C. W. Smead, CFA’s Post

Really interesting .. I don’t tend to think to much about politics … Adam Lent makes an interesting point .. made me think .. Property for provision vs Property for Profit.. and I get it Adam Lent … is the end to end business model and value chain right for the outcomes the government need to fix the problem .. .. a great example of having targeted outcomes “more housing” but not really nuancing the outcomes enough to consider anything other than the outputs (housing) … and completely missing what needs to change for whom as a result of the outcome ! #deepthought #operatingmodel #outcomes #output #valueforwhom

I do agree with this, to some extent, but again the focus is on blaming private developers and it being 'their' fault. I don't agree with this. The idea that it's not OK to make money from any market is wrong...it pays the taxes that pays for our public services. The biggest proportion of tenants in the PRS, by far, are those on benefits. That's not landlords or developers fault, it's policy failure from governments and LAs/Mayor's of all colours. I do agree that we need many more social homes to rent, but I don't agree that this can't be done through good public and private partnership. I know there are those in my network who do this already. Please post your case studies and how we could get more people to do the amazing work you do!

I struggle with the conclusions in the original article here in truth. I would set aside Nimbyism, which undoubtedly is a factor in driving up the cost to build and therefore cost of houses built. I would also set aside the fact that regulation is ever tightening, often with good reason. The issue to my mind is twofold. One the population is growing far faster than the supply of housing creating an ever growing excess of demand over supply. If we do not intend to control population growth we must massively increase house building to offset the growth in demand. I would expect we will need to build 500k houses per year for the next 10 years if we are ever to impact on this underlying equation. Secondly, we over fixate on the type of houses to build. which is a distraction. We need more of all types; social or otherwise, flats, terraces, semis and detached. We have to stop thinking of housing as an asset to hold as a pension and see it for what it should be, somewhere to live. For singles, couples, families, the elderly and retired. We simply must increase the number of houses to buy and rent. As I'm sure Richard B. of the UKSFA would agree we need More Homes, Everywhere. For Everyone.

Today's tour de force in the Financial Times neatly summarises just about every challenge facing the delivery of housing in the UK. If you want to catch up with all the issues at play, this is a very good place to start. The challenge facing any incoming government is clear - but the consistent message from the real estate industry is that we need evolution not revolution. There are some non-statutory levers that can be pulled, NPPF changes on green-belt, reintroduction of mandatory housing targets and, as we have been asking for since inception, bringing large scale residential development ("garden communities") into the ambit of the Planning Act 2008, elevating housing's status to that of nationally important infrastructure (which it is). There is some great commentary in the article from industry leaders across the housing landscape, but for me the most telling analysis is provided by the Centre for Cities: "Britain’s restrictive, unpredictable and politically permeated planning system has long hindered homebuilding, which peaked in the 1960s and has never fully recovered. If the UK had built houses at the average western European pace between 1955 and 2015, it would have added a further 4.3mn homes to its stock...." [PS - the Conservative Manifesto published today says they will build 1.6m homes in the first 5 years vs 1.5m from Labour. Game on.....] #generalelection24 #manifestoweek #housingcrisis #planningreform #housingdelivery #greenbelt

Yet another in the infinite series of articles that pins the blame for the housing crisis on planning regulation. There are two major unproven assumptions behind this focus: that loosening up planning will lead to loads of houses being built, and that all those new houses will drive down rents and purchase prices. These assumptions run totally counter to the experience of places that do not have a housing crisis like the UK. Vienna, for example, has created decent, affordable homes for a century not by letting the market rip but by having a very strong regulatory framework (much stronger than the UK) and a diversity of state, community and private development and ownership. We must stop endlessly discussing how to give private developers more freedom to build unaffordable houses when and where they want. Instead, let’s focus on how we wean ourselves off a failing system that has, very unfortunately, become a cornerstone of the UK economy leaving governments terrified of the radical change required. #housing #development #property #regeneration https://lnkd.in/e5vs5tkP

Useful overview from my partner Iain Gilbey on this great article in the FT on the challenges facing housing delivery in the UK and what confronts the incoming administration. Including highlighting some of the existing levers that could be pulled by them to facilitate the necessary evolution (as opposed to disruptive change/revolution!).

