Forum Topic

'Affordable' housing in Chiswick

I've just read the article in this week's newsletter about the new housing on Essex Place and have to admit to being quite shocked. People 'buying' these flats may in some cases have to pay over two grand a month once you add up mortgage interest, rent and service charge. This really makes the units only affordable in the sense that flats in Belgravia are affordable if you are a multi-billionaire.I walk past this unit most days and had assumed that these flats were going to be social housing as part of the Empire House scheme - is there any genuinely affordable housing in this project at all?

Anita Blake ● 554d33 Comments

It seems even brand new Social Housing seems is able to be bought/sold under RTB but it seems that Affordable (which is 80% of price) can't be.  You would hope that there are restrictions which go along with the sale especially if it is part of a whole - eg a brick built terrace like the one below. It's undoubtedly a minefield of rules and conditions.  Old terrace homes can be retrofitted and insulated on the outside but it's a shame not to be able to do this to the whole terrace where possible at the same time which is what can happen when some have already been the subject of RTB.Some of the best housing schemes I've seen have a mixture of sizes of home which give residents the chance to downsize or upsize within the same area allowing them to stay near their friends and family instead of being forced to move miles away losing their support network.  It's particularly good to see this where it happens with different rules for ground floor accessible flats.It is not really true that when someone buys their Social Housing that they are not denying someone else a home because with the lack of Social Housing being built that is exactly what is happening but who would deny the chance?Unfortunately too often it is not actually then lived in by that resident but rented at a price that is unaffordable to someone needing Social Housing and there are too many landlords who are not looking after their properties as the problems with damp and mould and respiratory illnesses show.  Then you come to the Section 21 No Fault Eviction Notices...  which Govt promised to get rid of...  and which are the cause of homelessness for thousands of people.How would you change it?https://www.lgcplus.com/idea-exchange/how-we-created-a-modest-masterpiece-of-social-housing-03-01-2020/https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/first-goldsmith-street-council-home-to-be-sold-off-under-right-to-buy 

Philippa Bond ● 548d

What’s affordable in one area is not in another, chiswick is affluent and I don’t see it being affordable for the average worker but you don’t have to go too far and prices are less. Same applies to many parts of the UK e.g Harrogate is NOT affordable for the average worker just one example.

Jayne Thorburn ● 549d

Not everyone is earning 100k plus per year. A sum that seems reasonable to live  with ease of paying the endless cycle of bills, rip off taxes, parking, ULEZ, Permits for nearly everything; the list is endless. So 100k per year I believe is minimum earnings to at least keep a semblance of affordability of daily life and living in Chiswick. Prices are inflated too by the fact Chiswick seems to attract many wealthy people who have no problems buying up small terraced houses for 1.5m upwards a complete joke for a three bed terraced house; but they'll pay up and more regardless, it seems like there is a bottomless pit of money to those who keep unafordability a reality to most of us.

Carl Johns ● 549d

'😂😂😂 that’s political speak for do nothing 😂😂😂'So what does that make 'stopping the boats' then?

Vanessa Smith ● 549d

It's complicated because the rules and conditions for RTBfor RTB have changed over the years.  Recently only 30% of the heavily discounted price went to the Council and the rest to the Treasury.  Monies had to be used within a certain amount of time or went back to the Treasury and may not have been available for social housing. I believe that the percentage is now increasing but it may not mean that replacement social housing can be built with it.  It may only be 'affordable' which as we know is NOT affordable for many but there are other types of housing and there are bound to be conditions...Planning permission here in the UK is very expensive and can take years to achieve.  This is how some Councils were trying to build housing:https://www.room151.co.uk/blogs/local-asset-backed-vehicles-controversial-but-one-of-the-best-ways-to-tackle-the-housing-crisis/

Philippa Bond ● 549d

😂😂😂 that’s political speak for do nothing 😂😂😂

Jayne Thorburn ● 550d

According to an interview with Angela Rayner - the Labour party would look at how the 'Right to Buy' scheme runs, so there is a glimmer of hope out there.

