General Discussion
Having read over the years of numerous developments with their proportion of affordable housing, I realised that I had never seen a definiton of the term. However, it was obvious to me that, whatever the definition, the overwhelming majority of the homes in these developments were not "affordable."
I have found the definition on http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/housingstatistics/definitiongeneral/
Social and affordable housing
Affordable housing includes social rented and intermediate housing, provided to specified eligible households whose needs are not met by the market. Affordable housing should:
meet the needs of eligible households including availability at a cost low enough for them to afford, determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices; and
include provisions for:
the home to be retained for future eligible households; or
if these restrictions are lifted, for any subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision.
Social rented housing is rented housing owned and managed by local authorities and HAs, for which guideline target rents are determined through the national rent regime. It may also include rented housing owned or managed by other persons and provided under equivalent rental arrangements to the above, as agreed with the local authority or with the Homes and Communities Agency as a condition of grant.
Intermediate affordable housing is housing at prices and rents above those of social rent but below market price or rents, and which meet the criteria set out above. These can include shared equity (eg HomeBuy) and other low cost homes for sales, and intermediate rent.
As a bear of very little brain, I cannot understand why we do not have developments that are 100% affordable. The overwhelming need in Teignmouth and Dawlish seems to me to be for affordable housing and the requirement for large numbers of more expensive homes seems less clear.
I am not in need of political education but I would be grateful if someone could explain to me why an apparently staightforward requirement cannot be fulfilled.
Where would the money come from 1. to build them and 2. to subsidise them (rents payable below market level)?
No money from Central Gov. Therefore up to private sector to build. Private sector needs to make profit. Therefore in order for social housing to be built private houses also have to be built (and enough of 'em) for private developer to make a profit. If it's anticipated that market houses will make enough profit for developer then social housing gets built. If not, then it's usually a trip back to the planning authority to ask for permission to reduce the % of affordable housing to be built. Does that sound familiar? It should do, it's happened in Teignbridge often enough.
That's my take on the situation for what it's worth but like you Don I am no expert on this matter.
Lynne,
Thanks. I know that these are the standard arguments. I find it hard to believe that the developers are not able to build affordable units and still make a profit, albeit smaller than they want. For instance, look at this fruit of ten minutes research http://www.building.co.uk/news/affordable-housing-boosts-morgan-sindall-profit/3071846.article
In any event, it is ludicrous to enter into deals that involve building a large proportion of homes of a type that may not be needed in order to obtain a small proportion of homes that are.
Don
Don't disagree with you Don. Tell you what, why not pose your question(s) to our MP and then let us know what she says.
I bet one of her (and others) counter-arguments to your saying that a large number of market homes are not needed is that they are needed because there is a national housing shortage. Question is though....is there a shortage of open market houses in Dawlish? No? So in that case, and as you say, why not just build the 'affordable' ones.
Lynne,
As I was writing the initial post I realised that it would form the basis for a letter. I shall research further as I want to be able to preempt any stock answers by showing that I have already considered them.
Don,
For TDC's 'line' on why Dawlish needs so many open market and affordable houses I suggest you try contacting Simon Thornley at TDC. He is TDC's Service Manager, Spatial Planning & Design.
Hi Don,
How are you getting on with your research?
I assure you that despite Rainbow1's comments above there are quite a few of us in Dawlish who are very appreciative of your concern and interest in the town.
Best
Lynne
Lynne,
There are so many plans and studies and policies that it is difficult to make sense of it all. Everything I look at references something else.
I am ploughing my way slowly through the Affordable Housing Economic Viability Study from November 2010 http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=27555&p=0
and its appendices http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=27556&p=0
The extract below from Appendix 1 summarises the problem in language I understand:
1.2 Teignbridge district has among the lowest proportion of social housing in the South West at 10% and contains a higher proportion of larger properties than the sub regional average. 1.3 Affordability is an increasing issue with those that are earning average wages still not being able to afford to buy given the trends in the average property price to earnings ratios. 1.4 The level of affordable housing completions over the last 5 years has been relatively low with a shortfall in dwelling provision against Structure Plan requirements. These trends cannot continue if TDC are to achieve the total requirements of affordable housing identified in the ETSHMA or in the emerging Regional Spatial Strategy. ETSHMA = Exeter and Torbay Strategic Housing Market Assessment Work in progress, Don
Also interesting as part of understanding the problem:
http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/Pages/20090226teignbridge.aspx
and
The nub of the problem about the Dawlish Plan is the conflict between meeting Social Need and producing a realistic, achievable plan. The figures suggest that these can’t be reconciled so something has to give.
