Social Housing needs an urgent rethink

The truth of the Grenfell tragedy will not lie in an individual mistake but more realistically in a catalogue of failures that will go beyond the culpability of individuals and single components within complex building systems. Of course, focus on the individual role will highlight areas of inattention, forgetfulness and carelessness. But this approach is in itself not enough and isolates unsafe acts from their context, regulatory and political among others, thus making it very hard to uncover and eliminate recurrent error traps within the system. A holistic approach on the issues of failure recognises the complexity that results from the interaction of a number of factors. Errors can be identified as being shaped and provoked by ‘upstream’ systemic factors, which will surely include policy misjudgements. This disaster was made possible in part by the decisions and inaction of decades ago, not to mention the more recent warnings made by fire safety experts that authorities and the building industry failed to heed.

The decision to omit housing policy from the Grenfell review is nothing short of scandalous. But if there was a problem, arguably the revenue-generating gift of Right to Buy and Buy-to-Let did as much to dilute block management oversight over time as any component failure. When responsibilities are chopped up so finely among infinite changing individuals, the results can be devastating.

The release of local-authority flats in blocks onto the private market, through Right to Buy allowed long-term public housing tenants to buy their apartments at a discount. But for many in London, the obvious and understandable temptation was to quickly re-sell at a profit from the opportunity. As a result, the most desirable projects ended up in part-private ownership and much of that in the hands of landlords. A well-intentioned political act had enormous ramifications for the public ownership of housing, which, exacerbated by Buy-to-Let, has done much to distort the pattern of home ownership in this country ever since. Right to Buy and Buy-to-Let together contributed to a substantial reduction in the stock of social housing, with just 8% rented from social authorities. This is not finger pointing. Our housing crisis has been deepening for decades under governments of all dispositions, all of whom have believed for good reason in the notion of a home owning democracy. But not everyone can be part of that aspirational journey. Right-to-Buy stigmatised social housing, especially high-rises. De-regulation of social housing has not succeeded in providing more and better social housing. We need to improve the stock of social rental housing. Renting is here to stay, and needs to get better. There is still a supply issue of every type of property and every tenure and, importantly in London, there is an affordability issue which makes a valid case for state owned housing to be part of that mix.

For more years than anyone can remember, London’s most acute current issue has been, a chronic housing shortage. To live in London one has to be exceptionally wealthy or be prepared to live ten to a small house. London is not Manhattan, and the majority of its housing is fairly low density by comparison, but through a combination of planning laws and suburban resistance, our efforts to build more new housing of any type in outer boroughs have been thwarted. Consequently, we have sought to re-develop inner city opportunities. However, we have chosen not to demolish and rebuild our inner cities but re-purpose them. These areas have become a key target for gentrification and densification projects. Local Authorities and Housing Associations have been chasing private developments in terms of units to market ever since the 1970’s.

Re-development projects have an obvious allure for cash-strapped boroughs who, under the pressures of reduced funding, see the attraction of new revenue streams. Upgrading old developments means that boroughs can attract wealthier residents with the minimum of outlay, who in turn pay higher taxes and demand improved environments, infrastructure and public services. The story of Grenfell fits this mould. Built in 1974, it was refurbished 42-years later as part of the council’s “regeneration” project across the borough. This included the installation of the cladding, double-glazed windows, and heating together with the addition of a nursery and boxing club. Gentrification, a term often used in connection with upgrades in London boroughs, was well and truly underway. Upgrading areas is not a bad thing but what happens to the original residents is unclear. Some describe the current development in Elephant and Castle as ‘social cleansing’ where council estates are effectively replaced with a mix of luxury and “affordable” housing which will remain out of reach for most.

Everyone is still in shock but the systemic failures in the Grenfell story will have implications that have probably not yet sunk in but this should not deter us from providing the very thing it was initially designed to do. It would be a terrible outcome if we concluded that social housing, or indeed tower blocks were the problem. The withdrawal of the state from the provision of social housing, started under Thatcher and followed by every government since, shows no real sign of abating but if we are to learn the lessons of the last fifty years, perhaps the time has come to step up to the plate.