You can fix the council house shortage without building a single new council house, by allowing more houses to be built and so extending home ownership further down the income scale.

My understanding is that a fair proportion is owned by speculators gambling that the land will eventually be granted planning permission.

I think that were the council to build new homes in the greenbelt, the land should be subject to compulsory purchase at a value appropriate for a field, then planning permission should be granted, and then houses should be built. I do not think Oxford taxes should go into buying out property speculators.

Best of luck trying to persuade your fellow councillors to build new properties. Most don’t have your pragmatic view and want to cling on to the past for dear life. That usually means no more new builds.

I do occasionally think moving to a country with more land would be easier.

You might like to look at this:

http://www.adamsmith.org/index.php/main/individual/land/

I think it is worth the read, although long.

I am of the opinion that the way to get affordable homes is to increase supply. Lets face it there isn’t going to be a massive state building program so what should be done? Where should the houses be built? Let the market decide.

It is quite clear if people are allowed to build houses then the price will fall. This of course is not popular with home owners.

Stuff them in favour of all the poor people without homes, that’s what I say.

Jack

I basically agree with you but you miss out the merits of land value taxation (LVT). Unlike inheritance tax, LVT cannot be avoided, and isn’t dependent on someone dying.

It would be good for house prices, urban centres and raise revenue making the tax system fairer. It is also environmentally sound which is why the Green Party quite likes it. For more see

http://www.labourland.org

Matt, I partly agree with you - I shouldn’t have said that the only solution to Oxford’s housing crisis was building on the greenbelt. It’s the only immediate solution, but in the long term there needs to be a rethink of housing policy.

You’re not wrong about the need to invest to meet the decent homes standard without forcing councils to transfer to an ALMO or RSL. It is Labour conference policy three or four times over. I would make sure that councils could reinvest money from RTB in more housing (I do think there is something to be said for creating mixed communities instead of monolithic estates with only one type of tenure, so whilst I would restrict it further, I’m not sure I’d end it entirely). I would like it to be possible for councils to build new council housing and have some of the freedoms available to RSLs. I also think that, given that housing costs are such a huge contributer to inequality, we should increase inheritance tax take on more expensive homes; think about how a portion of the massive increases in house prices could be realised and reinvested in housing provision; tax second homes punitively; increase regulation of private landlords and increase the rights of tenants, including perhaps through some type of right to buy for private tenants. I’m sure I think there are more actions that need to be taken to improve the housing situation in the UK, but that’ll do for the moment.

I’m not sure, however, that you’ve fully appreciated the situation that huge council-house-owning councils found themselves in when faced with a huge decent homes challenge, though - the argument may be bankrupt and the dilemma not one of our choosing, but while rejecting all the available funded options was just about possible for OCC, but it really wasn’t for many councils. I’m not saying it was right that they should be faced with that choice, I’m saying I understand the decision that their councillors had to make.

Oh, and I don’t accuse you of “lobbying for homelessness”, Matt - as you point out, your position is nuanced, and sitting with you through EB and full council I recognise that you do care about social justice in a way that many of those opposed to any development on the green belt, under any circumstances, some of whom are in your party, just do not.

Chris - jobs are also important, both creating new ones and guaranteeing the ones that currently exist through maintaining Oxford’s position as a shopping destination for the surrounding area. The same argument applies to your point, Craig, with the additional consideration of supporting tourism.

Antonia

Working in housing in central london but originally from Oxford, i had no idea there is such a large waiting list. I think Camden comes in at over 3,000 with Westminster somewhere over 4,000.

I don’t know about some of you who are councillors or advice workers like me but seeing letters from a local authority saying ‘Mr x is 200th on the list, we only let 5 properties to Mr X’s band/group/section whatever per year it will therefore be some time before he gets rehoused,’ is simply depressing. Furthermore, saying things like you have no chance whatsoever of getting a council house is utterly pointless. Given that local authorities have and will continue to have duty to rehouse the vulnerable and unintenionally homeless, does anyone really think that Mr Stratford’s comments will make any difference? No thought not.

It is absolutely clear to me that maintaining the situation as it stands in areas of high housing demand benefits only one party (or type of party) - namely the BNP and its ilk. As politicians or people with an interest in politics the only response to this must be to look at supply.

I also suggest that the finger pointing has to stop. Right to buy has been running since the 80s. I don’t know if any of you noticed but it was wildly popular with the electorate and it still is (many local labour councillors in RTB homes round my way feel terribly guilty about their good fortune). You can tighten up the discount or look into bringing back the portable discount but, for the time being, we just have to work around it.

The real tragedy of right to buy in the context of supply is that often taxpayers are shelling out an unbelievable amount of money via housing benefits to keep people in temporary accommodation that the government used to own and rent out for a third or quarter of the price. I use the word keep advisedly because with the benefits taper as it is, the relatively high rents are a massive disincentive to work.

Having said that, I have no idea what rents are like in Oxford but somewhere around 15 to 18k for a family-sized TA unit can’t be far wrong. If someone is on the housing list for 6 years that’s a maximum of £108,000 down the swanney. Why don’t we stop shelling money out on this (often crappy) housing (which isn’t really temporary anyway) and buy it back?

Even allowing for a quick injection to supply that this may provide, or indeed any other short term measure, you can not duck the question of supply. Someone somewhere is going to have to build some new houses. Tim is correct that we need to be pragmatic in this regard. Increasingly, I find myself believing that arguing otherwise is pure sophistry that will lead to disaster.

One thought for those worried about the sustainability of Oxford’s growth as a city. I see little reason why NGOs (apart from Oxfam, for historical reasons) would choose to be based in Oxford (or London) - it is expensive to rent office space and it is expensive for workers to rent (let along buy). It also helps to drive up house prices and fuels the growth of the service sector. It would be much more sustainable for NGOs such as, say, those working on environmental issues, to relocate to areas of the country where the cost of office space and of living is much lower. In Oxford, from a sustainability point of view, there should be more jobs available working in shops and fewer working in the voluntary sector.