The figures in the tables over the next three pages illustrate how a number of associations – such as London & Quadrant, Genesis and Moat – are finding development opportunities in less traditional areas.
An obvious indication of this is the number of low-cost homeownership properties being built. The bulk of these were built in London and the South-east and by larger associations – a reflection of the Housing Corporation's view that larger associations are perhaps better placed to deliver the boost in homes required by the government over the next 15-20 years. The top 30 providers in this area built 9509 homes last year.
Tower Homes, the London division of London & Quadrant, was the leading provider with 1048 homes. It delivered its programme with £19m from the Housing Corporation's shared homeownership and Homebuy budgets, £12m of starter-home initiative funding, £10m from various local authorities and its own money.
Steve Nunn, assistant director at Tower Homes, said its sites were split between planning gain developments with mainstream developers and smaller housing association and local authority projects.
"We aim to build a similar number of homes this year," said Nunn. "Shared ownership is a riskier area than, say, general needs housing, but we had more than 20,000 enquiries for our new-build low-cost housing last year alone. That shows you the extent of demand for what we are doing, so this more than justifies the risk."
Nunn added that he was aware the homeownership taskforce being chaired by Baroness Dean was likely to recommend the overhaul of the low-cost homeownership programme. "The programme works just now, although there is always room for fine tuning," he said.
Shared homeownership generally requires the purchaser to contribute 25% to 50% of the purchase price, with the housing association making up the difference and charging the occupier rent to cover this.
Homebuy works along similar lines, but requires the buyer to contribute a higher proportion of the purchase price – generally about 75%.
The Peabody Trust remains the largest developing association although, as in previous years, the bulk of its homes are built without development grant from the Housing Corporation (see top 50, overleaf). It built 3885 homes last year, but received grant of only £11.34m. This contrasts with Home Group, which built 3539 homes on grant of £54.09m.
Comment: now, it’s all about delivery
Here is a government with big ideas, impatient for quick results, throwing several balls in the air in the hope of getting the outcomes it wants. The flipside of housing’s higher profile is more intervention and, as NHS workers know all too well, the government has no compunction about making a lot of changes in the drive to deliver. Delivering change becomes harder when so much is disrupted. The multiplicity of structures can be overwhelming, with super-regional strategies in the targeted growth and renewal areas, and subregional strategies below. The need for alignment of timetables and thinking with regional strategies is still a distant ambition rather than an achievable goal, and the evolution of regional assemblies in the North is an extra complication. There is more change to come in the drive for delivery. Private developers may well gain access to funding, and there will be a cull of developing housing associations. There is talk of standard layouts and accredited providers. This can look like more disruption, but for the government it is a means of achieving quick results. There is real concern that outputs have fallen despite increased investment. It would be easy, but not necessarily effective, to mount the defensive barricades. This is a one-off chance to make a real difference to housing provision across the country. What matters is what works, and we should challenge what will not work. The test must be outcomes. Standard layouts may not work on brownfield sites and, unless they meet tenants’ needs, will be unpopular. Both increasing and decreasing the pool of developers may be perverse or efficient, but will only succeed if there is attention to neighbourhood ownership and management, safeguards for residents and diversity of tenure. The debate should not be a defensive argument between producers, but that the communities created must be sustainable. That means an emphasis on quality as well as speed of delivery. Can we think of better ideas to improve delivery? Improvements to planning and land supply would be much more effective than redirecting grant, so the delay in the Planning Bill is disappointing. English Partnerships’ role in land assembly becomes critical and the masterplanning and infrastructure of the growth areas are equally vital. The pressure is on for delivery – so let’s join the debate, make sustainable communities the key objective and target change on what will really make a difference.Source
Housing Today
No comments yet