Housing in the United Kingdom

Rapid population growth took place in the nineteenth century, particularly in cities. The new homes were arranged and funded via building societies that dealt directly with large contracting firms.[9][10] Private renting from housing landlords was the dominant tenure. People moved in so rapidly that there was not enough capital to build adequate housing for everyone, so low-income newcomers squeezed into increasingly overcrowded slums. Clean water, sanitation, and public health facilities were inadequate; the death rate was high, especially infant mortality, and tuberculosis among young adults.[11][12][13]

The rapid expansion of housing was a major success story of the interwar years, 1919–1939, standing in sharp contrast to the United States, where the construction of new housing practically collapsed after 1929. The total housing stock in England and Wales was 7,600,000 in 1911; 8,000,000 in 1921; 9,400,000 in 1931; and 11,300,000 in 1939.[14]

The private rent market provided 90% of the housing before the war. Now it came under heavy pressure, regarding rent controls, and the inability of owners to evict tenants, except for non-payment of rent. The tenants had a friend in Liberal Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, and especially in the increasingly powerful Labour Party. The private rent sector went into a prolonged decline and never recovered; by 1938, it covered only 58% of the housing stock.[15]

Becontree housing estate built in the 1920s in London suburbs

A decisive change in policy was marked by the Tudor Walters Report of 1918; it set the standards for council house design and location for the next ninety years.[16][17] It recommended housing in short terraces, spaced at 70 feet (21 m) at a density of twelve to the acre.[18] With the Housing, Town Planning, &c. Act 1919 David Lloyd George set up a system of government housing that followed his 1918 election campaign promises of "homes fit for heroes." It required local authorities to survey their housing needs, and start building houses to replace slums. The treasury subsidised the low rents. The immediate impact was the prevalence of the three-bedroom house, with kitchen, bathroom, parlour, electric lighting, and gas cooking, often built as subsidised council housing. Major cities such as London and Birmingham built large-scale housing estates – one in Birmingham had a population of 30,000 residents. The houses were built in blocks of two or four using brick or stucco, with two storeys. They were set back from curving streets; each had a long garden. Shopping centres, churches and pubs sprang up nearby. Eventually, the city would provide a community hall, schools, and a public library. The residents typically were the upper fifth stratum of the working-class. The largest of these two communities was Becontree in the outer suburbs of London, where construction began in 1921, and by 1932 there were 22,000 houses holding 103,000 residents.[19] Slum clearance now moved from being a public health issue, to a matter of town planning.[20]

Liberal MP Tudor Walters was inspired by the garden city movement, calling for spacious low-density developments and semi-detached houses built to a high construction standard. Older women could now vote. Local politicians consulted with them and in response put more emphasis on such amenities as communal laundromats, extra bedrooms, indoor lavatories, running hot water, separate parlours to demonstrate their respectability, and practical vegetable gardens rather than manicured yards. The housewives had had their fill of chamber pots.[21][22] Progress was not automatic, as shown by the troubles of rural Norfolk. Many dreams were shattered as local authorities had to renege on promises they could not fulfill due to undue haste, impossible national deadlines, debilitating bureaucracy, lack of lumber, rising costs, and the unaffordability of rents by the rural poor.[23]

In England and Wales, 214,000 multi-unit council buildings were built by 1939; making the Ministry of Health largely a ministry of housing.[24] Council housing accounted for 10% of the housing stock in the UK by 1938, peaking at 32% in 1980, and dropping to 18% by 1996, where it held steady for the next two decades.[25][26][27][28]

The fierce debates over high-rise housing that took place after 1945 were presaged by an acrimonious debate in the 1920s and 1930s in London. On the political left there was firm opposition to what were denounced as "barracks for the working-classes". Reformers on the right called for multi-storey solutions to overcrowding and high rents. There were attempts at compromise by developing new solutions to urban living, focused especially on slum clearance and redevelopment schemes. The compromises generally sought to replace inhospitable slums with high-rise blocks served by lifts. In the Metropolitan Borough of Stepney they included John Scurr House (built 1936–1937), Riverside Mansions (1925–1928) and the Limehouse Fields project (1925 but never built).[29]

Increasingly the British ideal was home ownership, even among the working class. Rates of home ownership rose steadily from 15 percent of people owning their own home before 1914, to 32 percent by 1938, and 67 percent by 1996. The construction industry sold the idea of home ownership to upscale renters. The mortgage lost its old stigma of a millstone round your neck to instead be seen as a smart long-term investment in suburbanized Britain. It appealed to aspirations of upward mobility and made possible the fastest rate of growth in working-class owner-occupation during the 20th century.[30] [31] The boom was largely financed by the savings ordinary Britons put into their building societies. Starting in the 1920s favourable tax policies encouraged substantial investment in the societies, creating huge reserves for lending. Beginning in 1927, the societies encouraged borrowing through gradual liberalization of mortgage terms.[32]