Speaking to a number of my SME developer clients, some of whom voted Labour for the first time in their lives, I sense a new but cautious level of optimism underpinned by Labour’s promise to get Britain building again. The Chancellor’s maiden speech has certainly ignited a new sense of hope in them which has been severely lacking since the bleak years of the credit crunch. With a strong focus on sustainability, affordable housing, and infrastructure investment, I think we can expect several key impacts for commercial property and land development. 1. Sustainability Initiatives: Labour's commitment to green policies means stricter environmental regulations for new developments. This will drive innovation in sustainable building practices and increase demand for eco-friendly materials and technologies. These policies will also need to address the difficult and potentially costly issue of sustainability in relation to our aging commercial and residential property. 2. Affordable Housing Mandates: Developers may face new requirements to include affordable housing in their projects, including more for social rent. This policy aims to address the housing crisis but will require strategic adjustments in planning and budgeting. 3. Infrastructure Investment: Increased government spending on infrastructure will likely enhance connectivity and accessibility, boosting the attractiveness of certain areas for residential and commercial development. This can lead to new opportunities in previously underdeveloped regions. 4. Planning Changes and Interventions: Labour has promised wide reaching reforms of the planning system and land use policies of brownfield and “grey belt” land along with funding for an extra 300 planning officers to speed up the planning process. The government is already taking swift action to identify and unblock key ‘stalled sites’ to get large housing schemes moving forward, starting with four sites across England to unlock over 14,000 homes: Liverpool Central Docks, Northstowe, Worcester Parkway and Langley Sutton Coldfield. The Chancellor has also welcomed the Deputy Prime Minister’s commitment to make the economic benefit of development a central consideration which has already started by recovering two appealed planning applications for data centres in Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire. 5. Economic Impact: With policies aimed at growth, increasing wages and improving workers' rights, consumer spending power could rise, benefiting both residential and commercial property. However, businesses and developers alike may also face higher operational costs and taxes. The autumn budget is now awaited with bated breath…… There is no doubt that this new era will require a new mindset from everyone involved in the property industry. Both collaboration and innovation will be key. #CommercialProperty #LandDevelopment #LabourGovernment #Sustainability #AffordableHousing #Infrastructure #RealEstate #PropertyDevelopment

This is very insightful and useful - and has relevant elements of interest outside the UK and beyond the new town specific issues. The piece points out that governments sometimes delude themselves that the private sector can build all homes. In this context it says: ' All political parties (in the UK) have committed to delivering at least 300,000 new homes per annum (pa). This is undoubtedly a challenge. In recent years approximately half this number has been delivered(NB: about the same as the Australian output:TW). Still, Labour has recognised that doubling the housing output can’t be achieved through small-scale urban extension/infill, or in a piecemeal manner. It requires government intervention to fix a market failure'. And : 'Up until the 1980s, social housing made up around 45% of all housebuilding. The Labour policy suggests that housebuilders must build that quota. But unless the delivery of such housing is going to be enabled by the Government, it won’t happen. Private capital expects a return on its investment, and even public capital increasingly requires a commercial return. Therefore, access to state funding and patient-capital to deliver a viable development needs to be considered from the outset'. CBRE knows quite a lot about real estate! They think that government housing targets won't be achieved without 'enabling' by government whose 'intervention' is required to 'fix..market failure'. Why do we not here enough about this concept of market failure in housing? And why do centre-left governments in Australia and the UK not realise enough that government intervention beyond 'planning reforms' - a marginal reform that's largely displacement activity for lobbyists - is urgently required because of that market failure?

In her first speech as Chancellor, Rt Hon Rachel Reeves said the Government would consult on reform to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) before the end of July, and restore mandatory housing targets. Lawrence Turner, director at Boyer, believes regional housebuilding plans championed by Gordon Brown’s government are a good place for Labour to start. These regional spatial strategies earmarked areas of green belt land for housing in areas outside London, but were scrapped by the The Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats Democrat Coalition government. He says, “It was just bad timing that then in came the Cameron government, and they brought in localism, and decided that regional planning was undemocratic and it’d be far better to let local people choose where new homes are built and how many, and 14 years later, we don’t have enough new homes, and we don’t have enough homes being built in the right locations.” Click through to read the article in full, and let us know your thoughts in the comments below! #housingtargets #housingcrisis #planningreform #housebuilding #boyer

It has been interesting keeping up with the UK election discussions relating to housing supply and how both sides of politics would seek to address that. One thing is clear, and that is a lot of the housing problem in UK is not dissimilar to that in Australia, or at least Perth. But what is interesting is that the idea of ‘New Towns’ is back on the agenda. For those in not familiar, New Towns were a post WW2 mechanism for creating entirely new towns, complete with not only housing but transport, employment, education, cultural etc. The vision was not ‘housing estates’, not urban incrementalism (‘sprawl’), but for whole new towns with all the required soft and hard infrastructure. But this interesting thing is that they were funded by government and involved massive government investment up front; not a slow trickling out of government money as private capital was invested, and not a developer contribution scheme. Sure it was not perfect, but it was a bold scheme which is back on the agenda for good reason that it delivered what it promised to. In Perth the various players are surely doing what they can within the framework of infill, redevelopment, harnessing ‘lazy land’, fringe development etc, but what if this is not enough? What would it take for us to build ‘New Towns’? And what format would this take? Possibly Karnup could be our Milton Keynes? But what about Metronet sites? Could the New Town approach be used to be able to maximise the benefit of these sites which are already well located within the urban footprint, already have their transport infrastructure, and are not currently surrounded by significant existing development. Here's an interesting podcast about the current UK discussion for those who are interested: https://lnkd.in/eEKpSeFH #planning #urbandesign #housing #socialhousing #affordablehousing #publichousing #communityhousing #tod #transitoriented #housingpolicy #newtowns #perthplanning #metronet #urbansprawl #housingsupply #housingcrisis #housingshortage #apartment #housingdevelopment #morleyellenbrook #karnup