Policy Review on Affordable Housing in London - Essay Example

Policy review on Affordable Housing in London The national planning policy found in planning policy ment (PPS) obligates relevant bodies to promote affordable housing policies cognizant of economic development. Nonetheless, London has been in the historical timeline for lagging behind in housing policy projections. Based on the official projections, household numbers will grow at an average of 36,000 per year to 2033 (Lund, 2011, pp. 57). However, new supply in London summed up to 24,870 homes in 2011 and 2012 averaging at 24, 582 for the past five years. In the 2011/12 period 4,372 new affordable housing came into light with more questions raised on the ability of the government policies to provide affordable housing (Imrie & Lees, 2014, pp. 214). Statistically, London house prices stand at 57% a figure higher than England as a whole. Despite experiencing a decline in values in the 2007/8 market crash, London has continued to manifest rising house prices in the past 17 years. Evidently, these issues raise many questions whether the government is not doing enough with regards to policy response or formulations. It in this regards that the paper conducts a policy review on affordable housing in London. Affordable housing policy London as an entity continues to register a higher growth rate without commensurate housing responses. In addition, many people fall within the lower class in middle-income bracket leaving them with no ability to afford better housing conditions (Imrie & Lees, 2014, pp. 160). Many housing policies designed in the early 20th century focused on high class housing systems leaving others with limited options. Arguably, the change in heart has left many in rentals or unsuitable housing standards prompting many questions. These pending questions triggers response not only from researchers but also different stakeholders. A review of affordable housing policies, therefore, is not only a step towards bridging the gap in housing but also a clear strategy of providing housing solutions (Office for National Statistics, 2012, pp. 11). Apparently, the National Affordable Housing Program remains the largest housing delivery program in London. It is responsible for initiating reduction in prices while also coordinating succinct planning. Notably, it provides funding allocations to housing development partners; facilitate availability or materials while also ensuring that homeownership as well a rent fall within fair limits. Nonetheless, a review on the current housing policies pokes holes into the important policy domain raising important questions while at the time suggesting probable answers. Key policy debates in affordable housing Among the many challenges in London, housing tops the list. Arguably, London has had a long period of unbroken economic growth with a record public investment as compared to other regions in the continent. Despite the smooth ride, it does has done little to revamp its housing sector with adequate and affordable houses. Certainly, this has left many people in the waiting list while others are unable to buy. On the other hand, the aftermath of economic recession and financial crisis in 2009 had a significant effect on private investors (Lund, 2011, pp. 57). As a matter of fact, many have had a change f attitude towards the housing sector. For example, mortgage availability edged down, social rent changed affecting tenure security as well as housing benefits. In response, the 2012 budget outlines a series of strategies aimed at controlling the soaring housing environment. The first buy scheme, for instance, aimed at providing 250 million euros for the first 10,000 house buyers through a shared equity system (Imrie & Lees, 2014, pp. 204). Furthermore, the program forestalled a cut in stamp duty on land tax to attract institutional investors. Additionally, further consultation led to the removal of barriers to Real Estate Investment Trust. The new homes bonus policy introduced in the same year although served a role on attracting attention; it did little towards initiating recovery. For example, because of the bonus, many people showed interest in developing houses; however, they did not concentrate on affordable housing rather high class residential. Indeed, this further worsens the situation of housing in London as many people remained without houses despite the government intervention towards revamping affordable housing. From this perspective, affordable housing policies have prevailed from time to time; however, few fail to answer the real questions. Many efforts constituted to eliminate housing problems do not focus on affordability. Interestingly, many investors take advantage of waivers to generate high cost houses contrary to affordable housing policy expectations. The localism Act 2011, list housing investment responsibilities for homes and communities Agency (HCA). The legislative framework forms part of amendments into the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, which establishes the powers and objectives of the housing regulator (Office for National Statistics, 2011, pp. 26). Evidently, before 2012, the tenant service authority was responsible for social housing constituting affordable rent properties, legacy stock and low cost home ownership. Changing policy interventions and current trends Good housing policies trail blaze the entire affordability status. Short-run supply of affordable houses has a fixed course; nonetheless, responsiveness in the longer period depends on the supply of land, planning system, incentives, capacity, and most importantly competitiveness. Affordable housing policies are affected by a series of factors including the spatial allocation of population as well as its structure and size (Gleeson, 2011, pp. 65). It is also a matter of real income, price of houses in related to other goods, mortgage, services and credit. Additionally, future expectation of changes in prices can also induce or arouse potential buyers into buying a house. In normal occasions, asset values ought to increase guaranteeing the expected benefits into affordable housing; however, is the cost of delaying rises. As compared to UK and Great Britain, London has had a remarkable improvement in housing affordability. According to the 2013 land registry assessment, London had a 11% increase in the number of affordable housing. On the other hand, Halifax estimates that an 8% drop below the peak. The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) notes that housing policies within London have not had a steady growth (Monk & Whitehead, 2010, pp. 28). Instead, significant changes have been made in an attempt to valuable changes. On the other