Housing in the United Kingdom

Housing in the United Kingdom ranks in in the top half of EU countries. However the increasing cost of housing, is leading many to claim there is a "housing crisis". Most though still find the UK a desirable place to live. London is resident to the highest number of ultra high net worth individuals in the world. For some this is a cause for concern as it is leading to gentrification. The average house costs £290,000 to buy (September, 2015), has 2.8 bedrooms, and is semi-detached. Housing represents the largest non-financial asset in the UK with a net value of £5.1 trillion (2014).

Demography

See also: Architecture of the United Kingdom

File:Terraced housing in Lea Road, Wolverhampton - geograph.org.uk - 1735604.jpg

Typical housing in a UK city

In early 2014 there were approximately 23 million dwellings in the England, of which 63% were owner occupied, 20% were private rented, and 17% were public housing. The overall mean number of bedrooms was 2.8 in 2013-14, 37% of households had at least two spare bedrooms. 20% of dwellings were built before 1919 and 15% were built post 1990. 29% of all dwellings are terraced, 42% are detached or semi-detached, and the remaining 29% are bungalows or flats. The mean floor area is 95 square meters. Approximately 4% of all dwellings were vacant. Approximately 385,000 households reported a fire between 2012 and 2014, the majority of which were caused by cooking. In 2014 2.6 million households moved dwelling, the majority of which (74%) were renters.

Construction History

See also: Construction industry of the United Kingdom

The history of house building in the UK shows that the prevailing consensus on the role of government is more important than the party in power in determining the number and type of new dwellings provided. Between 1945-1979 all political parties accepted the Beveridge Report's view on the role of government. There was consensus that local government should purchase new dwellings to ensure that all those in a borough who could not afford to buy a dwelling, could rent a good quality home from the council. During this period an local government purchased just under 200,000 new dwellings a year.

From 1979 to the present the Washington consensus has prevailed. During this period government purchases of new dwellings fell to an average of just over 20,000 units a year. Local Government was denied any role in purchasing new dwellings. Instead, central government gave grants to Quangos called Housing Associations who were tasked to provide accommodation for the most deprived. According to Neoliberalism, the economic theory behind the Washington Consensus, government purchasing of new dwellings would be replaced by private purchasers.This has not happened. According to the theory, if there was a shortage of housing, prices would rise, and market mechanisms would increase the supply. This too has not happened. Instead the supply of new dwellings for private buyers remained at approximately constant at an average of approximately 150,000 a year, regardless of price. There is no agreed explanation as to why the Neoliberal theory of economics does not account for the facts of the British housing market.

File:HistoryHouseBuildingGraph.png

History of purchases of new dwellings by sector

The shortfall in the construction of new dwellings is ongoing, 152,000 new dwellings were completed in the 2014-15 financial year, a value which has been decreasing since 1970. This is much less than the 250,000 new homes per year the Barker Review of Housing Supply, conducted in 2004, said is required.

Purchase price of a dwelling

Main article: Affordability of housing in the United Kingdom

File:HousePrices1952To2012.png

House Prices £(2012) 1952-2012

During the era of Beveridge consensus the purchase the prices of dwellings increased slightly faster than the RPI., so there was an increase in the real price. In 1950, in 2012 pounds, the average dwelling cost £50,000, at the end era it cost £75,000. An increase of real price of 50%, but during the same period real earning rose more than 50% so there was an increase in affordability. During the Washington consensus era real house prices have more than trebled but real earnings have not increased anywhere near this amount. Hence affordability has declined.

During the era of the Beveridge consensus governments believed that they should intervene in the market to enable greater home ownership. The mortgage rate was government controlled, as was mortgage eligibility. Mortgages where only available to owner occupiers and were not available to buy to let landlords, or for second homes.There was no competition in the mortgage market. Mortgage rates, and eligibility criteria were set nationally. A 10% deposit was required, and the maximum value to load rate was 2.5 time earnings of major earner, plus earnings of minor earner. The mortgage rate was the same for all borrowers, regardless of loan to value ratio.

In the 1980s, the UK governments, in conformity with policy recommendations of Washington Consensus deregulated the mortgage market, encouraged competition, and allowed banks to grant mortgages. The market was allowed to set rates and eligibility criteria. According to the economic theory behind the Washington consensus, competition should force down prices, leading to improving affordability. It is not understood why this has not happened.

