We’re following the story of Anne, mother of six boys who is building a home for her family and one for the grandparents on the same site. They used the Right to Build to help them escape the private rental sector, acting as pioneers for the legislation, which even the council was unsure about at the time.
A quick recap:
We had secured a meeting with the Bishop to pitch the idea of a community housing scheme on the combined council and church site and developed a prospectus with an idea about what affordability might look like (blog 9).
The long awaited meeting seemed to hold in balance the future of the site. It turned out the Bishop of Edmonton was also a trustee of the church’s Housing Justice group.
The gathering also included the Archdeacon of Hampstead (Archdeacons tend to be the person on the clerical side who make decisions about property matters), our vicar Father Edd and also the property Development Manager, who I’d not met face to face before.
Peter presented our pitch, which had at its core the idea of the church not selling the land (see Blog 8 & Blog 9). This naturally led to a debate about needs and priorities, as helping middle income families is a harder ‘sell’ than helping the homeless.
We argued that quite a lot of support from both state and charity sectors are targeted at those in more obvious need. But beyond this there are many ordinary families who fall outside the remit of state support and who are priced out of their own local communities by the housing market.
During the chat there was an acknowledgement of this need and the loss of local families, but the point was stressed that the Church does have programmes to help the most obviously needy.
This led Father Edd to mention Almshouses, something we knew little about but they do make an interesting example. Since Medieval times, certain philanthropic individuals who had made good in the city would endow a few cottages for ‘poore widowes’ of their parish.
Here in Barnet there are several examples, such as Ravenscroft and Wilbraham, and in 1931 Sir Thomas Lipton, the tea magnate, left his 60 acre estate as a hostel for retired nurses.
Originally all hospitals were almshouses, so the unification of health and social care is not a new idea! They were also a branch of the church and some had chapels to pray for the soul of the benefactor, and so got hoovered up by Henry VIII under the dissolution of the monasteries.
But many are still going strong, and there are now 2,600 almshouse charities housing 36,000 people in need. A maintenance contribution is charged well below market rent – often less than 50% – and ‘poor’ is now translated as ‘eligible for housing benefit’. Therefore, two thirds of the residents have the rent fully- or part- funded by the state.
To return to our case, we argued that the challenge was to build sustainable mixed communities where families would not be driven away from their local roots by inflated house prices.
This could include professions such as teachers, nurses or artists, who may not be otherwise ‘needy’ but, conversely, may have a lot to give to the local community and parish.
This was a question of economic justice that the Archbishop recognised in his campaign ‘Reimagining Britain’ [Blog 8].
Our proposed affordability model was explored seriously. Concerns were raised over the nature of long term land leases, particularly in light of the government’s intention to ban them.
This had been rumbling since 2017 and the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill 2021-22 is at report stage now (Jan 24th 2022), which restricts ground rents to a peppercorn for newly created long lease houses and flats. However, Community Land Trusts (CLTs) are exempt.
There were other concerns. The development manager expressed caution for the scale of the task of trying to build a new legal prototype alongside a small developmental project.
The questions kept on coming: Who would manage such a project – would we take this on? (Yes) Who would live there? What would be the governance model? What happens when tenants want to move – how can they pass on the house? Does it delay them getting ‘a foot on the ladder’?
This led to the issue of whether it would be more of a headache for the church than just the simple transaction of selling off the land now and using the money for mission purposes, fixing church roofs, insulating old vicarages, etc.
This was the current Diocesan policy to maximise income from property to fund mission and could be as simple as paying clergy’s stipends in deprived areas.
This was a bit of a lightbulb moment. Any piece of land or territory – from a nation down to a single dwelling – must be governed, and difficult decisions made about who gets to live there. Government and land go together and maybe land reformers overlook how thorny this can be.
Even Almshouses have that challenge. Often those in housing need have additional needs requiring specialist help. So finding eligible ‘poor’ may not be easy so there is the risk it descends to those who are not as poor as intended or friends of the warden. Another example is that Almshouses allowing younger people – that are typically meant to be for shorter term help – can find difficulties moving them on once they are settled.