A million new homes Labour Party poster

Vote Conservative for more houses

Housing was a critical shortage in the post-war era. Air raids had destroyed half a million housing units; repairs and maintenance on undamaged homes had been postponed. 3,000,000 new dwellings were needed. The government aimed for 300,000 to be built annually, compared to the maximum pre-war rate of 350,000. However, there were shortages of builders, materials, and funding. The Ministry of Works undertook the publication of a set of Post War Building Studies, that established technical guidelines for the use of new or modernised building materials. Not counting 150,000 temporary prefabricated units, the nation was still 1,500,000 units short by 1951. Legislation kept rents down, but did not affect purchased houses. The ambitions of the New Towns Act 1946 project were idealistic, but did not provide enough urgently needed units. When the Conservative Party returned to power in 1951, they made housing a high priority and oversaw 2,500,000 new units, two-thirds of them through local councils. Haste made for dubious quality, and policy increasingly shifted toward renovation rather than new builds. Slums were cleared, opening the way for gentrification in the inner cities.[33]

Working-class families proved eager to purchase their council homes when the Thatcher ministry introduced the "Right to Buy" scheme in 1980, alongside restricting the construction of new council houses.[34]

Permanent dwellings completed in England by tenure type

According to a 2018 study in the Economic History Review, the ‘stop-go’ macroeconomic policy framework adopted by the Treasury and the Bank of England from the mid-1950s to the early 1980s restricted house-building during the period.[35]

The National Audit Office maintains 200,000 starter homes promised in 2015 have not been built. Meg Hillier MP said, “Despite setting aside over £2bn to build 60,000 new starter homes, none were built. Since 2010 many housing programmes announced with much fanfare have fallen away, with money then recycled into the next announcement. The department needs to focus on delivery and not raise, and then dash, people’s expectations.”[36]

There is concern that councils in central London are aggravating the housing crises by pursuing policies of gentrification.[53]

London is ranked as the top city in the world in terms of the number of ultra high net worth individuals who are resident in a city.[54]

The consequence of this is seen in the high price for top-end dwellings. The most expensive home ever sold in the UK was 2–8a Rutland Gate, Hyde Park, which sold for £280 million in 2015.[55] The most expensive street in the UK is Kensington Palace Gardens, London, where the average price of a home is approximately £42 million.[56]

A report for Wandsworth Borough Council found that overseas investors had a positive effect on housing affordability, both in bringing forward new homes in general and allowing the affordable housing part of schemes to be brought forward more quickly. They also found that there was very little evidence of housing being left empty.[57]

See below for further information on claims that London properties are being kept empty by speculators.

Dwellings represent the largest non-financial asset in the British balance sheet, with a net worth of £5.1 trillion (2014).[1] In the national statistics rising house prices are regarded as adding to GDP and thus a cause of economic growth.

Historically, the assumption in the media and elsewhere was that rising house prices were a good thing. There is evidence that the public no longer share this view.[58]

Undocumented migrants, as they fear being deported, are easily exploited, and do not report housing conditions which constitute a public health risk.[81] This means that the extent of the problem is not known.

Although overall the quality of English housing stock has improved over the last thirty years (a generation), the quality of housing for new households formed from those at or below the median income has declined. Thirty years ago a new household in this group could rent a council house built to Parker Morris standard. In 2016, a new household from this group, has to rent from a private landlord a dwelling, which will have less space than the Parker Morris standard dwelling, and likely to be damp, and they pay in real terms, at least three times the rent of their parent's generation.[82][83]

Jessica McLean was a tenant who complained about a dwelling and claimed that she was evicted due to this.[84]

For many people the social life their home enables is as important as the physical conditions the home provides. There is a debate about whether the generation born in the 1980s are better or worse off than their parents.[85] Some economists claim living standards have improved for what has been called generation X, whilst others hold they have declined. The economist point to fourfold growth in the nation's GDP, an increase GDP per capita, and an increase median earnings.[85] Those who contend that there has been a fall in living standards for generation X, say that increasing GDP per capita can be, and is in the UK, associated with a declining quality of life. And that housing conditions of Generation X has made their standard of living far lower than that of their parents. They claim that the two major causes of decline in the social environment provided by housing are: symmetrical tenancy agreements and socially segregated housing developments.[85]

Typical multistory block gated development. 2015 price for 2 bed apartment £380,000.[86]

The current position is that in London, only British citizens who are top earners, are in the market to become home owners.[87][88] In London, many apartments are marketed to, and bought by, foreign investors.[89] The ideal unit for such investors, is in a gated development with a tower block of apartments, with car parking instead of gardens. [90]

There is some evidence that gated developments improve security for residents, but perversely may increase the fear of crime.[91] The residents of the gated development become fearful of those living outside of their secured space and only leave the development by car.[91] They are too fearful to walk out of it and socialize with their neighbours outside.[92]

Semidetached council houses. 3 Beds, front/back garden. built 1950s, cost to council £(2012) 55,000 .

