How many new homes did England build last year? The housing minister doesn't seem to know

Brandon Lewis probably thinks you need a 12% deposit. Image: Getty.

How many homes are being built in England? Not enough, certainly.

But as the government sets about increasing house building levels, it is important to have a good idea, not just of where we need to get to but where we are at the moment. And I’m not sure the housing minister, Brandon Lewis, really knows where we are at the moment.

Mr Lewis has taken to claiming that there were 181,000 homes built last year. He has repeated this at least twice to my knowledge in the Commons – a fortnight ago in a debate about the Housing & Planning Bill (now an Act of Parliament), and yesterday outlining the newly-announced Neighbourhood Planning and Infrastructure Bill – as well as in various Twitter conversations in recent weeks.

Taking this 181,000 figure at face value, we would be 60-70,000 homes a year short of what most housing economists reckon England needs just to keep up with household growth: to get ahead of demand, we would need even more. So even in a best-case scenario, the shortage is continuing to grow with every passing year (as it has been for at least a couple of decades now).

This is an important point to remember as ministers hail the improvements that have been made in house building levels in recent years: the backlog is still growing at a rate of at least 60-70,000 homes a year.

But that really is a best-case scenario, based on the 181,000 figure that Mr Lewis quotes. Where does this figure come from though? Despite his repeated claims that this is how many homes were “built”, it is no such thing.

Actually, it represents the gross supply of homes in 2014-15. This, crucially, includes not just homes that have been built, but the number created via a change of use from commercial property to residential, of which there were 20,650; and the number of homes created by subdividing existing homes, of which there were 4,950.

The actual number of new-build completions – that is, homes that have actually been built – was, according to the government’s own figures, just 155,080 in 2014-15. So the 181,000 figure that Mr Lewis starts with breaks down like this:

Now, you might argue that 181,000 is the important figure because that is how many homes were added to the housing stock last year. Except it isn’t, because this is the gross supply of homes we are talking about. It fails to take into account the number of demolitions that took place in the same year (many undertaken to make way for the new homes, too).

There were 10,610 demolitions in 2014-15, meaning that the actual increase in the housing stock, the net supply, was 170,690. This is how the minister’s 181,000 figure breaks down if we take out demolitions:

One would expect Mr Lewis to be reasonably well acquainted with that 170,690 figure because it is the headline finding in his department’s annual publication on the “Net supply of housing”, a publication which makes no mention of the 181,000 figure as far as I can see. It is certainly not one that is pushed to the front:

The 181,000 figure is not the only thing that is questionable about Mr Lewis’s repeated statements in this area. He claims too that it represents a 25 per cent increase in the number of homes built:

More than 181,000 homes were built last year… That is a 25 per cent rise last year alone.

But the gross supply figure of 181,000 represented only a 22 per cent rise on the previous year, from 148,670 to 181,300.

Perhaps then he’s talking about new-build completions at that point? No: they only rose by 19 per cent between 2013-14 and 2014-15, from 130,340 to 155,080.

What rose by 25 per cent last year was – as you can see plastered on the front of his department’s publication – the net supply figure, from 136,610 to 170,690. Yet this is not the data he is quoting when he talks of 181,000 homes being “built”.

One final point. As well as overstating how many homes are built, Mr Lewis is also fond of contrasting his 181,000 figure with home many homes were built in the year in which his Labour shadow John Healey was the housing minister (2009-10):

The number of new homes delivered in the past year was not as low as it was under the shadow minister… when it was just 88,000.

The contrast between 181,000 and 88,000 sounds extraordinary. But the 88,000 figure? This is not the gross supply figure (which was 161,200 in 2009-10). It is not the net supply figure (144,870). It is not even the new-build completions figure (124,200).

To find anything resembling 88,000 in this period one needs to look at a completely different dataset, Live Table 208 on house building starts (which housebuilders dislike, incidentally, because it tends to underestimate their output). This records 88,010 starts in 2008-9. Which was actually the year before Mr Healey was housing minister – he was local government minister at that point.


And if we use that data series to look at the government’s house building record last year? Then, the picture is not so flattering. There were still only 137,740 starts in 2014-15. That’s a year-on-year increase of a mere 2.7 per cent (that’s not a typo: two point seven) compared with 2013-14 when there were 134,110.

Confused? I think that might be the idea.

Daniel Bentley is editorial director of the think tank Civitas. He tweet as @danielbentley.

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

 
 
 
 

“Black cabs are not public transport”: on the most baffling press release we’ve seen in some time

An earlier black cab protest: this one was against congestion and pollution. I'm not making this up. Image: Getty.

You know, I sometimes think that trade unions get a raw deal in this country. Reports of industrial action almost always frame it as a matter of workers’ selfishness and public disruption, rather than one of defending vital labour rights; and when London’s tube grinds to a halt, few people will find out what the dispute is actually about before declaring that the drivers should all be replaced by robots at the earliest possible opportunity or, possibly, shot.

