At a housing conference in the north-east recently, I got the chance to ask the audience whether they agreed with the principles of the suggestion that housing associations should be allowed to be effectively privatised.
The proposal, from thinktank Policy Exchange, argued that housing associations only build half the homes they could because of red tape; that they complain that difficult tenants are often assigned to their homes; that councils block their ability to manage their assets; and that if housing associations had more freedom, councils would free up land for development. It proposed allowing housing associations to repay their debts to government in exchange for being freed from these regulations.
I pleaded with delegates to be honest but not a single hand went up. How could this be? Genesis, one of the biggest providers of social housing in London, sponsors and welcomes a report that not a single person in the north appears to agree with.
Those of us working in the north have been known to complain that the government’s housing policy is devised in the Westminster bubble and bears no relation to what is really going on at ground level beyond the M25. So perhaps this could be another example of the of the north-south divide?
But then I started to explore the issues with colleagues in London, the south east and other parts of the country, only to find that no one seems to support the report. Nor does anyone I have spoken to believe the suggestions would increase the number of homes built. In fact, quite the reverse. The chief executive of one of the principal lenders to housing associations described it to me as “deeply flawed”. Peter Marsh, the former chief executive of the Tenant Services Authority, said “the sums don’t add up”. A poll by the Guardian also found the majority oppose it.
How can borrowing more money to repay grant enable housing associations to build more? We cannot escape the consequences of increasing debt repayments unless we rack up the rents.
I value the regulation which the HCA provides; it reduces loan costs (lenders repeatedly say this), provides added protection for tenants and it hasn’t half got associations out of some scrapes (Cosmopolitan is just the most recent example). Many in the sector are calling for the more regulation of the private rented sector, particularly in the light of the appalling situation of the tenants of the New Era estate – former councils houses now in the hands of a private company – who fear eviction after Christmas. Is this really where “freeing” landlords takes us?
The housing association I run regularly disposes of assets in order to invest in new homes and a local authority has never prevented us from doing soOf course, we accept “difficult tenants” into our homes – and long may it continue. As for the suggestion that local authorities would offer additional free land if housing associations stop accepting nominations, words fail me.
From time to time, housing people in the north will scratch their heads wondering how on earth daft ideas such as this reach the light of day, but the fundamental issue here is not of geography but of being in touch with partners and communities. And the ability to pass your maths exams.
Read more:
Tony Stacey is chief executive of South Yorkshire Housing Association and chair of Placeshapers