Vanessa Smith ● 550d

Er, Ealing Council have a whacking £400m loan taken out in 2020 for....house building. All brokered and signed off by financial genius Julian Bell. The money was to fund the Broadway Living entity run by the council. This was supposed to deliver the ‘much needed affordable housing’ we hear so much about.Unfortunately its two flagship schemes, Gurnell and Perceval House, have run aground over planning issues, as well as the spiralling cost of materials and scarcity of labour. The business model was based on a large proportion of these homes being sold to service the debt and fund future development. Ealing taxpayers are on the hook should the council default on the loan.So clearly councils can borrow, Philippa. It’s just that most don’t want to build traditional council housing because there’s no money in that for the development partners they so assiduously court at MIPIM and elsewhere.

Simon Hayes ● 550d

The problem has been the Treasury not allowing the Councils to borrow.  They may have had the land to build on but did not have the money.

Philippa Bond ● 550d

What you are overlooking is that those buying under Right To Buy are the existing tenants. They haven’t been taking homes from people who need them. Of course more council homes could be built and money is available to do that, but some councils such as Ealing prefer to go down the affordable rent route.I doubt most who bought under Right To Buy and enjoyed the significant discount on purchase price are complaining. I know one couple in Chiswick who bought their council house 30 years ago for a minimal outlay, and it’s now worth we’ll over a million quid.

Simon Hayes ● 551d

There is nothing inherently wrong with the principle of "right to buy" as long as the monies raised are ring-fenced to build more council houses.

Richard Greenhough ● 551d

The Blair/Brown government did not stop 'The Right to Buy' of council houses. I have little expectation the Starmer government will do so.

Chris Dakers ● 551d

Thanks, Robert - I knew the major council house building programme had started under what Labour called "thirteen years of Tory misrule" but hadn't realised just how early in the Churchill/Eden/Macmillan/Home administrations it had reached those heights. Good that the Wilson administration continued the programme. Something similar today might be a vote-winner.

Richard Greenhough ● 551d

Sorry, Richard, I overlooked the fact that you asked specifically about council rather than general housebuilding. The answer to your question is that, once again, the first Wilson administration trumped (if I may use the word) that of Supermac - an average of 135,333 homes started and completed per year, compared with only 98,970 during the Macmillan government's tenure. However, the palm has to go to the first five years of the Churchill, and briefly Eden, government - during this period council house building averaged 170,630 new homes per year.

Robert Fish ● 551d

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/datasets/ukhousebuildingpermanentdwellingsstartedandcompleted Partly, and council building was well over 100,000 pa, normally nearer 200,000 and sometimes more, until Margaret Thatcher pretty well finished it in 1979/early 80s The numbers have never recovered, so that by last year there were 4230 council homes built (quite a lot of them in Hounslow) and 38000 by Housing associations (also quite a lot in Hounslow, but many were shared ownership).  I suspect there were more sold off under right to buy than were built, but in the last few years I think Hounslow built a few more than we sold off 

Guy Lambert ● 552d

You might also find this interesting:https://www.peterbarberarchitects.com/the-house-social-housing-issue

Philippa Bond ● 552d

The first rule of cross-examination, Richard, is not to ask a question unless you know the answer! No, they didn't achieve that every year of Wilson's first administration,  but they averaged an unprecedented 330,000 homes a year started and completed between 1964 and 1969. In the seven years of Macmillan's premiership the average was 251,000.

Robert Fish ● 552d

But throughout the heyday of UK council house building, the necessary land could be bought at its agricultural value. That changed with successive legislation which increased land prices dramatically to reflect its development potential.  In addition, Mrs T’s government moved house building away from social provision towards home ownership and the private rental market funded by increased benefit payments.  They also undermined existing social housing with the Right to Buy.See this for a more detailed analysis:https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5801/cmselect/cmcomloc/173/17305.htm

Peter Evans ● 552d

"...the peak period for housebuilding was actually during Wislon's first administration (over 350,000 homes)."Do you mean 1964 to 1966 or through the whole period to 1970 ?Did they achieve that figure every year ?

Richard Greenhough ● 552d

Yes, during Supermac's reign they were fairly consistently building 250,000 homes a year. However, sorry to spoil your rejoicing - the peak period for housebuilding was actually during Wislon's first administration (over 350,000 homes). Since then there have been few years in which the new build number has been much more than half that record.

Robert Fish ● 552d

"..whole estates of social housing we should be developing, as happened in the 60s."Wasn't the great period of council house building in the 1950s and early 1960s under the Macmillan Conservative government ?