Some commentators believe that where there is limited social interaction between owner occupiers and council tenants there is much scope for misunderstanding.[93]

To encourage home insulation the governments introduced The Green Deal, the Energy Company Obligation, and Energy Performance Certificates(EPCs).[101]

The Green Deal does not offer any subsidies or grants for home insulation. Instead a new type of loan is provided which is attached to the property rather than the individual who takes out the loan. The purchaser of property becomes liable for the loan taken out to insulate the property. The Green Deal policy has met substantial criticism. In 2013, the Telegraph wrote that the high rate of interest charged for loans taken out under the Green Deal will mean there will be insignificant take-up, and hence the policy will be ineffective.[102]

The energy company obligation provides means-tested grants for home insulation. The funding for these grants does not come from government taxation. Instead there is legislation that allows the energy utilities to raise a levy on all utility bills to pay for the means-tested insulation grants. In 2015 these charges added about £112 to the average utility bill.[103] If the utility fails to spend the money it raises from the levies in insulating the homes of those in fuel poverty, it is fined. There have been problems with the scheme; utilities have been paying fines rather than providing the insulation.[104]

The difficulties the utilities have had are in the low uptake of the grants. There is a particular problem in that most of the people in fuel poverty who are entitled to the grants are in the private rental sector. A tenant who applies for and gets a grant which improves his landlord's property has no security of tenure. The tenant will not benefit from reduced fuel bills, if the landlord puts up the rent, as the property has been improved. Understandably, tenants in fuel poverty have been reluctant to apply for the grants. The consequence of failure to take up grants is given as one of the reasons the UK is missing carbon reduction targets.[105]

British Home Performance Rating Chart

The idea behind EPCs was that if those buying or renting a property are informed about its energy efficiency market forces will lead to better insulated dwellings. To improve the working of the market by providing better informed purchasers, under British law, whenever a dwelling is built, sold, or rented an EPC is required.[106]

An EPC gives an indication of the energy efficiency of a dwelling. The certificates have been criticized as they are based on visual inspection of the property, and examination of documents, and not on measurements of energy use, or the insulation characteristic of the building.[107] It is not possible to calculate the cost of heating a dwelling from its EPC, or the amount of energy which can be saved by insulating a wall, roof or window. There are claims that EPCs are of no real value. It is held that a certificate which can be bought for just £34, produced as result of form filling exercise, can not possibility be as useful as a proper energy survey based on measurement.[108][109]

There have been improvements in housing insulation but this is mainly in the owner-occupier sector. Between 2001 and 2013 the prevalence of cavity wall insulation of houses which have cavity walls rose from 39% to 68%. Over the same period the proportion of fully double-glazed dwellings rose from 51% to 80%.[110] It has not proved possible to find evidence that these improvements were the result of government policy or would have happened anyway.

If all the recommendations by energy performance certificates were implemented the notional carbon dioxide emissions from British dwellings could be reduced by over 20%.[110]

In 2016, there were around 200,000 empty homes in the UK, down from 300,000 in 2010.[115] Empty Dwelling Management Orders (EMDOs) allow councils to take over the management of long-term empty properties but these are generally seen as a last resort and only 43 EDMOs were successful from 2006 to 2011. Government statistics show that long-term empty homes are generally concentrated post-industrial areas, in the North of England and in seaside towns, where property prices are generally lower, with the lowest percentage in London, which had 20,795 long-term empty properties, with the highest in Barrow-in Furness, Burley and Blackburn.[114][115][117]

As of 2015, around 1.7% of. homes in London are empty, which is a historically low level. The vacancy rate is much lower for London's private sector housing compared to the rest of the country, whereas the rates for affordable housing are "broadly similar".[118]

Research by Islington Council revealed that nearly a third of new dwellings built did not have anyone on the electoral register after six years, although this may exclude students and foreign tenants.[119] The Observer reported on what has been termed 'lights out London' .. 'where absentee owners push up property prices without contributing to the local economy'.[120] According to a local restaurateur 'my original customers [have sold to ] non-doms who do not live in their [property]. In some apartment blocks 20% were unoccupied... It makes a big difference [to my business]'.[121]

The Guardian investigated the occupancy and the ownership of the apartments in St Georges Wharf Tower on the south bank of the Thames.[122] The investigation found that 60% of the apartments were foreign owned, often by companies registered in tax havens.[122][123] It further found that although there were bedrooms for over 600 people, there were only 60 people registered to vote.[122]

Research by the London School of Economics for the Mayor of London found that there was almost no evidence of new build units being left empty, "certainly less than 1%" and that the "vast majority" of overseas buyers intended to live in the property or rent it out.[124]

• Hinchcliffe, Tanis. "Pandora's Box: Forty Years of Housing History." The London Journal 41.1 (2016): 1-16. Discusses articles on housing and the scholarly journal The London Journal
• Pepper, Simon, and Peter Richmond. "Homes unfit for heroes: The slum problem in London and Neville Chamberlain's Unhealthy Areas Committee, 1919–21." Town Planning Review 80.2 (2009): 143–171.