My Pledge as a workers' MP for Chorley - End the Housing Crisis!

Chorley voters have been writing to me to ask that I pledge support for issues that are of particular concern to them. So that they are on the record for all voters, I am posting my response on some of the key issues here, on my blog:

Action to end the housing crisis is one of the key demands of our campaign to elect a workers' MP for Chorley who speaks up for homes and health, not war and privatisation.

Let me start by making clear that I am not just a candidate who makes these pledges at election time, I am a trade unionist and socialist who is actively campaigning on these issues. 

Martin campaigning in Chorley

Martin on a successful TUSC Council Lobby over Housing

I have been campaigning with South Lakes TUSC over the housing crisis, surveying people on our campaign stall about the solutions we are putting forward. All of our solutions were widely supported - but the demand to "build enough council homes for all" got the most backing of all:

And TUSC haven't just been talking about these issues - we act on them too. 

For example, in South Lakes, our pressure has been having an effect on local decision makers. As explained in this post, we lobbied the Council over the second of these priorities - ending the scam of supposedly "affordable homes" - and I was given the opportunity to address the planning committee on behalf of TUSC. 

I put forward our case in the Council Chamber, exposing the profiteering developer and pricking councillors' consciences on genuinely affordable homes. A deferral on a planning decision was passed, despite the pressure put on the councillors by council officers.

That was only a small victory but as a workers' MP for Chorley, I would have a platform to demand far more. I would speak up for urgent action to address homelessness and the lack of genuinely affordable housing, on behalf of those without secure housing and for the many renters and mortgage holders whose rising housing costs add significantly to the ongoing cost-of-living crisis.

Our demands include:

• Build council homes to meet need - for a mass building programme of high standard, eco-friendly, affordable council homes to tackle the housing crisis - take over empty properties - end 'right to buy'.
• Ban no-fault evictions, secure tenancies for all.
• Rent control that caps the level of rent. Fair rent decisions should be made by elected bodies of tenants, housing workers and representatives of trade unions.
• Stop the scam of “affordable” homes – rent of 80% of local market rates is not affordable.  Affordable new homes to be rented at genuinely affordable social housing rents.
• Immediately fund remedial measures for all unsafe homes and carry out the work required to insulate homes to address the climate crisis.
• Ensure quality homes - Introduce compulsory licensing of all landlords. Take big homebuilders into democratic public ownership to ensure quality and safety.
• For affordable mortgages – nationalise the banks to be run under democratic workers’ control and management.

Martin Powell-Davies

Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition Candidate for Chorley

Housing: Time to put people's needs before developers' profits

I issued the following press release this morning on behalf of the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition in Westmorland and Lonsdale (@SouthLakesTUSC): 

***

UPDATE: I was able to take the opportunity to put forward our case in the Council Chamber on 20 March, exposing Story Homes and pricking councillors' consciences on genuinely affordable homes. A deferral on a planning decision was passed, despite the pressure put on the councillors by council officers. As I said to the press:

"Today's debate exposed how the housing needs of our communities are at the mercy of the profit margins of private developers. As Councillor Cassidy said, councillors were effectively being 'intimidated' into putting aside their own affordable homes policy. We were pleased to have highlighted the councillors' duty to put local people's needs before developers' profits and given councillors the facts they needed to vote for a deferral"

TUSC Lobby outside County Hall in Kendal, 20 March

***

TUSC says:

KENDAL NEEDS GENUINELY AFFORDABLE RENTED COUNCIL HOMES

APPLY COUNCIL POLICY - OPPOSE THE STORY HOMES “PHASE 4” PLANNING PERMISSION ON BRIGSTEER ROAD

TUSC¹ in Westmorland and Lonsdale has submitted an objection to Story Homes’ planning application for their proposed “Phase 4” of homes on Brigsteer Rise in Kendal, based on a detailed analysis of the claims made by the developer for the previous phases of this substantial development.