In September 2015 the average house price was £286,000. Affordability of housing as measured by price to earnings ratio was 5.3, higher than the long term average (during the Washington Consensus era) of 4.1 and up from a minimum of 3.1 in 1996. During Beveridge Consensus, era the average price to earnings ratio was less than 2.5..

Housing affordability as measured by mortgage repaymens 1983 to 2015

The Affordability as measured by percentage of take home pay spent on mortgage payments is in 2015 is at 35% which is close to its long term average for the Washington Consensus era.

In the Beveridge Consensus era, the government decided that owner occupation was a socially desirable form of tenure. It gave owner occupiers preferable treatment in the tax/benefit system. Interest charges on a mortgage was tax deductible .In the case of loss earnings due to unemployment or sickness the welfare state would pay the interest on the mortgage. As a consequence of this, building societies did not required any income insurance policies. In the Washington consensus era, these represent a significant addition to housing costs for owner occupiers. Further income tax has to be paid on the earnings needed to pay the mortgage and all insurance costs.

Another factor which improved affordability for owner occupiers in the Beveridge Consensus era, was that it was a time of continuous inflation. This meant that the real cost of the mortgage fell during the loan period. At the start of a loan period, eligibility criteria meant that the mortgage to take home pay ratio would be no more than 33%, and at the end loan, due to inflation, it was typically less than 10%.

The London effect

One of the reason it is suggested that UK house prices are not what is predicted by the economic theory behind the Washington Consensus, is the London effect. In 2015 in London the average price for a semi-detached ex council property was around £550,000. This over fifteen times median earnings. In the era of the Beveridge Consensus, the market for London property was mainly owner occupiers, but now it is investors, often foreign, seeking buy to let, and buy to speculate investments.

There is concern that councils in central London are aggravating the housing crises by pursuing policies of gentrification. A particular notable case is that of Cressingham Gardens. Here, Lambeth Council are proposing to demolish an historic, probably the original, council garden estate. The terraced houses would be demolished, their gardens leveled, the trees felled, the mutually supportive community on the estate dispersed, and the residents moved to inferior accommodation. On the cleared site would be build a gated development with a tower block of apartments for buy to speculate investors. The high price of apartments on prime sites, mean the council and its private sector partner can expect to make a profit of over £60 million from the redevelopment.

18-19 Kensington palace Gardens. Purchased in 2004 for £67 million by Lakshmi Mittal.

London is ranked as the top city in the world in terms of the number of ultra high net worth individuals who are resident in a city. The consequence of this is seen in the high price for top end dwellings. The most expensive home ever sold in the UK was 2 to 8a Rutland Gate, Hyde Park which sold for £280 million in 2015. The most expensive street in the UK is Kensington Palace Gardens, London, where the average price of a home is approximately £42 million.

Research by Islington Council revealed that nearly a third of new dwellings built where unoccupied after six years, and this does not include the under occupied second and third homes. In a speculative bubble it is a good investment strategy to keep an apartment vacant. An investor who bought a £1 million pound apartment in Kensington and Chelsea, in December 2014 would have made a speculative gain £140,000 by December 2015. This far exceeds any income from rent, which is comparatively insignificant. It should be noted however, that there is nothing illegal or wrong in property speculation. It is sensible strategy for an investor to forgo rental income and keep part of his property portfolio vacant, to improve liquidity of his assets. In doing so, he plays a socially useful role, in ensuring the liquidity of the property market.

Desirability of rising house prices

Dwellings now represent the largest non-financial asset in the UK balance sheet, with a net worth of £5.1 trillion (2014). In the national statistics rising house prices are regarded, as adding to GDP and thus a cause of economic growth.

Historically, the assumption in the media and elsewhere was that rising house prices was a good thing. There is now evidence that the public no longer share this view.

Rent for a dwelling

See also: Public housing in the United Kingdom

Nearly two out of five households rent their home. During the era of the Beveridge consensus nearly all rented dwellings were provided by local government. This changed during the era of Washington consensus. In 2014 most rented dwellings where provided by private landlords. The proportion of dwellings rented form of the private rented sector is increasing, whilst the public sector is declining. In the financial year 2014, the private rented sector increased by 123,000 dwellings, and the public sector declined by 9,000 dwellings.

