3. Housing and Urban Policy

Housing in Britain is commonly classified according to tenure. The main tenures are owner-occupation, local authority housing, registered social landlords （including housing associations and stock transfers）, and private rented housing.

Since the beginning of the 20th century, there has been a major change in tenure. Owner occupation has grown from 10% to 67% of the stock; private renting has declined from 90% to less than 10%; and a large social housing sector, mainly represented by council housing, grew to about a third before its reduction to less than a quarter. People on low incomes tend now to be concentrated in social rented housing; the average income of council and housing association tenants is just over a quarter of the income of people who are buying houses with a mortgage.

3.1　Owner-occupation

The growth of owner-occupation in Britain is built on a solid legal foundation, stable finance and a history of tax advantages, particularly from the 1960s to the 1990s. The Building Societies were central to this growth. They were founded on a social, co-operative and non-profit making basis, but in the 1990s many became banks, abandoning the mutualist tradition.

Owner-occupiers tend to fall into two main groups. Those who own their house outright are mainly older people, often on fairly low incomes, who have paid off their mortgage. Those who are on higher incomes will generally invest in housing by taking out further mortgages. Whether one is in the process of buying a house or not is strongly related to income.

More recently, a third category of low-income owner-occupation has become more important. Policies to encourage ownership have necessarily been directed at people on lowerincomes, because those on higher incomes were already buying. This expansion has led to other problems, including

● financial hardship when incomes are unstable

● difficulty with the finance companies working at the lower end of the market

● legal problems

● structural problems, because the houses are often inferior, and

● vulnerability to market fluctuations, particularly since the deregulation of the market in the late 1980s.

3.2　Social Housing

Local authority housing grew after World War I; 2 million houses were built before 1939, over 4 million more after the war. Initially, council housing was intended for the “working classes”. The main justification for its development after 1919 was the provision of housing for general needs, but after 1930, it became focused on people displaced after slum clearance. The stigma of council housing probably dates from this period: council estates were built in locations where they would not adversely affect the values of owner-occupied property.

After World War II, references to the “working classes” were removed. The replacement of the housing stock, particularly through clearances, became council housing’s main role, with mass building. The subsidies favoured industrial, high-rise building, though this was often more expensive than the alternatives. Quantity was more important than quality.

Housing policy changed after 1970, when political support for council housing was withdrawn by the Conservatives. In the 1970s and 1980s, council housing acquired a more residual role, and is now more concerned with welfare issues and special needs. General subsidies have been progressively withdrawn; for most tenants they have been replaced by Housing Benefit. The sale of council housing to tenants, and mass transfers of stock to Registered Social Landlords, have reduced the numbers. As the role of council housing has diminished, Housing Associations have been encouraged to take over the limited opportunities for development.

3.3　Private Rented Housing

Private rented housing declined proportionately after 1919, because the growth of owner-occupation and local authority housing took out a large part of the market. Since the 1920s, it has been cheaper to buy than to rent, and capital values have been dictated by sale toowner-occupiers. As the stock aged, it bore the brunt of clearance. The sector declined numerically from 1945 to the late 1980s.

The decline of the sector has been marked by poor standards and abuse by landlords. Deregulation in 1957, intended to revitalise the sector, had the reverse effect; it facilitated the exit of landlords from the market. The Rent Acts of the 1960s were designed to protect tenants from abuse and to give them some security. The law was widely disregarded by landlords and by the courts; in so far as regulation did have an effect, it was probably to slow down the rate of decline by preventing landlords from selling. In the 1980s, the Government proposed further deregulation—seemingly a repetition of the policy of 1957. The loss of capital value in the owner-occupied market has shored up the private rented sector, because owners have been forced to let properties while waiting for prices to rise again, but this is clearly temporary.

The sector survives now principally because of limited specialist markets, such as student accommodation, the desire of some owners to have some income until they can sell at a favourable rate, and the government’s subsidy of rents through Housing Benefit. There tends to be more private renting in certain areas, when there is a special market for short term lettings, such as holiday lets, or a student population.

3.4　Problem Estates

The “worst estates” have become a central focus of policies dealing with “social exclusion”. Their problems are the problems of poverty. People who are poor live differently: they are stuck at home more, they cannot afford enough heat to avoid damp. Rich people without young children would not have the same problems. Examples of problems in poor areas are:

● Vandalism. There is inadequate play space in or outside the home.

● Rubbish. It may cost money to have large items of rubbish removed.

● Home maintenance. Maintenance of homes and gardens costs money for equipment, which many poor people do not have.

● Lack of community facilities. Shops and facilities are not economically viable.

● Empty housing. Housing is left empty because the area is unattractive. A bad house in a good area would still be taken.

● Design. There is a clear connection between bad design and problems like vandalism, rubbish and graffiti. The problems with high-rise blocks have been lack of play space, isolation, disposal of rubbish; noise insulation, reliance on lifts which are often dirty, vandalised orbroken; inadequate water pressure, and insecurity because of fears of fire, building movement or crime. Changes in the use of high-rise blocks have shown a much higher level of satisfaction with them by the new tenants.

3.5　Urban Deprivation and the Inner Cities

Housing conditions in many cities are particularly unsatisfactory; the houses are old and in poor condition. A series of policies since the late 1960s have focused on the problems of deprivation in inner city areas. Much of the concern with the inner cities grew from an attempt to produce an acceptable racial policy. Despite this, Rex states that ethnic minorities did not get even a proportionate share of resources from policies for the inner cities.

The basic criticisms of inner city policy are:

● the majority of poor people do not live in the inner cities.

● the majority of people living in the inner cities are not poor.

● the definition of deprived areas has been suspect. The reason Hackney appears to be more deprived than Glasgow is that its boundaries are smaller and so richer neighbouring areas are disregarded.

● the indicators used—like car ownership—have a bias towards urban areas.

● even if the premises of area-based policies are accepted, there are major concentrations of deprivation on the edges of cities.