We should be a bit more sympathetic towards trade unions, is what I’m saying here: a bit more understanding about the role they played in improving working life for all of us, and the fact that defending their members’ interests is literally their job.

Anyway, all that said, the RMT seems to have gone completely fucking doolally.

TAXI UNION RMT says that the closure of the pivotal Bank Junction to all vehicles (other than buses and bicycles) exposes Transport for London’s (TfL) symptom-focused decision-making and unwillingness to tackle the cause of the problem.

So begins a press release the union put out on Thursday. It’s referring to a plan to place new restrictions on who can pass one of the City of London’s dirtiest and most dangerous junctions, by banning private vehicles from using it.

The junction in question: busy day. Image: Google.

If at first glance the RMT’s words seem reasonable enough, then consider two pieces of information not included in that paragraph:

1) It’s not a TfL scheme, but a City of London Corporation one (essentially, the local council); and

2) The reason for the press release is that, at 5pm on Thursday, hundreds of black cab drivers descended on Bank Junction to create gridlock, in their time-honoured way of whining about something. Blocking major roads for several hours at a time has always struck me as an odd way of trying to win friends and influence people, if I’m frank, but let’s get back to the press release, the next line of which drops a strong hint that something else is going on here:

TfL’s gutlessness in failing to stand-up to multi-national venture capital-backed raiders such as Uber, has left our streets flooded with minicabs.

That suggests that this is another barrage in the black cabs’ ongoing war against competition from Uber. This conflict is odd in its way – it’s not as if there weren’t minicabs offering a low cost alternative to the classic London taxi before Uber came along, but we’ve not had a lengthy PR war against, say, Gants Hill Cars – but it’s at least familiar territory, so it’d be easy, at this point, to assume we know where we are.

Except then it gets really weird.

With buses stuck in gridlock behind haphazardly driven Uber cars – and with the Tube dangerously overcrowded during peak hours – people are turning out of desperation to commuting by bicycle.

Despite its impracticality, there has been an explosion in the number of people commuting by bike. Astonishingly, 30% of road traffic traversing Bank Junction are now cyclists.

Soooo... the only reason anyone might want to cycle is because public transport is now bad because of Uber? Not because it’s fun or healthy or just nicer than being stuck in a metal box for 45 minutes – because of badly driven Ubers something something?

Other things the cabbies will blame Uber for in upcoming press releases: climate change, Brexit, the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war in July 1870, the fact they couldn’t get tickets for Hamilton.

It is time that TfL refused to licence Uber, which it acknowledges is unlawfully “plying for hire”.

Okay, maybe, we can talk about that.

It is time that black cabs were recognised and supported as a mode of public transport.

...what?

It is time that cuts to the Tube were reversed.

I mean, sure, we can talk about that too, but... can you go back to that last bit, please?

RMT General Secretary, Mick Cash, said:

“RMT agrees with proposals which improve public safety, but it is clear that the driving factor behind the decision is to improve bus journey times under a buckling road network.

“Black cabs are an integral part of the public transport system and as the data shows, one of the safest.”

This is all so very mixed up, it’s hard to know where to begin. Black cabs are not public transport – as lovely as they are, they’re simply too expensive. Even in New York City, where the cabs are much, much cheaper, it’d be silly to class them as public transport. In London, where they’re so over-priced they’re basically the preserve of the rich and those who’ve had enough to drink to mistakenly consider themselves such, it’s just nonsense.

Also – if this decision has been taken for the sake of improving bus journey times, then what’s wrong with that? I haven’t run the numbers, but I’d be amazed if that wasn’t a bigger gain to the city than “improving life for the people who take cabs”. Because – as I may have mentioned – black cabs are not public transport.


Anyway, to sum the RMT’s position up: we should invest in the tube but not the buses, expensive black cabs are public transport but cheaper Ubers are the work of the devil, and the only reason anyone would ever go by bike is because they’ve been left with no choice by all those people in the wrong sort of taxi screwing everything up. Oh, and causing gridlock at peak time is a good way to win friends.

Everyone got that straight?

None of this is to say Uber is perfect – there are many things about it that are terrible, including both the way people have mistaken it for a revolutionary new form of capitalism (as opposed to, say, a minicab firm with an app), and its attitude to workers (ironically, what they could really do with is a union). The way TfL is acting towards the firm is no doubt imperfect too.

But the RMT’s attitude in this press release is just baffling. Of course it has to defends its members interests – taxi drivers just as much as tube drivers. And of course it has to be seen to be doing so, so as to attract new members.

But should it really be trying to do both in the same press release? Because the result is a statement which demands TfL do more for cab drivers, slams it for doing anything for bus users, and casually insults anyone on two wheels in the process.

A union’s job is to look after its members. I’m not sure nonsense like this will achieve anything of the sort.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter, far too much, as @jonnelledge.

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