Our analysis² shows:

·       Story Homes were given permission to build the initial phases of the development even though their plans failed to provide the amount of ‘affordable homes’ set out in the council Core Strategy.

·       Agreeing the developer’s proposed plans for Phase 4 would mean that the overall development would be completed with 71.4% (157/220) open market properties and only 28.6% ‘affordable housing’ (63/220) – of which just 32 – just one in seven – would be ‘affordable rental’ properties.

·       The developer has also been allowed to proceed with plans that fail to provide the ‘housing mix’ set out in the Core Strategy, building too high a proportion of its bigger, more profitable, houses.

The Council accepted Story Homes’ claims that meeting its Core Strategy would make the scheme commercially “unviable”. However, our analysis suggests that the developer based this claim on income projections from house sales that underestimated the actual income that will be generated. Story Homes’ latest accounts for the year ending 31 March 2023 report that their “turnover increased by 11.9% to £269.3m (2022: £240.7m) … Gross profit has increased to £62.1m (2022: £59.0m)”.

Martin Powell-Davies, who completed the analysis for Westmorland and Lonsdale TUSC said:

“Low-paid workers and their families see expensive developments like Brigsteer Rise being built all around Kendal, but know that these are homes that they cannot afford to live in. There’s a housing crisis in Westmorland. The Council’s priority should be to provide genuinely affordable, sustainable, rented council homes.  It’s time that people’s needs were put before developer’s profits”.

“Story Homes’ latest planning application for Brigsteer Rise should be refused, at the very least unless they are prepared to complete their development to a plan that ensures that the overall ‘housing mix’ and provision of ‘affordable housing’ meets the levels set out in the Council’s Core Strategy. However, given that even those homes deemed “affordable” in the plans will, in reality, still be “unaffordable” to many local residents, the best way to meet the needs of local people would be to reject this proposal entirely. Instead, the Council should consult with local communities and trade unions over how to deliver genuinely affordable homes and demand that the next government, to be elected at some point in 2024, supports such a vitally needed change in direction in housing policy.”

1 TUSC, the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition, will be mounting an anti-cuts, pro-public services challenge to all the main parties in the 2024 General Election, including in Westmorland & Lonsdale.

2 The analysis & full objection submitted on behalf of TUSC can be downloaded from https://bit.ly/42dwprF but is also pasted below:

Objection to Planning Application Number 2023/1061/FPA - 108 dwelling houses and associated infrastructure (Brigsteer Rise, Phase 4) by Story Homes.

I wish to object to the planning application for the reasons set out below:

Summary

As the Supporting Planning Statement submitted on behalf of Story Homes makes clear, their application for further planning permission is for “Phase 4 of the Brigsteer Rise development in Kendal”. In considering the suitability of this application, the Council should reassess the previous claims and arguments made by Story Homes in applying for planning permission for the initial phases of this development.

As set out below, I believe in particular that the claims about ‘viability’ made by Story Homes in documents in the earlier phases of this development, specifically about the provision of ‘affordable housing’ and ‘housing mix’, need to be reconsidered.

On the basis of such an assessment, planning permission should be refused, at the very least unless Story Homes are prepared to complete the final phase of their development to a plan that ensures that the overall ‘housing mix’ and provision of ‘affordable housing’ of the whole development is at least in line with the Core Strategy.

Given that even those homes deemed “affordable” in the plans will nevertheless be, in reality, “unaffordable” to many local residents, the Council has a duty to at least insist that its own Core Strategy policies are applied in full. However, the best way to meet the needs of local young people, low-paid workers, and their families, would be to reject this proposal entirely and to instead begin a process of consultation with local communities and trade unions over how to deliver genuinely affordable, sustainable, secure, publicly owned and democratically controlled rented housing within Kendal and the surrounding areas.

Core Strategy

The Supporting Planning Statement submitted on behalf of Story Homes itself refers to the following aspects of the South Lakeland Core Strategy:

Policy CS6.2 – Dwelling Mix and Type requires new development to offer a range of housing sizes and types, taking account of the housing requirement of different groups of society, including the need to deliver low-cost market housing as part of the overall housing mix.

