A brief history of social housing

“Social housing was invented to deal with the urbanisation of England in the 19th century and the appalling living conditions that developed in cities. Anne Power gives of a brief history of the rise and demise of social housing, from Right to Buy of the Thatcher years, to the austerity years of the coalition government, all the way to the state of social housing today, in the shadow of Grenfell. Enjoying this post? Then sign up to our newsletter and receive a weekly roundup of all our articles. The invention of social housing England was the first country to urbanise, and housing conditions were appalling. Renting from landlords became by far the most common way to secure a house. To cope with acute poverty and threatened homelessness, not for profit landlords emerged as a response. Rich benefactors endowed trusts with surplus capital to build for rent at below market rates. Peabody and Guinness Trusts spring to mind. Housing was still about shelter from weather, danger and trouble, but also a haven, however poor, for families. Thoughtful employers realised that housing their workers decently at rents the workers could afford would foster a healthier workforce that was more able to work. Industrial dwellings, as they were called, sprang up around factories in densely crowded neighbourhoods of growing cities, in sharp contrast to the appalling slums they replaced. The philanthropic trusts like Peabody provided a model of closely supervised blocks of flats built for “the poor of London”. As urban and industrial growth accelerated, slums continued to multiply and fester, housing the mass of unskilled labour in conditions that were shocking, as a Royal Commission in 1885, exposed vividly. These new “industrial” landlords operated with a clear social purpose, charging just enough rent to maintain their properties, and over time recover their investment. They represented good value homes for regularly paid workers though they were still unaffordable for the “casual poor” who were often displaced by the building of new houses. This housing movement became known as “5 per cent philanthropy”, since the investors limited the return on their capital to 5 per cent. As urban and industrial growth accelerated, slums continued to multiply and fester, housing the mass of unskilled labour in conditions that were shocking, as a Royal Commission , in 1885, exposed vividly. The government was inevitably drawn into this housing crisis to solve it, declaring they would build “Homes fit for Heroes” – the launch of council housing. A combination of councils, and non-profit private landlords, formed the body of “social” landlords, whose descendants operate today. Over 60 years from World War I until Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minster in 1979, almost 7 million council houses for rent were built across the UK. Meanwhile non-profit landlords, now known as housing associations, slowly added to their rented stock of a few hundred thousand. These two types of landlords owned the body of social housing. The Thatcher transformation Thatcher changed the direction of social housing, first by introducing the Right to Buy for all existing council tenants, giving them heavily subsidised access to owner -occupation; second by encouraging the transfer of council estates to non-profit landlords in order to diversify the stock, strengthen the nonprofit sector, and dilute the power of council landlords; thirdly by recovering the tight rent controls from private landlords. Social housing declined from accommodating 90% of households before WWI to only 10 per cent by the 1980s. New problems meanwhile had arisen as the poorest households became increasingly concentrated in large and now aging council estates, many of which were transferred to housing associations, all over the country. Large Scale Voluntary Transfers (LSVTs) involve the disposal of local authority housing stock to an alternative landlord. Legislation was enacted as part of the 1985 Housing Act. Social housing gradually became less popular with tenants who wanted better. Historically poor management and maintenance by large council bureaucracies made conditions worse. As a result, a deep stigma was attached to social housing. Owner-occupation became more attractive, helped by the Right to Buy. When Tony Blair and New Labour replaced the long run Conservative governments of Thatcher and Major, special initiatives addressed entrenched social problems, mainly concentrated on large council or ex-council estates. Through the Social Exclusion Unit which Blair launched, and its powerful National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal , crime and anti-social behaviour; low skills and joblessness; truancy and teenage pregnancy; disrepair and environmental decay all became targets, linked to poor housing areas. Conditions did indeed improve under the impact of these multiple “social” programmes. But they would not survive the advent of, first, the coalition, then the Conservative governments of 2010 to 2024. The austerity years The powerful “austerity” drive of George Osbourne hit low-income areas hard, including social landlords. Council housing had declined from over 6.5 million to around 2 million due to sales, transfers and demolitions; while housing associations had grown to nearly 2 million, following transfers and building. Meanwhile support to council landlords was more than halved, and housing associations were forced to borrow from banks based on their assets, as happens in Continental Europe. The consequences of these changes were far reaching. Housing Associations began a spate of mergers, expanding their asset bases to facilitate borrowing. As they became bigger, they lost much of their customer and community focus. They became more like developers and built for private sale in order to generate resources to build social housing. This inevitably shifted the balance away from social in favour of commercial interests. Council housing had declined from over 6.5 million to around 2 million due to sales, transfers and demolitions. The outcome of these shifts in activity and focus was a weakening of the social purpose of social landlords and the almost complete end of building for social housing. However, they were still the main landlords of last resort, housing many formerly homeless households, many ethnic minority communities and disproportionate numbers of people with disabilities and long-term health issues. This forced them to fall back on their original social purpose. Many of the larger social landlords set up dedicated charitable trusts, separate from their housing activities. These dedicated charitable trusts supported multiple social initiatives within the communities where they were major landlords including job training, youth activities, domestic abuse, elderly care etc. A London and Quadrant housing associations, large social landlord at a special board meeting publicly reaffirmed its core philanthropic purpose to run rented property with care for community needs. This set a pattern for other social landlords to follow. A more community focussed type of housing was provided through cooperatives and tenant management organisations. Their small, local scale and their focus on making existing areas work made them popular with tenants. There were also many local transfers where the new housing association landlords were dedicated to improving the local community, becoming known as “ placeshapers ”. These associations are committed to helping their neighbourhoods and communities thrive. The reputation of many social landlords suffered as they became more remote from their tenants. Social landlords generally had become distracted from the need to protect and reinvest in their existing stock. After Grenfell In 2017, the shocking fire at Grenfell Tower , a high-rise council owned block in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, led to the tragic deaths of 72 people. The tragedy provided a huge wakeup call to social landlords. The reports of gross negligence, the disastrous failure to listen to tenants, and weak on-the-ground management, jolted social landlords and the government into action. They were forced to prioritise their existing stock for safety reasons, reverting to basic landlord services, fire prevention, resident involvement, on-site management, repair and upgrading, and the provision of community facilities and community support. Social landlords are surviving because they take care of the communities they house, far beyond the limits of bricks and mortar. All over the country, social landlords have been working with low-income communities to change their approach. Some notable examples are Riverside, Home, Clarion and L&Q. Landlords can only operate effectively when they are present on the ground, in communities, working with residents. Commercial sales do not make rented housing for low-income tenants work. Only face to face, ground level management focused on caring for tenants’ social and physical needs, will restore the true value of social landlords. Most still see this as their core purpose but problems of size and the backlog of neglect however still impacts social landlords. The conclusion from my survey of social housing history and my research into current developments in social housing is that social landlords are surviving because they take care of the communities they house, far beyond the limits of bricks and mortar. Enjoyed this post? Sign up to our newsletter and receive a weekly roundup of all our articles. All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of LSE British Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science. Image credit: richardjohnson on Shutterstock The post A brief history of social housing first appeared on LSE British Politics .

Summary generated from the RSS feed of LSE British Politics and Policy. All article rights belong to the original publisher. Click through to read the full piece on blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy.