainly consultants and legal types.The biggest problem is the wrong kind of housing. The current profit driven mode is created by overpricing and forcing people into Hong Kong like flats. One only has to take a look at all this balconies stuffed with kids outdoor toys to see what kind of social disaster is simmering for the future.The real radical way is to stop this mad insane idea of the Mayors advisors to densify the whole of Greater London. Stuff the place silly with humans.I'll guarantee not one of these advisors and experts will be seen living like that.More like a nice 5 bed semi with a 200 ft garden and a basement conversion and a little pied de terre in town for credibility.The sane radical way is the bite the bullet and build new towns with proper and affordable transport connections and build places that people will really want to live in.It's not as though it's not been done before. Metro-Land was exactly that. A range of affordable Housing. But affordable at different levels. And many were rentable for those who could not afford that.Given that many were Railway staff, teachers and ordinary occupations, and often on just one income. This was affordable.Metroland was intended to run all the way out towards Aylesbury and to Elstree.Much of it never happened as the war put the skids on that and London concentrated on rebuilding and rehousing as it's population dipped post war.It is more than apparent that it is becoming way too crowded all over Greater and outer London. This drives down the ability to earn whilst supply and demand push costs too high. Sooner or later the evils of overdensification from health to social misdemeanour will erupt.No doubt these expert advisors will be living in the Cotswolds on their hefty fees by then.

Raymond Havelock ● 2788d

Many new builds are first advertised abroad, Hong Kong, Dubai, China etc. so that conglomerates etc. can buy up swathes of property in London as an investment. They are kept empty in many cases as the new landlords can't be bothered with pesky tenants and they accept council tax as a necessary evil that is set against future profit. So much for local housing for local people.

Keith Iddon ● 2788d

"there is little prospect of councils being able to provide much social housing without a major change of policy by DCLG or (better) a change of government."Quite so.  But when one looks at the track record of the Blair/Brown governments, which in thirteen years of office did not even manage to free up all the RTB receipts which were required to be retained by councils, far less to embark upon any significant programme of social house building, clearly not any change would do.The current Labour leadership, quite rightly in my view, has pledged to take a different and more radical approach.  Which is why, given your comments, some might be surprised to learn of your vociferous support for Owen Smith's leadership challenge back in 2016.  Have you had a change of heart?http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/the-500-labour-councillors-who-are-backing-owen-smith-over-jeremy-corbyn-for-labour-leader_uk_57972269e4b06d7c426d7977

Phil Andrews ● 2788d

"To make any inroads into the problem of the homeless, for whom any property in the present market is unaffordable, there's no substitute for proper social housing provided by the state."I agree. But there is little prospect of councils being able to provide much social housing without a major change of policy by DCLG or (better) a change of government. Hounslow committed to a modest 400 new social homes in the current manifesto and will deliver slightly more despite cunning new rules introduced by the government to make provision of social housing even more difficult for councils. This, of course, is far from enough.Nobody I know in the Labour party is that enthusiastic about affordable housing under the government's definition, nor about the viability assessments which frequently restrict even that provision and seem to most of us to be slanted towards developers.But if we reject applications they often get overturned on appeal (see Wheatstone House at Chiswick roundabout, and pray that Chiswick Curve, currently under appeal, doesn't go the same way) leaving the council with little or no say in what gets built and a hefty legal bill.The subsidies provided for 'affordable' housing don't make it affordable for everybody, but it is nevertheless reduced cost from commercial rentals and helps some people make ends meet.

Guy Lambert ● 2788d

It's disappointing that Labour councils are still doing these deals with developers, which are at odds with national Labour Party policy and decisions made at the recent Party Conference. And we all know that the developers will often plead poverty and renege on even the 50% 'affordable' quota once the project gets going, despite the extra profits they're making from the Tory government's various 'Help to Buy' schemes. To make any inroads into the problem of the homeless, for whom any property in the present market is unaffordable, there's no substitute for proper social housing provided by the state.

Peter Evans ● 2788d

It is appalling that a "Labour" council can collaborate in the deception that properties available at 80% of the market value are "affordable" when it knows full well they are no such thing.All this does is provide some scant mitigation for Hounslow's shameful obsession with keeping private property developers happy.

Phil Andrews ● 2788d