Areas expected to have the highest household growth are already falling furthest behindby Daniel Bentley / December 20, 2016 / Leave a comment
You can take your pick of the horror stories about housing these days, but consider this update from the latest homelessness statistics: the number of households in temporary accommodation has grown by nine per cent in the past year, and by 55 per cent since the end of 2010. There are now more than 117,000 children in families with no permanent home.
The proximate cause of this steady rise in homelessness seems to have been the expensiveness of the private rented sector; as tenancies come up for renewal, growing numbers of people cannot afford either to stay put or to find a new place. Underlying this trend, however, is the chronic shortage of new homes needed to keep rents down as the population expands.
The net supply of housing (including not just new-build completions but also conversions and change of use) was 189,650 last year. This is the highest level since the crash but still only 90 per cent of the 210,000 average household growth rate that is projected for the next 25 years. Even that 90 per cent figure, however, makes matters sound better than they really are.
When we compared housing supply against household growth rates at district level for a new Civitas paper, we discovered very large variations from area to area. Worse, those places that are expected to experience the highest household growth are, by and large, the ones that are already falling furthest behind with the supply of new homes. They also tend to be—no surprise—those that are most expensive already.