The government is promising £3.7bn for affordable housing – but will this solve the housing crisis?

Great, all we need is another 249,999 of those every year and we're sorted. Image: Getty.

This post is presented by WhatHouse? the leading portal for new build homes in the UK.

As part of last year’s Autumn Statement, chancellor Philip Hammond said the government would invest £3.7bn in building 140,000 new houses – 40,000 of them classed as “affordable”. The announcement was cautiously welcomed by many within the housing industry; a number of other industry figures, though, were quick to point out that £3.7bn was still a drop in the ocean compared to what was really needed to tackle the housing crisis.

So who’s right? Could this £3.7bn make some difference or even solve the housing crisis altogether? Or has the housing crisis already got to a stage where it would be nigh on impossible for any government to tackle it successfully?

Apart from anything else, it’s hard to overestimate the scale of the UK housing crisis right now. The Redfern Review, published in November last year, was just one report of many to highlight how severe the shortage of affordable homes had become. It showed that since 1996 real house prices have risen 151 per cent, whilst wage growth has been much slower – and for the last decade has entirely stagnated. 

The result of this is the average price of a UK home is now six times the average income. This widening ratio between house prices and earnings means it’s younger house buyers in particular who are finding it hard to get on the property ladder. This in is just one consequence of a complex housing crisis that looks increasingly difficult to solve with each year that goes by.

The good news is that, in addition to the £3.7bn put aside for new homes, the Chancellor also announced that the government was committed to doubling the annual capital spending on housing. Further good news is that the government has pledged is to build 200,000 new homes each year until a total of one million new-build properties are completed by 2020-21.


However, most analysts believe that at least 250,000 new homes need to be built annually, to keep up with population growth alone. In addition, the government’s promised figure of 200,000 new homes is thought by many to be a little optimistic. Only 160,000 new houses were completed in the UK during 2015.

As for that £3.7bn investment, even if it doesn’t make a significant impression in regards to the overall housing crisis, its importance as the headline act in the chancellor’s first Autumn Statement could still prove to be significant. It suggests that the government is indeed serious about making housing policy one of its top priorities, as it has previously stated.

It should also be noted that the first major government policy announcement of 2017 was regarding housing and the creation of 14 “garden” towns and villages in England which should result in around 200,000 new homes being built.

So if, sometime in the next few years, it becomes clear that the housing situation has significantly improved due to government policy, then the £3.7bn announced in last year’s Autumn Statement may be remembered – not so much for the actual amount, but as the first sign the government was genuinely willing to tackle the crisis. The next test to see if this optimism holds up is when the government’s White Paper on housing is published later this month.

Keith Osborne is online editor at WhatHouse?, the UK’s best new homes portal and housing scheme advisory source. Keith has over 15 years’ experience writing within the property and new build homes industry. Each year he inspects new build homes as a regular judge for the biggest housebuilder awards in the UK – The WhatHouse? Awards.

 
 
 
 

This fun map allows you to see what a nuclear detonation would do to any city on Earth

A 1971 nuclear test at Mururoa atoll. Image: Getty.

In 1984, the BBC broadcast Threads, a documentary-style drama in which a young Sheffield couple rush to get married because of an unplanned pregnancy, but never quite get round to it because half way through the film the Soviets drop a nuclear bomb on Sheffield. Jimmy, we assume, is killed in the blast (he just disappears, never to be seen again); Ruth survives, but dies of old age 10 years later, while still in her early 30s, leaving her daughter to find for herself in a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

It’s horrifying. It’s so horrifying I’ve never seen the whole thing, even though it’s an incredibly good film which is freely available online, because I once watched the 10 minutes from the middle of the film which show the bomb actually going off and it genuinely gave me nightmares for a month.

In my mind, I suppose, I’d always imagined that being nuked would be a reasonably clean way to go – a bright light, a rushing noise and then whatever happened next wasn’t your problem. Threads taught me that maybe I had a rose-tinted view of nuclear holocaust.

Anyway. In the event you’d like to check what a nuke would do to the real Sheffield, the helpful NukeMap website has the answer.

It shows that dropping a bomb of the same size as the one the US used on Hiroshima in 1945 – a relatively diddly 15kt – would probably kill around 76,500 people:

Those within the central yellow and red circles would be likely to die instantly, due to fireball or air pressure. In the green circle, the radiation would kill at least half the population over a period of hours, days or weeks. In the grey, the thing most likely to kill you would be the collapse of your house, thanks to the air blast, while those in the outer, orange circle would most likely to get away with third degree burns.

Other than that, it’d be quite a nice day.

“Little boy”, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, was tiny, by the standards of the bombs out there in the world today, of course – but don’t worry, because NukeMap lets you try bigger bombs on for size, too.

The largest bomb in the US arsenal at present is the B-83 which, weighing in at 1.2Mt, is about 80 times the size of Little Boy. Detonate that, and the map has to zoom out, quite a lot.

That’s an estimated 303,000 dead, around a quarter of the population of South Yorkshire. Another 400,000 are injured.

The biggest bomb of all in this fictional arsenal is the USSRS’s 100Mt Tsar Bomba, which was designed but never tested. (The smaller 50MT variety was tested in 1951.) Here’s what that would do:

Around 1.5m dead; 4.7m injured. Bloody hell.

We don’t have to stick to Sheffield, of course. Here’s what the same bomb would do to London:

(Near universal fatalities in zones 1 & 2. Widespread death as far as St Albans and Sevenoaks. Third degree burns in Brighton and Milton Keynes. Over 5.9m dead; another 6m injured.)

Everyone in this orange circle is definitely dead.

Or New York:

(More than 8m dead; another 6.7m injured. Fatalities effectively universal in Lower Manhattan, Downtown Brooklyn, Williamsburg, and Hoboken.)

Or, since it’s the biggest city in the world, Tokyo:

(Nearly 14m dead. Another 14.5m injured. By way of comparison, the estimated death toll of the Hiroshima bombing was somewhere between 90,000 and 146,000.)

I’m going to stop there. But if you’re feeling morbid, you can drop a bomb of any size on any area of earth, just to see what happens.


And whatever you do though: do not watch Threads. Just trust me on this.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and also has a Facebook page now for some reason. 

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