How could a Labour government de-financialise Britain’s housing market?

Some Labour leaders look at some houses. Image: Getty.

To end our crippling housing crisis we first need to dispel the myths about its causes. Housing costs haven’t soared simply because there “aren’t enough homes to go around”: this narrative is popular with anti-migrant campaigners and landowners/developers seeking to tear up planning red tape, but it is not supported by the data. In fact, the number of dwellings in the UK has grown faster than the number of households throughout the decades of house price inflation.  

House price booms and busts in the UK are explained far better by studying drivers of housing demand, than by looking for shortages of supply relative to housing need. Specifically, demand has been inflated by institutional changes – property tax breaks, Buy To Let mortgages, repression of tenants rights, and so on – that have encouraged the treatment of land and homes as financial assets.  

The result is that ordinary buyers have increasingly found themselves in a bidding war with landlords, speculators, second home owners, even international money launderers. Importantly, this bidding war has been fuelled by seismic deregulation of the UK mortgage market, which increased the supply of easy mortgage credit, and created a dangerous feedback loop between the finance and house prices.

One aim of our Land For The Many report, commissioned by the Labour party, and published today, is to explain how such inflationary forces can be brought under control.

We recommend major tax reforms to discourage the use of land and homes as financial assets and share out some of the eye watering unearned windfall gains from house price inflation.

We recommend measures to reduce to the exploitation and insecurity in the private rented sector – reforms that make sense on their own terms, but have the added benefit of dampening demand from Buy-To-Let landlords.

We recommend interventions by the Bank of England to reduce risky and inflationary forms of mortgage lending. We propose planning restrictions on holiday homes. And we recommend a total overhaul of the housing development model, so that builders compete on quality rather than on their ability to navigate the speculative land market. 

What stands in the way of such reforms is not just the power of vested interests, but a fear among policy makers that such reforms will trigger a house price crash. This is not an unreasonable concern: debt-and speculation-fuelled house price rises are always going to be vulnerable to reversal.

Any reform that makes housing less attractive as a financial asset could result in a sudden withdrawal of demand from investors, and potentially prompt some to try and sell. The resulting price drop could in turn make mortgage lenders more cautious about lending at high loan to value ratios, which would suck even more purchasing power out of the market, putting further downward pressure on prices. 

Although many aspiring homeowners would welcome a reduction in house prices, there are political and macroeconomic risks associated with falling prices that must be avoided. In particular, a house price crash would be punishing for households who bought for the first time at the height of the boom, and could push some into negative equity, making it impossible to move or re-mortgage.


On the other hand, a more timid approach to housing reform will leave a whole generation locked out of homeownership: it will take decades to regain a “normal” house price-to-income ratio if we merely slow the rate of house price inflation and wait for wages to catch up. 

Is there a way to reconcile the apparently conflicting interests of homeowners and non-home owners? In today’s report for Labour we float one possible way out of this conundrum. The proposal is to set up a new body – the Common Ground Trust – with three functions.

The first is to support people locked out of home ownership, who would approach the Trust when they have found a house they wanted to buy and ask the Trust to purchase the land underneath the house. The buyers would cover the upfront costs of the bricks and mortar only (which on average account for just 30 per cent of the price of a property), and then pay a land rent to the Trust. This would enable many more people with small deposits to enjoy a form of home ownership, and with it greater security and control over their living space, without taking on imprudent levels of mortgage debt. 

The second function is to facilitate the gradual transfer of land into common ownership, so that the associated unearned land rents can be pooled and distributed according to need, rather than captured by private landowners and banks at society’s expense.

The third function is to stabilise house and land values. If prices are falling too quickly, the Trust would bid slightly above market prices for the land, to slow the price decline. In other words, the Trust would be a lever for supporting stable and sustainable forms of demand in the housing market, to offset the withdrawal of volatile and socially damaging forms of demand. (Importantly, if prices were rising, the Trust would cease to bid at all, until government had brought the inflationary forces under control.)

The Common Ground Trust is an idea in early stages of development, but we believe it is a useful provocation. If we want bold measures to improve the lives of renters, tax property more fairly and avoid a violent house price crash, then we must develop a plan for deflating the housing bubble in slow motion. The Common Ground Trust is a solid starting point for that discussion.  

Beth Stratford is a PhD student, a fellow at the New Economics Foundation, a co-founder of the London Renters Union, and one of the authors of the “Land for the Many” report. You can read the whole thing here.