The majority of new households formed in the UK can now expect to rent from a private landlord for life. This phenomenon has been called generation rent and there is much debate about the social consequence of this change.

Since 1979, UK governments have implemented the recommendations of the Washington consensus for the private rental market. There are no rent controls, and security of tenure. unlike in most other European countries. Rents, especial in London are far higher than in other European cities.

During the era of the Beveridge Consensus, for most tenants, local government was their landlord. Democratic forces ensured that elected local politicians did not raise rents faster than the RPI. In the private rental sector, local government rent officers enforced the Fair Rent Acts and rents increased at less than the RPI.

During the era of the Washington Consensus market forces determine rents. Rents have increased faster than earnings. In London, high rents are driving gentrification, Londoners on median earnings find they can no longer afford to rent an apartment in central London.

Homelessness

Main article: Homelessness in the United Kingdom

In June 2015 there were approximately 67,000 households in England in temporary accommodation. In Autumn of 2014 there were around 2,400 rough sleepers in England, 27% of which were in London.

Overcrowding

The consequences of the housing shortage and high rents manifests itself in overcrowding rather than In homelessness, The problem of over crowding is especially acute in London. In 2011 it was estimated that there were 391,000 children in London living in overcrowded conditions.

Between 1995-1996 ro 2013-2014 over crowding, as measured by the bedroom standard increased from 63,000 households to 218,000 households. The bedroom standard understates overcrowding. It does not include potential household units forced to live in the same dwelling. For example, divorced couples living in the same dwelling, adult children being unable to form own household but having to live with their parents. It has not proved possible to find statistics on the true extent of overcrowding.

The public health consequences of overcrowding have long be recognized. In the overcrowded slums of pre-welfare state UK, tuberculosis was endemic, and it known that this was consequence of overcrowding.

A report issued by the Deputy Prime Minister's Office reviewed the evidence that overcrowding, in addition to the known impacts on physical health, adversely effects mental health, and child development.

Housing Quality

It is useful to consider housing quality under two sub headings physical and social. In the era of Bevaridge Consensus there where large scale slum clearance projects. Council environmental health officers inspected dwellings in a borough and those which failed to meet standards, where compulsory purchased for a nominal sum, and demolished. New dwellings where built to rehouse the slum dwellers. Slum clearance significantly improved the physical quality of the UK housing stock. But in a seminal study Family and Kinship in East London it was found that although the physical quality of the housing had improved, its social quality had deteriorated. The residents of apartments in tower blocks appreciated their clean, warm, bright new apartments, but missed the supportive community networks of the slums.

Physical Quality

The physical quality of the dwellings in the UK is largely determined by the regulations, which applied at at the time the dwelling unit was built. The current building regulations for new houses enforce a high quality. Rooms must be adequately sized, stairs must be safe, there has to be good thermal installation, and sound installation, toilets must provide for disabled access, and there must be good lighting and ventilation. But building regulations are not retrospective, and as only 150,000 new dwellings are built in a year, it will next the century before the current building regulations produce to high quality housing in the UK.

Council dwellings for rent in the early 1950s had small rooms, but they were always been built to a higher health and safety standards than dwellings in the private rented sector .After 1965, the Parker Morris standards let to council houses which were no longer cramped.

File:AccomodationForMigrantsInLoftConversion.png

Example of how a loft conversion can be used.

A major cause of the poor housing stock in the UK are the inadequate regulations for sub division of houses into multiple smaller dwellings. There are no minimum room size requirements resulting in dwellings which provide very cramped cramp living conditions. There are no sound installation standards resulting in dwellings which provide no privacy; no thermal installation standards resulting in dwellings which lead tenants into fuel poverty; no standards for heating systems resulting in dwellings with inadequate heating system in which it is impossible to keep warm keep well; no regulations for stairs, resulting in dwellings in which serious falls are inevitable.

In the private rented sector, there are, In practice, no effective controls on the use of conversions. This has led living conditions for some tenants to be bad as in days before the welfare state, with the dwelling unit being just a loft or basement. In the era of the Beveridge consensus, a tenant ininadequate accommodation could ask that the council inspect the property. And if the dwelling was deemed potentially public health risk the council would rehouse the tenant. This gave tenants and incentive to report poor housing conditions. In the era of the Washington consensus,most those living in extremely overcrowd conditions are migrants. Undocumented migrants, as they fear being deported, are easily exploited, and do not report housing conditions which constitute a public health risk. This means that the extent of the problem is not known.

