The falls in central London’s luxury property prices could make housing even less affordable

Oh good, more of this. Image: Getty.

All the signs point to a slow-down in the London property market. Central London house prices dropped by 6.8 per cent between 2015 and 2016, while the numbers of new homes under construction plummeted by 75 per cent. The problem is located almost entirely at the top of the market, with sales transactions collapsing by 86 per cent for properties worth more than £10m.

Central London property values are eye-watering, far beyond the reach of most working London households. A fall in house prices might be welcome as a way to make housing more affordable.

But unfortunately, the perverse incentives at play in the way housing is built mean that a slow-down in the market for luxury flats in Kensington & Chelsea can mean less affordable housing is built, not more – and the consequences may be felt right across the country. There are three main drivers of this:

  • There will be less money for affordable housing where private developers stop building;
  • The way land is traded reduces incentives to build anything other than luxury flats;
  • Developers will build more slowly, reducing supply.

Let’s consider them in turn.

There will be less money for affordable housing where private developers stop building

Grants from central government used to fund almost all the costs of building new affordable housing. This meant that when private development experienced a down-turn, social development could step in to fill some of the gap, keeping builders building and having a stabilising influence on the market as a whole. Such grants funded 75 per cent of affordable housing development costs in the early 1990s – but now fund just 14 per cent.

The majority of finance for new affordable developments now comes in the form of Section 106 agreements: payments or land given by private developers in return for planning permission from the council to build profitable market housing. So the more private development there is in a local area, the more money there should be to subsidise affordable housing for rent or sale.

As affordable housing has become increasingly dependent on Section 106 agreements rather than grant funding, any decline in new construction affects the whole of housing supply, including the bits we care most about – genuinely affordable homes for ordinary families. This means that, unless the slow-down in luxury property development in central London can be balanced out by other kinds of private developer activity, there will be less finance available for affordable housing in the capital.


The way land is traded reduces incentives to build anything other than luxury flats.

That shouldn’t be a problem: there is a huge need for more housing across the country, and especially in London. If luxury flats are getting harder to sell, developers should be able to build and sell something else and still make a profit. Right?

The problem is land. Landowners, advised by their agents, sell their sites for the highest possible price, based on extracting the greatest commercial value from the land. In the case of central London, this often means more luxury flats. Once developers have paid sky-high prices for land on this basis, the only profitable option open to them is to actually build those luxury flats and sell them for the highest possible price.

In this way, the price of land distorts construction away from meeting housing need. Estate agents Savills estimate that 58 per cent of housing need in London is for homes costing less than £450 per square foot – but such homes represent just 25 per cent of new builds planned between now and 2021. On the other hand, 2015-16 saw a significant oversupply of luxury flats as developers tried to recoup the high cost of land, with 1.6 starts for every 1 sale of a home priced above £1000 per square foot.

Developers will build more slowly, reducing supply

But if the bottom has fallen out of the land market surely developers and landlords will readjust? Sadly not. Most landowners are likely to hold on to their assets in anticipation of recovery in the most profitable luxury market, rather than accepting a lower price that would allow different kinds of homes to be built.

In the current market, developers have invested heavily in land for luxury housing. If they build and sell these homes at a lower price, or if they build something else for a lower sale price, they risk not making back the money they spent on that land. Many developers will now instead choose to hold on to the land, restricting supply in an attempt to bolster prices, waiting out the market and building out slowly when prices start to recover. This will put even more pressure on housing supply and on affordability.

So what do we need to do?

We need to create a situation in which developers are incentivised to build affordable homes, not just luxury flats, to meet housing need across the country.

Shelter’s New Civic Housebuilding report sets out a vision for how we can achieve the new homes we need, based on clearer and lower land values. We’re calling on central government to update the rules on land valuation and enable public bodies to use their land holdings to build more affordable homes.

In these ways, we can provide land at prices which enable development to respond to housing need, not just the highest bidder.

Rose Grayston is senior policy officer at Shelter, on whose blog this article originally appeared.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook

 
 
 
 

Two east London boroughs are planning to tax nightlife to fund the clean up. Will it work?

A Shoreditch rave, 2013. Image: Getty.

No-one likes cleaning up after a party, but someone’s got to do it. On a city-wide scale, that job falls to the local authority. But that still leaves the question: who pays?

In east London, the number of bars and clubs has increased dramatically in recent years. The thriving club scene has come with benefits – but also a price tag for the morning clean-up and cost of policing. The boroughs of Hackney and Tower Hamlets are now looking to nightlife venues to cover these costs.

Back in 2012, councils were given powers to introduce ‘late night levies’: essentially a tax on all the licensed venues that open between midnight and 6am. The amount venues are expected to pay is based on the premises’ rateable value. Seventy per cent of any money raised goes to the police and the council keeps the rest.

Few councils took up the offer. Four years after the legislation was introduced, only eight local authorities had introduced a levy, including Southampton, Nottingham, and Cheltenham. Three of the levies were in the capital, including Camden and Islington. The most lucrative was in the City of London, where £420,000 was raised in the 2015-16 financial year.

Even in places where levies have been introduced, they haven’t always had the desired effect. Nottingham adopted a late night levy in November 2014. Last year, it emerged that the tax had raised £150,000 less than expected in its first year. Only a few months before, Cheltenham scrapped its levy after it similarly failed to meet expectations.


Last year, the House of Lords committee published its review of the 2003 Licensing Act. The committee found that “hardly any respondents believed that late night levies were currently working as they should be” – and councils reported that the obligation to pass revenues from the levy to the police had made the tax unappealing. Concluding its findings on the late night levy, the committee said: “We believe on balance that it has failed to achieve its objectives, and should be abolished.”

As might be expected of a nightlife tax, late night levies are also vociferously opposed by the hospitality industry. Commenting on the proposed levy in Tower Hamlets, Brigid Simmonds, chief executive at the British Beer and Pub Association, said: “A levy would represent a damaging new tax – it is the wrong approach. The focus should be on partnership working, with the police and local business, to address any issues in the night time economy.”

Nevertheless, boroughs in east London are pressing ahead with their plans. Tower Hamlets was recently forced to restart a consultation on its late night levy after a first attempt was the subject of a successful legal challenge by the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers (ALMR). Kate Nicholls, chief executive at the ALMR, said:

“We will continue to oppose these measures wherever they are considered in any part of the UK and will urge local authorities’ to work with businesses, not against them, to find solutions to any issues they may have.”

Meanwhile, Hackney council intends to introduce a levy after a consultation which revealed 52 per cents of respondents were in favour of the plans. Announcing the consultation in February, licensing chair Emma Plouviez said:

“With ever-shrinking budgets, we need to find a way to ensure the our nightlife can continue to operate safely, so we’re considering looking to these businesses for a contribution towards making sure their customers can enjoy a safe night out and their neighbours and surrounding community doesn’t suffer.”

With budgets stretched, it’s inevitable that councils will seek to take advantage of any source of income they can. Nevertheless, earlier examples of the late night levy suggest this nightlife tax is unlikely to prove as lucrative as is hoped. Even if it does, should we expect nightlife venues to plug the gap left by public sector cuts?