Policy CS6.3 – Provision of Affordable Housing requires provision of no less than 35% affordable housing on schemes of nine dwellings or more. … Exceptionally, a lower requirement for affordable housing will be acceptable where there is clear evidence that it would make the development unviable.

The proposed planning application, particularly when considered over all four phases of the development, does not match these aspects of the Core Strategy and so should be rejected as it stands.

Dwelling Mix and Type

Previous Planning Committee papers have also referred to the recommendations of South Lakeland District Council’s 2017 Strategic Housing Market Assessment:

The Planning Committee Report for the meeting of Thursday, 26 August 2021 (para 5.55) noted that the proposed mix of market housing in the latest iteration of the applicant’s layout was “clearly a very poor match to the expectations of the SHMA”. The proposal submitted by Story Homes for the initial phases was nevertheless accepted. However, this should not be allowed to happen again in the light of the analysis below (which I believe is correct from the evidence available on the planning portal) summarising the proposed housing mix for all four phases of the development in total:

Open Market Homes

The analysis shows that, if the Council allows Story Homes to proceed with its plans, the Brigsteer Road development will be heavily skewed towards properties of 4 -bedrooms or more, completely ignoring the recommendations of the SHMA:

Low Cost Ownership

The analysis shows that, if the Council allows Story Homes to proceed with its plans, the Brigsteer Road development will again be a “poor match” to the SHMA, particularly giving no opportunity for low cost ownership of one-bedroom properties:

Affordable Rented Homes

The analysis shows that, if the Council allows Story Homes to proceed with its plans, the Brigsteer Road development will also be failing to meet the need for larger families to have access to affordable rented accommodation, with very little provision being provided for properties with more than two bedrooms:

I would also note that the Strategic Planning Committee paperwork for the meeting of 19 September 2023 (page 27) contains a request from the Housing Strategy Team based on “feedback from registered providers and their tenants” that the “Branford type house … the default 2 bedroom type offered by Story Homes” is too small in size. The Team asks if “this 71m² model … is potentially replaced with a larger 2 bedroom property that would provide a more sustainable family property i.e. a 2 bed 4 person criteria. (79m² )”. The 6 ‘Branford’ homes in the table above suggest this request has been largely ignored.

Social Need before Developer Profit

The reason for Story Homes wishing to skew the overall housing mix of the development towards larger homes for open market was also made clear in the Planning Committee papers for the initial phases of the development (Thursday, 26 August 2021, para 5.59). There it is explained that “the replacement of some of these larger units with smaller units would reduce overall GDV [Gross Development Value, the revenue anticipated from a completed development scheme], and have an adverse impact on scheme viability.”

The Council should not allow a developers’ wish to increase its profits to override both social need and its own strategic policies. The argument that the developer must be allowed to enforce a greater GDV or “scheme viability” is at risk is not one that should be accepted. I shall return to the specifics of Story Homes financial position below.

Provision of “Affordable Homes”

Under current legislation, the definitions of "Affordable Housing" are already insufficient. For example, many low-paid residents know that rents set “at a rent of up to 80 per cent of local market rent” are not genuinely “affordable” to them. Nor will many have the required income to access “low cost ownership” and even those that do then have to face meeting the costs of both mortgage and rental payments. Council strategy should therefore instead focus on providing genuinely affordable social housing.

The very least that the Council should do is to at least insist that the Brigsteer Road development complies with its Core Strategy requirement “of no less than 35% affordable housing” on schemes of this size.

As the analyses above show, agreeing the proposed plans for Phase 4 would mean that the overall development would be completed with 71.4% (157/220) open market properties and only 28.6% ‘affordable housing’ (63/220) – of which just 32 – just one in seven – are affordable rental properties.

The absolute minimum requirement for any planning permission to be agreed for Phase 4 should be to insist that the developer reduces the number of open market properties by at least 14 and instead builds them as “affordable homes”. This would at least increase their number to 77 – 35% of the total – at least just then meeting the Core Strategy requirement of “no less than 35%”.