From e-mail exchanges with TDC I understand that the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) implies that 40 affordable houses will be needed per annum over the next 20 years, or 800 in total. This includes projected population growth and an apparent existing shortfall in affordable homes in Dawlish.
So this is the conflict:
1. Forecasts based on population or household growth (see calculations in other discussion thread) suggest at most 1400 new homes are required. But this results in only 420 affordable homes under the political target of 30% - way short of what TDC is saying is required.
2. Starting instead from TDC’s forecast of 800 affordable homes required means that 2660 new homes would have to be built to secure funding from the political target. This figure has somehow been “toned down” in a Steering Group planning session (which has been referred to as just a game) to 2000. So this figure of 2000 still results in only 600 affordable homes, or 200 short of the starting target.
AND THAT IS IF developers will actually build 2000 homes. If the population forecasts show a need for only 1400 new homes then developers will soon see that through the level of market demand and they will downscale their building programme accordingly so we’d still end up will only 1400 new homes including 420 affordable houses.
So either way is Plan is raising expectations which can not be met and is therefore an unrealistic and misleading plan. The forecast income will not be achieved so the infrastructure proposals will not be achieved.
Right here goes I dont give a toss whether the figures are right or wrong, whatever is built affordable or social I just wish they would get on with it for the sake of our children and grandchildren. Its no good protesting or analizing all the time you cant halt progress no matter how much you want to. This Im alright jack philosophy really pisses me off. Do you not think our forefathers felt the same but it didnt stop progress did it. All of you get a life and be grateful for what you have, others are not so fortunate.
rant over
Fair enough Brazilnut, you may not give a toss whether the figures are right or wrong but obviously others of us do.
This "I'm alright Jack philosophy" to which you refer. I cannot speak for others, but you can have no idea how ironic that accusation is if you are aiming it at the likes of me and mine.
The planning system now is such that people will be asked for their opinions more and more. So I guess there will be more of this analysing not only in Teignbridge but across the country.
It's called Localism.
But Lynne sometimes too much information has the opposite effect!!!! it bores people to death!!! out of the last 40 postings 16 have been from you on this subject the only other one was about the geese, you scour newspapers for different bits of info different gov websites all so you can inform us lowly people who have better things to do. Yes I am interested in what happens in Dawlish but not to the state of all consuming, Im surprised Sue Haskell hasnt been on here pushing her opinions on us, but maybe she has!!!!!!!!!!!!
I used to enjoy looking on here and having a debate and also a bit of banter but Im afraid youve destroyed that for me
Then, quite simply Brazilnut, (and others) start your own threads!
What has been posted may bore you (and some others) but obviously not all who visit this website as they have also been contributing to the debate.
Maybe if you lived on the edge of a field that is about to be built on knowing full well that the value of your property is going to go down the pan because the view and the setting of your home is going to be right next door to these new homes, then maybe you would give a toss.
You are lucky to own a house or maybe not see it isnimbyism at work, I already have houses all around me and always have, but then Im 1 of the lucky ones my owner is a social landlord and maybe my kids will have a chance 1 day for a place of their own( if you people let these homes be built) without having to leave their hometown.
Sorry about the statistics etc but if someone doesn't do the analysis (which is what the TDC and Steering Group is supposed to be doing) then all you'll get is an unrealistic plan which won't benefit anyone including children and grand-children. At least by challenging what is being presented to us as "fact" we have a chance of influencing the Plan in the right direction. Anyway, you'll be glad to know that I'm analysed out (for now anyway!!). Cheers.
Nothing on this thread written by Lynne, NeilH or myself has been saying that houses should not be built at all or that they should not be built in a particular place. Indeed, my reason for starting it under the heading "Affordable Housing" was because I believe that people throughout the area should be properly housed, now and in the future, without having to leave the area. I did not want to post under a heading relating to a particular development because I live in Teignmouth, not Dawlish. However, we are affected by the same housing issues here and across Teignbridge and beyond.
Serious point made, I don't have to be boring - I'm just good at it.
Don
Let us just say that these homes do get built. Why are you presuming that they will go to the children and grandchildren of those of us already living in Dawlish? They might. But as far as I know there is nothing to say that will definitely be the case.
And for that reason, and many many more, that is why the likes of me, DP and Neilh are asking all these questions, looking at the stats etc.