The most serious problem in the housing stock is damp. UK Building regulation did not require cavity walls until after 1945. There are 2,131,000 privately rented dwellings which were built before 1945. Mostly these do not have cavity walls.

Given the UK climate it is problematic preventing damp, in a crowded dwelling which does not have cavity walls. Minor damp is just an aesthetic problem, but damp can become a cause of illness.Although overall the quality of English housing stock has improved over the last thirty years( a generation), the quality of housing for new households formed from those at or below the median income has declined. Thirty years ago a new household in this group could rent a council house built to Parker Morris standard. In 2016, a new household from this group, has to rent from a private landlord a dwelling, which will have less space than the Parker Morris standard dwelling, and likely to be damp, and they pay in real terms, at least three time the rent of their parent's generation.

Demolition of sub standard housing

In the era of the Beveridge consensus dwellings which might cause illness or injury would classified as unfit for human habitation, and could be purchased by local government for nominal sum and demolished. In this era tenants had the right ask a rent officer to visit the dwelling they were renting, and set a fair rent for it. The rent officer would inspect the building, if he detected damp he would request that the council environmental health officer visit the dwelling. The environmental health officer would access the state of the building, and determine if it should be classified as unfit for human habitation. If it was, it would be compulsory purchased and the tenants given top priority for moving in to one of the newly build council houses.

The system improved the housing stock, not only did lead to the timely demolition of dwellings beyond economic repair, it also motivated landlords to maintain their properties and prevent damp. A landlord of a marginally habitable dwelling lived in fear of his tenant. If the tenant had the dwelling inspected, the landlord risked losing his property.

In the era of Washington consensus tenants live in fear of the landlord. If they complain about damp, they risk being classified as troublesome tenant, having their tenancy agreement terminated, evicted, and given a bad reference. See the Jessica McLean case for an example of what can happen to tenant who complains about a dwelling, which in the Beveridge consensus era would have been classified as unfit for human habitation. The inability of tenants to obtain prompt repairs is a particular problem in the UK due to the nature of the standard tenancy agreement. See Symmetrical Tenancy Agreements below.

In the UK, the private rental sector is very competitive market, and renting business operates on tight margins. Landlords can not afford to make investment in improvements in their property which do bring a return. The improvements needed to prevent damp are expensive, and do not generate sufficient additional rental income to justify the expenditure. In London, the housing shortage means that dwellings, that used to be classified as unfit for human habitation, can be let without difficulty.

In the era of the Beveridge consensus it was recognized that landlords could not fund the necessary improvements to the housing stock. The solution found to this problem was home improvement grants. An environmental health officer had a carrot as well stick to enable improvements to the housing stock . He could approve local government giving a 90% grant for improvements needed to make a property fit for human habitation. For example, a landlord could get grant to repoint the brickwork to prevent damp from water penetration, replace the joists with dry root caused by damp, get the property reroofed to prevent leaks in roofs causing rot. Improvements which in 2015 would cost at least £50,000. In authorizing a grant an environmental health officer, would make a judgement as to whether it was more cost effective to demolish or improve a property unfit for human habitation.

One of the theories as to why in the 1950s, the supply of new houses to private buyers increased at whilst is the purchased price remained constant at approximately £(2012) 50,000, is the demolition policy of the time. According to the economic theory behind the Washington Consensus, there should have been no increase in the supply of new dwellings built for sale to owner occupiers. For there was no increase in the prices of houses, and hence no signal from the market to increase supply. In fact, rather than an increase the theory predicts a decrease in the supply, as local government was purchasing 200,000 new dwellings a year, and this according to the theory, should have absorbed all the capacity of the construction industry.

There is an alternative theory, namely that the supply of new dwellings is controlled by availability of building plots. In the 1950s building plots, were made available by the Luftwaffe's area bombing of Britain, and buildings condemned as unfit for human habitation. According to the site theory of new dwelling supply, demolishing dwellings increases the supply of new dwellings without the need for house rise price signal from the market .