However, the best way to meet the needs of local young people, low-paid workers, and their families, would be to reject this proposal entirely and to instead begin a process of consultation with local communities and trade unions over how to deliver genuinely affordable, sustainable, secure, publicly owned and democratically controlled rented housing within Kendal and the surrounding areas.

The Council should also approach the new government, to be elected at some point in 2024, to seek their support for such a change in approach to housing development.

Development Viability

Story Homes will undoubtedly object that any requirement to provide more “affordable homes” will make their development “unviable”. After all, this is the argument that they have made ever since the first stages of the planning process for the Brigsteer Road development.

The Planning Committee papers for Thursday, 26 August 2021 (para 5.13) point out that the Core Strategy allows for the 35% requirement for affordable housing to be breached – although only “exceptionally” – “where there is clear evidence that it would make the development unviable”. And Story Homes claimed that they faced just such “exceptional circumstances”, insisting that they could only afford to go ahead with 20.5% of affordable homes in the initial phases of the development. In fact, their consultants, Grasscroft Development Solutions (GDS), suggested that, in doing so, Story Homes were proposing “a very generous commercial decision which has been arrived at in spite of the scheme viability" (para 5.32). Such a claim should not have been accepted and certainly should not be when considering the current planning submission and the overall mix and affordable homes provision across all phases of the development.

In 2021 (para 5.43), GDS proposed that the total sales revenue would be £27.38M, made up from £25.785M from the sale of 70 open market units and £1.60M from the 18 ‘affordable units’. GDS estimated the total construction costs to be around £23M, leaving a profit on Gross Development Value of 15.97% (£4,373,042). Cumbria County Council’s valuer (para 5.45) was reported as estimating a higher profit on GDV of 18.09% (£4,961,104).

I think it will come as a shock to the many local tenants and residents struggling to pay their rents and mortgages that the Council papers (para 5.44) reported that current National Planning Guidance considers a 15 – 20% profit to be “a suitable return to developers”. Are the Council again going to agree that the ‘requirement’ for the developer to be able to report a multi-million pound profit is of greater importance than the requirement to provide genuinely affordable homes to local people?

What was the actual sales revenue?

How much has the actual sales revenue been compared to what the Council was initially told? To provide at least an initial answer to that question, I have conducted a rough analysis of the house prices currently being advertised on the Story Homes website and/or through online estate agent archives.

It suggests that the actual revenue that might be expected to be generated from the sale of the 70 open market homes might be £32.375M. If so, that would be £6.59M more than the £25.785M estimated by GDS in 2021. Certainly, rather than accepting the claims made by a developer at face value, councillors should conduct a clear review of the claims made about commercial viability in 2021.

Story Homes Annual Report

One final bit of research that councillors might want to carry out is to examine the latest Annual Report for Story Homes Limited, which was recently uploaded onto the Companies House website.

The Strategic Report for the year ending 31 March 2023 states that “during the year, there were 915 homes sold (2022: 846). Turnover increased by 11.9% to £269.3m (2022: £240.7m) in line with the business returning to a normal year following the Covid-19 pandemic. Gross profit has increased to £62.1m (2022: £59.0m). The retained profit after tax for the year was £24.3m (2022: retained profit after tax of £23.6m)”.

The notes to the financial statements also record that “the highest paid director received remuneration of £882,430 (2022: £531,230)”.

Do these accounts present a picture of a company in such “exceptionally” difficult circumstances that it is simply “unviable” to provide affordable homes?

London's teachers and families need genuinely affordable homes

In preparation for speaking at the Policy Forum for London Seminar on 'Policy Priorities for Housing in London' this week, I have produced a short presentation setting out why urgent action is needed to tackle London's housing crisis.