hand, the need for affordable housing is stronger in London than any other area. Notably, 40% of Londoners share the overcrowded space with houses being expensive than any other region. Worse of all, over 55,000 children have temporary accommodation, a factor raising more questions on the rates of return and value for money. Evidently, the cost of providing affordable housing in London is greater as compared to other parts of the world. On average, London currently provides 30% of the social housing completions (Audit Commission, 2011, pp. 112). Based on existing polices, London has a high borrowing power to cushion any effects of affordable housing. However, the housing policies have failed to manifest this capacity. Instead, the greater opportunity to collect taxes superseded the ability to implement various policies while encouraging unreasonable increases. For instance, the slow turn turnover has motivated few relets (Communities and Local Government, 2010, pp. 51). In turn the impact on welfare cap has been great hence affecting the ability of affordable housing policies to effectively form part of the development process. Contrary to other regions, it is only in London, where the private sector’s ability to provide affordable housing is questionable. It is not clear whether it is a matter of will or fir government procedures; however, the situation leaves a lot for appreciation. Affordable housing policies should include both private and public sector. Policies that do not offer this threshold clearly fail in London’s objectives. In essence, affordable housing policies in London need not be overwhelming, but it is clear that more capital grant towards policy development is inevitable. Competing theoretical ideas about appropriate policy intervention Theoretically, the housing sector should provide affordable houses to everyone, but needs should have priority in any situation. London remains the most expensive place for life considering its position as a leading international business hub and business centre. The Unitary Development plan of 2002 recognises the fact that affordable housing remains a solution towards housing problems. Nonetheless, it appreciates that it does not allocate free land for development. Arguably, this is the worst theory that has significantly affected the ability of the government to alleviate the problem of housing (Gleeson, 2011, pp. 67). Many housing proposals have come into light as a strategy towards providing affordable housing. Indeed, the proposals present clear way out of the affordable housing problems. Nevertheless, the plans have done little towards facilitating planning agreements. According to the supplementary planning guidance, developers have different rights in affordable housing schemes. These rights encourage development conscious methods that do recognise the ability of the entire city to transfer and build affordable housing. In respect to their rights, developers ought to provide a good housing stock with the ability to meet all needs. Prevailing viability in any affordable housing scheme should have relevant evidence. Evidently, this is supposed to help alleviate the problem with great authority focusing on systematic relevance. In the same note outcomes are important in any housing development scheme; however, they do not serve any role in the event that the objectives fail to reach light. Section 106 BA of the local planning authority makes it easy to revise affordable housing policies in London (Monk & Whitehead, 2010, pp. 19). Nevertheless, proof of such plans has generally failed to prove otherwise hence raising more questions in the housing stalemate in London. Above all, different stakeholders are required for a successful housing scheme (Travers, Tunstall and Whitehead, Pruvot, 2007, pp. 43). Conceivably, London has had a consistent chain of promises for better and affordable housing. The real question; however, is whether they are empty promises or poor policies that contribute to failure. Apparently, the government promised over 150,000 affordable housing units but limited results are present to prove the good will. Certainly, this doe not only put the government role to deliver its promises into question, but also policy makers. A good growth agenda should be supported by adequate policies. However, as manifested the London’s housing policies, the government is trying its role but using wrong strategies to implement the right policies (Audit Commission, 2011, pp. 112). As a result, many end up favouring wrong people with different interests for the country. In essence, affordable housing policies in London hold a lot of promises, but stakeholders will and involvement have delayed if not failed the entire process. In conclusion, the process of allocating housing development incentives is inherently competitive in London. On the other hand, official projections have proved it important to have more affordable houses. Historically, London has experienced a staggering housing trend that has made it impossible to initiate good policies. Nonetheless, this does not excuse its ability to revise the policies in line with changing needs and world markets. Its position and financial viability makes it a force in the world make but it does not reflect the same to the citizens. As a result, programs like the first to buy scheme and reduction in taxes should be replaced by techniques that are more viable with the ability to control housing prices, materials and most significantly deliver. References Audit Commission 2011, Tough Times: councils’ responses to a challenging financial climate. London: Audit Commission. Communities and Local Government, 2010, “Household projections (2008 to 2033) in England.” Available at: http://bit.ly/VkymJd, 5th Dec. 2014. Gleeson, J. 2011, Housing: A Growing City, London: Greater London Authority. Imrie, R., & Lees, L. (2014). Sustainable London?: the future of a global city. Bristol, Policy Press. Lund, B. (2011). Understanding housing policy. Bristol, UK, Policy Press. Monk, S., & Whitehead, C. M. E. (2010). Making housing more affordable the role of intermediate tenures. Chichester, West Sussex [England], Wiley-Blackwell. Office for National Statistics 2011, “Table 1, 2010-based subnational population projections by sex and five year age groups for England and the Regions.” Available at: http://bit.ly/W5AuUH, 5th Dec. 2014. Office for National Statistics 2012, “2011 Census: KS101EW Usual resident population, local authorities in England and Wales.” Available at: http://bit.ly/12LdfWH, 5th Dec. 2014. Travers, T., Tunstall, R., and Whitehead, C., with S. Pruvot 2007, Population mobility and service provision: a report for London Councils. London: LSE London. Read More