Social quality

For many people the social life their home enables is as important as the physical conditions the home provides. There is a debate about whether the generation born in the 1980s, at the start of the Washington Consensus era are better or worse offthan their parents. Economists who believe in the Washington Consensus claim living standards have improved for what has been called generation X, whilst others hold they have declined. The economist point to fourfold growth in the nation's GDP during the era of the Washington Consensus, an increase GDP per capita, and an increase median earnings. Those who content that there has been a fall living standards for generation X, say that increasing GDP per capita can be, and is in the UK, associated with a declining quality of life. And that housing conditions of Generation X has made their standard of living far lower than that of their parents. They claim that the two major cause of decline in the social environment provided by housing are: symmetrical tenancy agreements and socially segregated housing developments.

Symmetrical tenancy agreements

In the era of the Beveridge consensus tenants were similar position to owner occupiers. An owner occupier can not be forced to sell his/her dwelling, but can choose to sell it at any time. Similarly in this era, a tenant could terminate the tenancy agreement at a months notice, but the landlord could never do so. The landlord could ask tenant to agree to rent increase to compensate for inflation, and tenant would agree if he judged it would be approved by the Rent Officer. Landlords would never asked for rent rises above the rate of inflation, as they knew they would not be approved.

The UK has fully implemented the policy recommendations of the Washington Consensus, and the landlord and tenant are treated as equals, the theory being that this would lead to an efficient market and improve mobility of labour. Now, Nearly all dwellings are let using Shorthold Assured Tenancy agreements. There is a short period, typically six months or a year, where neither side can terminate the agreement. After this period, both sides can terminate the agreement at a months notice. According to the theory behind the Washington consensus this ideal arrangement as it will lead to optimum allocation of housing resources. Tenants can leave at a months notice, encouraging mobility of labour. Landlords can always gain control of their property ensuring that they have no incentive to keep it empty. The UK is the only European country in which symmetrical tenancy agreements are the norm. In Germany for example, on the standard agreement, a tenant can leave at three months notice, but the landlord can only end the agreement for what the courts will accept as a good reason.

There is evidence, that main the beneficiary of the symmetrical tenancy agreements have been UK landlords, as it has enabled rents rise not only faster than the RPI, but also far faster than wages. In 2015 private sector rents in the UK rose by 4.9% with particular large rises in Brighton and Bristol whilst earnings growth in the UK was 2.9%l. The UK rental market is competitive and for such a market the economic theory behind the Washington Consensus does not predict rent inflation. A possible explanation is the imbalance in power. The landlord by terminating the agreement acquires the power to evict the tenant, depriving a family of its home. The tenant by terminating the agreement only has the power to deprive the landlord of some rent. A landlord can wait until a family is established in area, children all in school, and then demand a rent increase above the prevailing rent level for an area. The family has to pay up or incur large costs from having to move. Landlords who follow this strategy are doing nothing illegal or wrong. But it could be the explanation as to why rents are rising faster than wages.

Factors which lower the social quality of housing such as: homelessness and fear of homeless, and transient unfriendly neighborhoods have been attributed to symmetrical tenancy agreement. Evidence of the comparative insecurity in the private rental sector is, is provided by the statistics on recent movers. In the year 2103, for every 1,000 residents, 340 of those in the private rented sector would move, compared with 5 owner occupiers, and 9 in the public rented sector.

Socially Segregated housing

In the era of the Beveridge consensus, new dwellings that built for private sale were for purchase by owner occupiers as their family home. In this era, buy to let investors could not compete with owner occupiers in purchase of new dwellings, as fair rents were lower than mortgage repayments. The typical new dwelling built inthis era was a three bedroomed semi-detached house, with front and back garden . the purchase price was approximately £(2012) 60,000.

File:SuburbanGatedDeveopment.jpg

Typical multistory block gated development. 2015 price for 2 bed apartment £380,000.