The key points are:

• London's housing crisis is putting our school success at risk - teachers are being priced out of London
• 30% of Outer London's secondary schools already have temporary vacancies - when more teachers are needed
• Median house prices in Inner London are EIGHTEEN times higher than a teacher's starting salary
• More of London's young teachers are living with their parents than are buying a property
• An Outer London teacher's starting salary only leaves them £63 a week to live on after paying a median rent
• Most young teachers live in the private rented sector - but many face cramped, stressful and insecure conditions
• Long working days mean teachers can't move too far away from their workplaces to find cheaper housing
• So 60% of London's young teachers say they will be leaving the capital - most blame London's housing costs
• In some London boroughs, two-thirds of teachers are now under 40 - older teachers are leaving London
• London needs urgent action to provide genuinely affordable homes. The NUT calls for rent controls and investment for councils to build homes.

I have pasted the slides below and uploaded the presentation for discussions on housing in NUT Division and School meetings. The facts speak for themselves:

 

Priced out of London - London Young Teachers' Housing Survey

At the end of 2015, a NUT survey of London’s young teachers revealed how many of them were struggling to live and work in a city where the average monthly cost of renting a one-bed flat is now over £1,100 - and rising.

60% of young teachers surveyed said that they could not see themselves still teaching in London in five years’ time

London needs to create over 100,000 new school places during the lifetime of this Parliament yet, at the same time, teachers are being forced out of the city. This can only mean that London faces a growing teacher shortage.

Nearly two-thirds of responses specifically pointed to the cost of living in London as the reason that they would be leaving:  
“The cost of rent is half of my monthly salary - add bills, food and petrol and I have nothing left”
“My rent has just increased to £1600 per month”
“Salaries are little more than they were seven years ago but rent has doubled”
“Teaching, yes; in London, no. I just can’t afford to live here”

Many teachers explained that they would be leaving because they would struggle to afford housing with enough room for a family: 
“I plan to move out because I have a 1 year old and cannot afford to raise my child in London”
“If I want to have children, I would have to change either my city or my profession”

Of course, the reason some teachers gave for leaving were linked to the workload faced by teachers everywhere. However, many linked that stress in the workplace to the added stress of inadequate housing once they leave work:
“Teaching is stressful. You need to be able to come back from work to a home that gives you mental and physical space. I can’t afford to live in such a space”
“There’s no privacy and nowhere to work. Sitting on my bed to mark books is killing my back”
“Rent uses up more than half my salary but I can’t move further away to find something cheaper as I need to get into work by 7.30 am”

Renting or living at home

59% of the teachers surveyed were having to rent privately
18% were living at home with their parents - more than those who were buying a property

 Unable to secure a home of their own, a majority of London’s young teachers, like many other young workers, are becoming trapped in the private rental market. 

Just like the families of too many of the children that they teach, young teachers are being forced into unsuitable housing, facing high rents and sometimes unscrupulous landlords:
“We are five people sharing a three bedroom flat. This is the only way we can keep the costs down”
“Landlords frequently increase rent, forcing us to move or they sell property and force eviction”
“It’s noisy, horrible and with holes in the walls but it’s all that I can afford”.
“We live in a tiny two-bedroom flat with three children. We can’t even fit a second bed in the second bedroom. The property has damp and my daughter has asthma”
“I don’t like having to live with strangers. There’s one bathroom between four of us”
“I work in the same borough that I grew up in. I don’t want to move away from my life, my roots, just because of ridiculous housing prices”

Nearly one in five of the surveyed teachers said that they are having to stay with their parents: 
“Living at home with my parents makes me feel like I never have my own life. I’m leaving London"
“I’m 34 and still having to live at home. What kind of life is that?”
“Due to escalating rents, I have had to move back with my parents”
“I have been married for two years and can only now afford to live with my husband. We were having to live separately with our own parents”

Urgent action needed
The survey responses didn’t just explain how bad the housing crisis has become, they also called for action to make sure that teachers can afford to stay working in London’s schools:
“Great cities like Berlin have established rent controls so that prices are affordable. If London wants teachers, something has to change!”
“We need key worker properties for teachers”
“We need more pay. Wages just do not meet the cost of housing. I have colleagues outside London who are able to save for first homes as an NQT!”
“What about making travel free for teachers?”
“There should be a limit to private rents with standards on room sizes and housing conditions”

Standing up for London’s education
The NUT believes every child deserves the best education that our city can offer. However, we know our schools are under threat. We know that teachers and parents are being priced out of London.