Richard Greenhough ● 552d

The failure to allow councils to build to replace during the Right to Buy Thatcher era, the obsession with owning a home when many find it preferable to rent, the big developers funding the Tory party, housing associations as Landlords  (and not particularly good at it either). But most of all the political will to get to grips with the whole issue. Councils building a few units here and there is useless, it is whole estates of social housing we should be developing, as happened in the 60s. So take your pick - it is any and all of these things - and more.

Vanessa Smith ● 552d

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/14/more-than-35000-households-in-england-will-be-evicted-by-time-no-fault-notices-bannedUnfortunately the Govt seems to still be dragging its feet on this.  I understand Michael Gove wants to do something to the court system first.  There has been a lot of lobbying against banning it.

Philippa Bond ● 552d

This is true modern social housing  - and it's prize winning.  Unfortunately the Chancellor of the Exchequer made sure another development could mot be funded in the same way.

Philippa Bond ● 552d

https://www.mikhailriches.com/project/goldsmith-street/

Philippa Bond ● 552d

‘Affordable’ homes are just various forms of unaffordable, either 80% of market rent or made ‘affordable’ by extra loans or delayed payment schemes. Though if the government is prepared to top up someone’s mortgage, then don’t be surprised if the developers push the sale price up by that amount. And once you’re in an ‘affordable scheme’, they’re not easy to sell on from. The real need is for ‘genuinely affordable’ homes (one third of income?) or proper ‘social housing’ (about £150 a week) - not forgetting the London Living Rent…. etc.

Peter Evans ● 552d

Actually it was always out of young people's reach, we had to work hard most people had two jobs it was always difficult.

Janice Evans ● 553d

This is the situation for people who are trying to rent, or buy, without help from mum and dad these days.The system is stacked against younger people and those who don't have, as they say in the continent, 'a saint in paradise'. The feudal system of leasehold, flats being sold overseas first, predatory landlords...And then, obviously, then you have the No-everything brigade on this very forum going against every new development.

Francis Sheehan ● 553d

If the powers that be had stuck to 3x single salary or 2.5 x and 1x for 2 people  income multipliers, that may have stopped this crazy situation.But we then got Self Certificate mortgages where you could go to your friendly boss and he would type a letter confirming you were on £40k a year when really you were the warehouseman,on £15k a year , hence no controls............plus amongst all this the big elephant in the room 8 million more people in the uk in the last 20 years, 8 million think about that , houses at a premium drs surgeries hospitals appts space to move about you cannot sustain that surely

David Harmes ● 553d

Shared ownership does provide affordability for a section of the population who, although they might have reasonably well-paid jobs would never be able to otherwise buy a property in London. Providing this kind of affordable housing isn't really about social justice but ensuring a generational mix and that people with much needed professional skills are able to establish themselves here.Potentially the opportunity is very attractive as the scheme should work like an option on a property. So if you buy a quarter share in a flat valued at £600,000 and it rises to £700,000 in value then you could theoretically take up the option to buy and get back £250,000 for the £150,000 you put in. If on the other hand the flat falls in value you are only at risk for your quarter share.I don't know the particulars of this scheme but if you are thinking of buying on a shared ownership basis it would be a good idea to get some independent advice. There are lots of variables to consider such as how are rent increments calculated, on what terms can you increase your share and how would the price be calculated, how are service charges calculated, are there any restrictions on who you can sell to and whether or not you can sub-let. However, if these schemes are not exploited by the developer they represent a good opportunity for young professionals. If prices go up your equity is increasing on a leveraged basis, if prices go down only a small amount of capital is at risk and as you increase your savings and income you will ultimately be able to afford to buy a home outright.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 553d

The problem is that there is no consistent definition of 'affordable'. When my daughter married nine years ago she only had to move out as far as Langley Marish (next to Iver) to buy a three bedroomed house with a nice little garden for over £250,000 less than a new build rabbit hutch. The situation has not improved at all since 2014.in fact it has got far worse.

N V Brooks ● 554d

But the point is these flats are meant to be affordable i.e. less than prevailing market rents.A family member recently rented a one bedroom flat in the area for £1400 per month all inclusive. Not Chiswick but a decent part of London and I think it would be larger than the ones in this development.

Anita Blake ● 554d

Sadly, two thousand pounds a month is not at all uncommon with bedsits (sorry 'studio flats') and shoeboxes now commanding over £1000 per month.

N V Brooks ● 554d