Building an affordable utopia: The State,
State Policies and Market Logics
Paper presented at RGS-IBG Annual International Conference’
London 30 August 2013
Bob Colenutt (University of Northampton)
Allan Cochrane (The Open University)
Martin Field (University of Northampton)
Submitted abstract
•
The policy commitment to affordable housing is often presented as part of a wider commitment to
social welfare, as a challenge to spiralling house prices in cities like London which mean that those
on low or even middle class incomes can no longer afford to live in certain parts of the city. But, of
course, it is increasingly apparent that this form of market driven welfare rarely delivers housing
that most people can actually afford.
But the problem that the language of affordable housing is intended to address is not just an
ideological one, not just a means of shifting attention away from the decline of council housing. The
lack of affordable housing (that is housing which can be afforded by skilled professionals in the
public and private sectors) in particular areas may (as the UK Treasury sponsored Barker report
noted) be a significant brake on profitable economic growth because of the effect it has on the
labour market, pushing some costs up and limiting supply in key areas (particularly infrastructural
sectors such as education and health).
Drawing on evidence from an ESRC funded project, this paper focuses on the experience of one set
of government initiatives on the edge of the London city region, as an attempt was made to 'nudge'
the major house builders to deliver a major programme to deliver 'sustainable communities'
providing affordable housing for key workers and others need to fill those labour market gaps.
This was scheme whose success was predicated on a continued and continuing rise in house prices,
and which was already missing its targets before the financial crash. Despite the language of
pragmatism and market rationality in which it was couched, this was a programme that was just as
utopian in its own way as any leftist fantasy. The paper reflects on the outcomes of the process and
on the limits of affordable housing as a policy nostrum
Content of presentation
1. Setting the context from
2000 onwards: planning to
maximise the economic
drivers of ‘market driven’
housing
2. The Sustainable
Communities Plan and its
delivery frameworks
3. Impact of the 2007/8
economic crisis and
analysis of growth areas
plans
4. Comment on the utopian
vision for ‘affordability’
and ‘sustainability’
Planning ‘market driven’
housing from 2000 onwards
Economic drivers
Ideological drivers
Start of sharp growth in market values
Optimism of New Labour; The
Third Way; Mixed Economies
Growing concerns about overall
supply – Barker, et al
Need to house key workers, especially in SE
‘Light touch’ central state + readiness
to court private sector development
Belief in role of ‘housing’ to drive macro
economy
Belief in ‘Spatial Planning’ (national
framework / regional and local
governance / integrated management)
Will to increase private sector
investment in residential markets
Holistic approach to ‘climate change’ and
sustainability
Levels of housing supply
Projections to meet identified need
The Sustainable Communities Plan
2003, and delivery frameworks
National intentions:
National framework:
• Housing to underpin national
economic growth
• Affordability’ for all
• ‘Step change’ in quality &
quantity of housing supply
• Substantial new supply
• Renewal of failing markets
• Support to local aspirations
• Complementary jobs growth
• Capture of ‘planning gain’ for
local benefit
• Delivery by private sector
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
National housing targets
Regional Plans
Spatial plans & Core Strategies
Growth Areas in SE
Pathfinders in Midlands and
North
Light -touch Delivery Agencies
Sub-regional governance
Sustainability Appraisals
Subsequent Policy Guidance –
PPS3
Regional housing supply and demand
SCP growth areas in SE England
MKSM ‘growth area’
‘Affordability’ and ‘Sustainability’
in ESRC study area
Policy for ‘housing growth’
• Core strategies :
North N; West N; Milton K
• Agencies :
WNDC; NNDC; MKP
• Governance:
MKSM Board; Joint Planning
• Sustainability :
Checklists; Tariffs
Housing delivery plans
2001-21 growth numbers:
Milton K – 44,900
West N – 47,400
North N – 52,100
Analysis and what was exposed by the
2007/8 economic crash
Policy positions
• Extended and elaborate
core strategy process
• Limited clout of LDVs & subregional partners
• Minimal funds for land /
strategic infrastructure
• Disputes about strategic
investment
• No prioritisations from
‘sustainability’ measures
Market responses
• Targets unrelated to
industry delivery rates
• Delivery below targets by
2011 (see graph)
• Allocated and ‘approved’
land not built upon esp.
large sites (Sustainable
Urban Extensions)
• Increasing resistance to
deliver ‘planning gain’
• Sustainability seen as a
‘cost’ to be minimised
Housebuilding outputs
pre and post-recession
Key reflections (1)
• SCP a first national use of ‘Spatial Planning’ –
this has met both ambivalence and resistance
• The ‘utopian’ vision of “sustainable
communities” was too naive to challenge
monopolies of builders, landowners & lenders
• MKSM delivered plans and some successes, but
has not sustained sustainability measures
• There was no Plan B – ‘crash’ or no-crash
Key reflections (2)
• SCP also first national framework predicated
upon the interests of volume housebuilders –
consequence for their current intransience
• ‘Sustainability’ is increasingly interpreted
through a short-term economic lens - this defers
costs, but does not remove them
• Mechanisms for controlling ‘affordability’ of
house prices seen as politically unacceptable, yet
wide concern remains about unsustainable prices
The ‘utopian’ vision?
• Was there always a tension over the imagining of an
ideal affordable world and meeting all the different
demands for “affordability”?
• Was the vision of public/private sector collaboration
compatible with the underlying adversarial relationship
between planners and developers?
• Was the Plan always predicated upon a picture of an
‘ideal economy’? – at times of economic stress would
the aim of cross-funding and collaboration necessarily
fall apart?
• Must markets always lessen ‘affordability’?
Can affordability be re-created?