The changes to implement the recommendations of the Washington consensus (abolition of fair rents, buy to let mortgages, ending local government purchase of new dwellings for letting, abolition of currency regulations opening the property market to global investors) have transformed the housing market. The current position is that in London and the SE of England, only UK citizens who are top earners, are in the market to become home owners. In London, the effective demand for new dwellings now comes from property investors, not those hoping to become owner occupiers. Property investors, are not primarily interested in whether a dwelling unit provides a good social environment for a family. The investor is looking for standardized dwelling units which can provide a good rental income and predictable maintenance costs. This has reduced the demand for three bedrooms houses with gardens, which are normally consider to provide the ideal family homes, instead the demand is for apartments in multi-story blocks. In London, many such apartments are marketed too, and bought by foreign investors. The ideal unit for such investors, is in a gated development with a tower block of apartments, with car parking instead of gardens. Standardized dwellings units are desirable as they can be traded on the global market like any other commodity.

There is evidence that gated developments,intensify social segregation, and rather than preventing crime they create fear of crime. The residents of the gated development become fearful of those living outside of their secured space and only leave the development by car. They are too fearful to walk out of it and socialize with their neighbours outside.

File:TwoSemiDetachedCouncilHouses.jpg

Semidetached council houses. 3 Beds, front/back garden. built 1950s, cost to council £(2012) 55,000 .

In the Beverage Era there was socially segregated housing. In this era local government would build council estates were all the dwellings were for rent. Many of the estates were designed to be self-contained communities, with their own shops, schools, and health centers. See the Council housing estate for details. In this era there was no concept of social housing, were tenants are selected on the basis off need, and only the deprived are entitled to social housing. The qualification for getting a council house was a connections with the local borough, and all, with suitable residential qualifications could get a council house regardless of class or income. For those who were able and wanted to become owner occupiers separate estates were built. The dwellings in both type of estate were similar. The typical dwelling unit being a three bedroomed house with from an back garden. On council estates semi-detached houses dominated, whilst on owner occupier estates they were mainly detached. Owner occupier dwellings cost slightly more, approximately £(2012) 60,000 instead of £(2012) 55,000 for council dwellings, and owner occupier dwellings showed much more variety of style. This made owner occupier estates less visually monotonous.

Having separate estates for owner occupiers and council tenants reinforced class divisions and class stereotyping. There were residents on owner occupier estates who call those who lived on council estates 'common' meaning they were social inferiors, and there were residents in council estates who would call those lived in owner occupied estates 'snobs' meaning they people who were to proud to socialize with those they considered their social inferiors. Due to limited social interaction between owner occupiers and council tenants there is much scope for misunderstanding.

Energy Efficiency

File:UKHomePerformanceRatingChartsHorizontal.png

UK Home Performance Rating Chart

Main article: Energy efficiency in British housing

Between 2001 and 2013 the prevalence of cavity wall insulation of houses which have cavity walls rose from 39% to 68%. Over the same time period the proportion of fully double glazed dwellings rose from 51% to 80%. Approximately 600,000 dwellings had solar panels. If all the recommendations by energy performance certificates were implemented the notional carbon dioxide emissions could be reduced by over 20%. Energy Performance Certificates are required by UK law whenever a dwelling is built, sold, or rented.

Empty homes

There are approximately 250,000 homes in the UK which have been empty for more than six months (long-term empty homes). This is mainly due to financial reasons, such as the owner being unable to sell the house or raise enough money to renovate the property. Empty Dwelling Management Orders (EMDOs) allow councils to take over the management of long-term empty properties but these are generally seen as a last resort and only 43 EDMOs were successful from 2006 to 2011. Government statistics show that long-term empty homes are generally concentrated in the North of England and in seaside towns, where property prices are generally lower, with the lowest percentage in London which had 20,795 long-term empty properties.

The charity Empty Homes argued that empty homes were helping contribute to the housing crisis, saying in a report "The longer a property is empty the more our housing assets are being wasted. Also, the longer a property lies empty, the more likely it is to deteriorate; the more it is likely to cost to bring back into use; and the more it is likely to be seen as a blight by the neighbours."

The percentage of empty homes in England has fallen from 3.5% in 2008 to 2.6% in 2014, partially because housing transactions have picked up since the financial crisis and because of government efforts to reduce the number of empty homes. The number of empty homes includes homes where the previous occupier is in prison, in care, in hospital or recently deceased.

See also

• Building regulations in the United Kingdom
• English land law
• Public housing in the United Kingdom
• Mortgage industry of the United Kingdom
• Real estate in the United Kingdom
• Cost of moving in the United Kingdom
• Land Registry (United Kingdom)