 
 
 
 

Green roofs improve cities – so why don’t all buildings have them?

The green roof at the Kennedy Centre, Washington DC. Image: Getty.

Rooftops covered with grass, vegetable gardens and lush foliage are now a common sight in many cities around the world. More and more private companies and city authorities are investing in green roofs, drawn to their wide-ranging benefits which include savings on energy costs, mitigating the risk from floods, creating habitats for urban wildlife, tackling air pollution and urban heat and even producing food.

A recent report in the UK suggested that the green roof market there is expanding at a rate of 17 per cent each year. The world’s largest rooftop farm will open in Paris in 2020, superseding similar schemes in New York City and Chicago. Stuttgart, in Germany, is thought of as “the green roof capital of Europe”, while Singapore is even installing green roofs on buses.

These increasingly radical urban designs can help cities adapt to the monumental challenges they face, such as access to resources and a lack of green space due to development. But buy-in from city authorities, businesses and other institutions is crucial to ensuring their success – as is research investigating different options to suit the variety of rooftop spaces found in cities.

A growing trend

The UK is relatively new to developing green roofs, and governments and institutions are playing a major role in spreading the practice. London is home to much of the UK’s green roof market, mainly due to forward-thinking policies such as the 2008 London Plan, which paved the way to more than double the area of green roofs in the capital.

Although London has led the way, there are now “living labs” at the Universities of Sheffield and Salford which are helping to establish the precedent elsewhere. The IGNITION project – led by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority – involves the development of a living lab at the University of Salford, with the aim of uncovering ways to convince developers and investors to adopt green roofs.

Ongoing research is showcasing how green roofs can integrate with living walls and sustainable drainage systems on the ground, such as street trees, to better manage water and make the built environment more sustainable.

Research is also demonstrating the social value of green roofs. Doctors are increasingly prescribing time spent gardening outdoors for patients dealiong with anxiety and depression. And research has found that access to even the most basic green spaces can provide a better quality of life for dementia sufferers and help prevent obesity.

An edible roof at Fenway Park, stadium of the Boston Red Sox. Image: Michael Hardman/author provided.

In North America, green roofs have become mainstream, with a wide array of expansive, accessible and food-producing roofs installed in buildings. Again, city leaders and authorities have helped push the movement forward – only recently, San Francisco created a policy requiring new buildings to have green roofs. Toronto has policies dating from the 1990s, encouraging the development of urban farms on rooftops.

These countries also benefit from having newer buildings, which make it easier to install green roofs. Being able to store and distribute water right across the rooftop is crucial to maintaining the plants on any green roof – especially on “edible roofs” which farm fruit and vegetables. And it’s much easier to create this capacity in newer buildings, which can typically hold greater weight, than retro-fit old ones. Having a stronger roof also makes it easier to grow a greater variety of plants, since the soil can be deeper.


The new normal?

For green roofs to become the norm for new developments, there needs to be buy-in from public authorities and private actors. Those responsible for maintaining buildings may have to acquire new skills, such as landscaping, and in some cases volunteers may be needed to help out. Other considerations include installing drainage paths, meeting health and safety requirements and perhaps allowing access for the public, as well as planning restrictions and disruption from regular ativities in and around the buildings during installation.

To convince investors and developers that installing green roofs is worthwhile, economic arguments are still the most important. The term “natural capital” has been developed to explain the economic value of nature; for example, measuring the money saved by installing natural solutions to protect against flood damage, adapt to climate change or help people lead healthier and happier lives.

As the expertise about green roofs grows, official standards have been developed to ensure that they are designed, built and maintained properly, and function well. Improvements in the science and technology underpinning green roof development have also led to new variations on the concept.

For example, “blue roofs” increase the capacity of buildings to hold water over longer periods of time, rather than drain away quickly – crucial in times of heavier rainfall. There are also combinations of green roofs with solar panels, and “brown roofs” which are wilder in nature and maximise biodiversity.

If the trend continues, it could create new jobs and a more vibrant and sustainable local food economy – alongside many other benefits. There are still barriers to overcome, but the evidence so far indicates that green roofs have the potential to transform cities and help them function sustainably long into the future. The success stories need to be studied and replicated elsewhere, to make green, blue, brown and food-producing roofs the norm in cities around the world.

Michael Hardman, Senior Lecturer in Urban Geography, University of Salford and Nick Davies, Research Fellow, University of Salford.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.