At the core of the popular debate around housing today is the numbers game: we need to build somewhere between 200,000 and 300,000 new homes a year (depending on which of the dizzying array of analyses you accept), but last year we only managed to put down 141,000 properties.
The longer this state of torpor continues, the worse the problem. The gap between housing need and available housing stock widens year-on-year despite efforts to loosen up the planning system, prevent housebuilders from sitting on empty land and tackle nimbyism which stalls new developments in popular areas where they are most needed. No wonder the coalition government is receiving a regular drubbing over its record on housing.
Focusing on the numbers makes the idea of a housing crisis easier to understand for those who have not experienced its effects first hands. But though it’s a useful message, concentrating on numbers alone simplifies and even disguises the more complex problems that the housing crisis creates.
Housing is not just about shelter: it is a strong indicator of outcomes in a whole range of other areas from education to health and even longevity. Children who grow up with a stable home are more likely to succeed at school, and those born into unfit housing are more likely to suffer from respiratory illness and other conditions.
There is good quality evidence to back up the fact that spending on good quality housing saves money elsewhere in the public sector. Research focusing on health reveals that, of the estimated 25,400 excess winter deaths in 2009-10, almost a fifth (21%) were attributable to cold housing and the effects of fuel poverty. Children living in overcrowded accommodation are up to 10 times more likely to contract meningitis. Meanwhile, social landlords offer more than just housing: according to the National Housing Federation, housing associations collectively spend £400m a year on projects such as transport for isolated tenants, training and employment for young people, and parenting skills classes. Spending on social housing prevents a ratcheting up of knock-on costs to the NHS, schools, welfare costs and the criminal justice system.
The problem is that the figures I have quoted, though compelling, all date back to 2011. There has been little comprehensive work (outside quantifying the cost of welfare reform) showing the cumulative, positive impact of the social housing sector in the years of the coalition government. That’s partly to do with timescales: these studies take time. The problem is that, to make their case, housing professionals need it today.
One useful report from Lankelly Chase Foundation, authored by academics at Heriot-Watt University, reveals just how interlinked public sector costs are for many homeless people.
It showed a huge overlap of individuals known to drug treatment centres, homelessness charities and providers and the criminal justice system. Two thirds of homeless people are already known by one of the other services, and a third are working with all three. Yet as the charity’s chief executive, Julian Corner, points out the three sectors are “all pursuing different strategies” which unnecessarily costs the public purse extra money.
Though it is limited by its small scope, this research is important as it provides clear evidence that makes the case for reform of these services in a way which will benefit existing homeless clients, but also prevent future homelessness.
We need more research of this type. We need to understand exactly how housing - both social housing and investment in other tenures - impacts on spending elsewhere on public services, and how it relates to quality of life for our citizens. And we need more of this research now, as different groups start jostling for position as manifestos are drawn up and an army of backroom policy makers inside Whitehall start preparing for five years of government that is, today, still entirely unpredictable.