We’ve produced a manifesto for London’s schools and colleges with key proposals that we’re asking the next Mayor and London Assembly to champion - and we’re asking you to demand that they do!

The NUT’s manifesto for London calls on the next Mayor and London Assembly to:
• advocate for rent controls and for more affordable housing in London, with investment for councils to build homes, so that parents and children are not priced out of their community
• take urgent action to provide affordable housing to enable London schools to keep the teachers they need.

 Download this information as a flyer to share here

Labour’s housing policy papers over cracks but doesn’t solve crisis

This week the housing crisis finally reached Westminster.

Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) candidates have been calling for rent control and investment in building and refurbishing quality council homes for years.

Now Labour, perhaps at last sensing the public outcry over the housing crisis, are making eleventh-hour attempts to appeal to private tenants by saying they would cap the rate of rent increases. Who wouldn’t welcome even this small concession? But it falls far short of what’s needed to solve the desperate and snowballing crisis. 

TUSC calls for rent control which does what it says on the tin - controls the level of rent. The Labour proposal simply covers the rate at which rents increase within a three-year period.

For most of the 20th century there was rent control in the UK. Until the Thatcher government abolished rent control in 1988, you could take your landlord to a ‘Rent Tribunal’ and have your rent reduced. Tenancies created before 1989 still have this right. Rent Tribunals still operate for them and the legislation is still effective. This means that it would be relatively easy for a new government to extend the reach of tribunals as an emergency measure.

Labour also proposes to introduce three-year tenancies. That will look like an improvement for tenants living in fear of eviction on six month tenancies but before 1988 there were secure tenancies in the private rented sector.

Around 19% (4.4 million) of UK households now live in private rented accommodation – and this figure is rising. They have to try to build their lives in insecure expensive accommodation. TUSC calls for secure tenancies.

It is sometimes argued that rent control ‘distorts the market’. Tenants wanting an affordable home are right to think the current market is distorted but at the same time buy-to-let landlords have a licence to print money – getting returns of up to 1400% since 1996.

There is much talk about the need for cuts to balance the books but almost 40% of the annual £25bn housing benefit bill goes to private landlords. Currently the private rented sector is heavily subsidised to provide insecure accommodation at unaffordable prices.

"These so-called second-generation rent controls are likely to mean that landlords set the rent for three year tenancies at a level that they would have expected the rents to rise over that period. And, indeed, they may also factor in the risk that rents might rise faster than they expect so could add a little on top of that amount as a precaution .... Most housing market experts see high rental costs as the market’s way of screaming that there is simply not enough supply in the right areas to cope with demand." See: http://www.businessinsider.co.id/labours-rent-cap-idea-sums-up-the-poverty-of-expectations-for-young-people-in-britain-2015-4/#.VT6vG5M9Crg

It is true that rent control will not ‘solve’ the housing crisis, for that we need to build more homes.
 
Labour's ‘target’ is to build 200,000 a year by the last year of a new government. But it is estimated we need 250,000 homes per year just to keep pace with new households – let alone deal with the backlog. So even if their target was achieved, the shortage would still be getting worse. But they don’t propose to reverse the cuts to social housing grant or local authority budgets. Without doing that, even their inadequate target is likely to prove a pipe dream. To really address the crisis we need to break with austerity.

TUSC wants to see investment in a mass programme of council housing building and refurbishment. There is money out there – the Rich List proves that. There is no shortage of cash, it’s just the question of who controls it. When the banks crashed the economy, the Bank of England found £375bn "down the back of the sofa” to bail them out. Let’s bail out all those who need decent homes, and a lot of those unemployed construction workers too!