As a number of Local Authorities pass resolutions in favour of social housing, Councillor Harry Harpham, of Sheffield City Council, blogs for us about the thinking behind ensuring his city has access to a supply of the best tenure of homes.

I am the Housing Lead at Sheffield City Council and the Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Brightside (currently David Blunkett’s seat.” At the end of last year my Council passed a motion in support of SHOUT (Social Housing Under Threat). Here’s why.

The Green Party leader, Natalie Bennett, attended the launch of the SHOUT campaign on 18^th June last year. Now, just 8 months later, the party has committed itself to the key plank of SHOUT’s programme – to build 100,000 social rented homes a year. You can read the press statement here and the policy background here.

Make no mistake, this is a ground-breaking and singular success for SHOUT, a cross-party campaign that is barely eight months' old and has almost no resources (but plenty of committed people).

There is clear evidence that the Greens have digested the SHOUT manifesto, because in announcing the new policy their housing spokesman Tom Chance said, “Social housing has provided decent, affordable homes for millions of people over the past 150 years.” I recognised these words at once (because I wrote them) and they appear on page 5 of the SHOUT manifesto.

The details of how the new policy will be implemented don’t bear close scrutiny – the numbers on Page 5 don’t quite add up and the abolition of mortgage interest relief for private landlords might not square the circle to pay for it, since landlords would leave the market and tax revenues would fall. Ramping up production from a standing start would also be difficult to achieve. But these are minor quibbles, it is the intention that counts.

It’s clear that the Green Party policy on housing is developing along the right lines and is ahead of many other parties. Steve Hilditch has already provided an elegant critique here, which pre-dates this latest announcement. My Twitter colleague Nathan Drewett had an email exchange with the Green’s policy people that also helps to clarify a few issues. Writing as a potential supporter Nathan posed three questions about their commitment to housebuilding targets, their stance on greenfield and Green Belt development tand heir policy aim of spreading homes more evenly across the UK.

The response from their policy team suggests that their main emphasis will be on empty homes and brownfield land, with a bias against any greenfield development. They also want to re-distribute jobs to parts of the country where there is a surplus of homes. The Greens would “…strengthen legislation to protect the greenbelt. The greenbelt should be protected by minimising greenbelt development wherever possible. We believe the countryside should be revitalised, to let rural communities thrive”, they said.

This seems rather contradictory since you can’t stimulate the rural economy by putting a blanket ban on development in the Green Belt and I’m not sure their policy people understand that the Green Belt is not co-terminous with greenfield (the Green Belt is around 13 percent of England’s land area but 46 percent of England’s area is “other countryside” and exempt from statutory protection, such as Green Belt, SSSI, AONB and National Park). I’ve written numerous blogs pointing out that brownfield land on its own is insufficient to meet medium and long-term housing needs.

However, Tom Chance, in a twitter exchange last Thursday with a few SHOUT supporters seemed more amenable to a flexible approach on greenfield. It’s clearly the case that well planned urban extensions and new settlements providing low-carbon homes in self-sufficient communities that aim to reduce commuting (particularly commuting that leapfrogs the green belt) can be more “green” than unplanned growth. Tom appears to acknowledge this - “…we see a role for reviews to address leapfrogging” he said. He also states that “a lot of brownfield should be retained as wildlife rich”. Both statements are sound and sensible.

All in all this is a significant step forward for the SHOUT campaign, so well done to the Green Party! This progressive policy could have a big impact upon undecided voters who see housing as a key election issue, so the other parties will need to draw conclusions on the wall and reflect upon their housing offer to the nation. The challenge now for SHOUT is to persuade the other main parties to follow suit.

Note: this blog by Colin Wiles also appeared on the Inside Housing Website on the 9th February 2015.

While members and supporters of the SHOUT campaign are getting underway with contacting MPs and prospective parliamentary candidates ahead of the General Election, we're also getting great feedback from Local Authorities.

This week saw an announcement from Nottingham City Council that they are joining the growing number of local authorities who are making a commitment to the Social Housing Under Threat manifesto. This is particularly pleasing for me as it’s where I grew up and Nottingham City Council is where I started my career. When I worked for them, they had 47,000 council homes, now the social rented stock in the city including that of Housing Associations as well as Nottingham City Homes is 35,000.

There was some good news for uk housing last week, with evidence both of growing concern about the housing crisis and growing support for housebuilding, writes Colin Wiles.

