Boris Johnson declared this week that he remains “on track” to deliver 50,000 more affordable homes in London. But other politicians — less adept than Boris at exiting from a tight spot — seem to be calculating that housing is a subject on which it is less safe to voice a firm opinion, than, say, Gina Ford’s baby care methods.
This reticence could also arise from a belief that the property market’s stabilisation has lessened public concern. But this would be a mistaken view. There are various issues that could cause difficult questions as the election approaches, such as the banks’ reluctance to lend, despite taxpayer subsidy. This remains a source of huge resentment and, indeed, the anger has a new focus. There are many half-finished housing developments, “mothballed” for lack of funds. Work has resumed at some sites, but the banks are — quietly — opting to aid only projects in locations such as Chiswick in west London, where prices had returned to their 2007 level by October 2009.
Are candidates for seats in less favoured spots, where stalled construction sites are depressing prices, ready to explain why the banks’ commitment to make finance more available only seems to apply to places where bankers like to live?
Another row is brewing over funds for affordable housing. The Government denies any current shortage. But ministers are spending today cash that was allocated for 2011, in a tactic clearly aimed at thwarting Conservative ambitions.
The more immediate effect of this strategy, however, could be to hamper forward planning at housing associations. These are the bodies that provide social housing (many councils have little to do with “council houses”), but are also involved in private sector development, mainly for first-time buyers. There are warnings that, if housing associations are starved of money, they will cut back on their private sector work — which supports their social housing activities. The losers will be people on low incomes and those who had hoped to buy property from housing associations via shared equity or similar deals.
Advertisement
You might think that Labour would be trying to garner the votes of both these groups. But the party is obviously giving little thought to its own, or anyone else’s policies, otherwise it would be whipping up criticism of Tory proposals under which more planning decisions would be made at a local level. Many housebuilders are arguing — privately, for the moment — that this will exacerbate already entrenched Nimbyist attitudes and ensure that even fewer homes are built.
Maybe, in the wake of the expenses scandal, politicians’ awkwardness about property should not be a surprise. But, out of fear of duck house jibes, are they choosing to ignore houses for humans?
What price a tree?
The Communities and Local Government’s (CLG’s) latest index — based on data from 40 mortgage lenders — shows the average house price increasing to £200,454.
Northern Ireland is the only laggard, down 11.6 per cent in 2009. The CLG’s figures, like everyone else’s, are flattered by the performance of the capital’s “bonus belt”. Savills’ numbers show prime central London up 8.8 per cent last year. The performance of the Central Line neighbourhoods has been particularly strong: this line takes you from Notting Hill to Bank in 15 minutes ensuring you stay in that lucrative City job.
Advertisement
This news could further increase public ire against the City boys, but at least they are not resorting to the methods employed by some residents in Poole, Dorset, to further increase the value of their homes. As revealed this week, they are either sawing down or poisoning pines and oaks that block the value-boosting view across Poole Harbour. Maybe Poole should be making more use of CAVAT (Capital Asset Value for Amenity Trees) system, which puts prices on priceless trees.
The plane tree in Berkeley Square has been valued at £750,000.