First, a survey by IPSOS MORI showed that three quarters of the public (but only two thirds of MPs) agree that “there is a housing crisis in Britain”. As with previous surveys, the proportion who believe there is a crisis in their local areas is much lower – 48 percent for the general population and 40 percent for MPs. Given that MPs spend much of their time dealing with housing problems it seems perverse that fewer of them believe that the country has a housing crisis than the public as a whole, but perhaps that shows the undue influence of the nimby electorate in some areas (more on this below). But 86 percent of MPs disagreed with the statement that “there isn’t much that British governments can do to deal with Britain’s housing problem’’. So our politicians appear to recognise that they have the power to solve the crisis, even though they appear to have done precious little about it in recent years.

The second item of good news was a report, via Shelter, showing that the level of opposition to new homes is falling across all voter groups. Research from the British Social Attitudes Survey showed that the level of opposition to new homes had fallen significantly between 2010 and 2013. In 2010 not one voter group expressed overall support for more homes being built in their local area, but by 2013 every voter group supported new homes in their locality. This decline in NIMBY opposition to homes cuts across all age groups and was particularly marked among the 55-65 and the 65+ age groups, the demographic who tend to be most active in opposing new homes.

Unfortunately, this does not appear to be reflected on the ground. My impression is that the number of local groups opposing new homes has mushroomed over the past three years, since the implementation of the NPPF. I try to keep a track of these via the local press and twitter and have clashed with a number of them on occasion, often fruitlessly, but it’s important to keep engaging, I feel. Often their rhetoric is based on misinformation or pure emotion, rather than rationality. In some areas, they are even seeking election as councillors. For example in Uttlesford and the Surrey Green Belt. I hope they are walloped. Most of these groups are given a free ride, with the local press reporting their activities uncritically.

As with most things in life, it is often easier to get steamed up in opposition to something, but I have long wondered why there have been so few protests FOR housing rather than against it. For young people, in particular, the prospects of buying or renting anywhere affordable and decent are retreating and yet they appear to possess a general air of passivity and acceptance that the “powers that be” know best. They don’t, and we need to encourage a more robust approach. Be less polite, as Grainia Long once said.

But I sense a growing groundswell of housing activism. From the E15 mothers to the New Era estate, from a proliferation of local groups to last weekend’s March for Homes it is heartwarming to see people getting steamed up about housing issues, at last. Everyone involved in UK housing has a job on their hands to encourage and support this activism. We can best do this by repeating key facts about the housing crisis and trying to break down the walls of ignorance that surround any discussion of housing matters. But we also have a duty to engage with the wider world and those groups that oppose housebuilding. We also need to be much better at standing up for the affordable housing sector and to trumpet its proud achievements.

For the SHOUT campaign, it is not enough just to support new housebuilding. Of course, we endorse the Homes for Britain campaign, how could we not? But we need to make the case that affordability needs to be central to any surge in housebuilding. That is why our core message of investing in at least 100,000 social rented homes each year in England needs to be repeated again and again and again.

With barely 90 days until one of the most important elections in a generation every day counts.

(Note: This blog was also posted on the Inside Housing website on 04/02/20115, with the exception of the penultimate paragraph)

Last week saw the launch of a report I wrote last year: “Are Housing Associations Ready for an Ageing Population?” Thank you Genesis Housing for sponsoring a piece of work which, I hope, will help the sector and government work towards the medium term plan we need to meet the housing needs of the growing older population.

This piece originally featured on 24Dash.com and is reproduced here with their kind permission

A number of events all came about with a sort of serendipity last week, although there was nothing particularly fortunate about some of the coincidence.

Last week, there were a number of things in and around the continuous news-from-housing that pours into my consciousness through Twitter, that coalesced into this piece. They don't all bind together perfectly, but there's a theme that runs through them around the 'privatisation' of housing associations.

This piece originally featured on 24Dash.com and is shown here with their kind consent.

Imagine you lived in a remote village with a single store. Because you have no access to internet, car or bus you and your neighbours have no choice but to shop there. For the past twelve years its prices have increased well above inflation. The shop has carried out a few repairs and improvements of late, but its basic service is unchanged and its operating costs are broadly stable. Interest rates have been at historically low levels for years past, so borrowing costs are also low.

(From an article published in June 2014)

The SHOUT campaign (social housing under threat) got off to a great start with a successful launch event in Parliament last night. Speakers from the Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Green parties spoke in support of the importance of social rented housing as a major part of solving the housing crisis.

Social housing – council housing in plain terms in earlier years – has transformed countless lives over the decades. For some a safety net, for others a springboard, for nearly all a decent home, council housing has met the basic human need for shelter for millions for whom the free market has failed.

Well, if Mr Jamie Ratcliff, a £100,000 a year housing official at the Greater London Authority, is right, Red Brick is ‘lazy’ and ‘facile’ in our opposition to the ‘Affordable Rent’ programme. Fortunately we are not alone, being joined by an increasing number of commentators, housing officials and people who work for organisations that deliver the scheme.