These charities need help to ‘navigate all the legislation’ according to the Almshouse Association another charity set up for that purpose and itself supported by AgeUK and the Elderly Accommodation Council – more charities.
For the same sorts of reasons 50 acres of Lipton’s estate were sold to fund modifications to the house to suit it for the nurses in 1935 and the remaining house and estate sold in 2015 by its trustee Friends of the Elderly. It is now a luxury private development by Yogo Group.
The discussion was sincere, intelligent and lengthy. We had not quite got our pitch ‘over the line’ but it was positive. There was an acknowledgement of a need to shift Diocesan policy and understand housing as primary mission material in and of itself.
In terms of the practical application for this piece of land the time was not right. There were too many unanswered questions and the land in question had already been allocated to be sold to fund mission.
The conclusion was that we were offered two possibilities:
We left the meeting a little crestfallen. We had failed to persuade the church to look at an idea of affordable housing on the site and how could we finance the purchase?
However, a new dawn shed a new perspective on the offers. There was potential in both the offers and, although challenging, maybe we could rise to meet them.
We would have to speak with investors if we were to develop both sites and, although they may be more profit-motivated which might erode our affordability and community-building aims, there might be a way to preserve them in some form.
We resolved to say yes to this offer. As for the second offer we doubted our capacity to explore these issues alongside our temporal duties however it was a challenge and full of potential so we resolved to say yes to this too.
Read the other parts of the Self Build Family Build Blog.
Part One: Deciding to Self Build, the Turning Point
Part Two: Looking for Land in London
Part Three: The Land Value Idea
Part Four: A Small Matter of Access
Part Five: The Mystery of the Road Unravelled
Part Seven: Best Consideration Pursuing our Community Building Idea
Part Eight: Calling on Higher Parts
Part Nine: The Affordability Question
Photo: printed with permission of Fiona Hanson 2020©
With many homes completed or underway, Graven Hill has released the latest nine plots for self builders at Bicester based self and custom build development. More plots will be released as the year progresses.
As well as offering a route to market for anyone wishing to build but struggling to find plots, Graven Hill is firmly establishing itself as a vibrant community of like-minded residents from first-time buyers to retirees.
Interest in the new plots is high, with prices ranging from £235,000 to £265,000, with the largest able to cater for a 6-bedroom home. They are in a character area of the site called ‘Circular Railway’, which incorporates features of the existing historic railway and next to green spaces.
As with most custom and self builds at Graven Hill, each plot comes with its own unique ‘Plot Passport’ that sets out the parameters for what can be built on that plot. This includes, for example, the maximum number of bedrooms and gross internal areas and also the choice of pre-approved building materials.
Financial support in the form of the Government’s new Help to Build scheme is also available on these plots, allowing buyers to benefit from a 5% deposit, alongside a Government-backed equity loan.
A range of new custom build homes are also due to be launched soon, for those wanting personalisation, without having to don a hard hat.
With these homes, the earlier in the build process the homes are purchased, the more customisation options the buyers will have, including layout, fixtures and fittings. Those purchasing custom builds will also be able to take advantage of the Help to Build scheme.
Gemma Davis, customer experience director at Graven Hill said: “The UK housing market is undergoing huge change and we’ve seen a dramatic spike in interest in self-building. Unfortunately, in the past, plot availability, finances and planning permission have all acted as barriers, with only a small minority able to overcome them. However, we’re changing this with the housing options we provide at Graven Hill.
“Our self-build plots have always been popular, getting snapped up quickly, and that doesn’t look to be changing any time soon. Self-building results in a truly diverse community, which celebrates the uniqueness of its residents. This is in stark contrast to the cookie-cutter homes that have come to be associated with new build developments. The people who purchase our new plots will be adding their personality to Graven Hill, and we can’t wait to see the result.”
The Daily Telegraph Homebuilding & Renovating Awards has announced the winner of its annual competition, a firm favourite for fans of homes and design.
The awards celebrate the cream of the UK’s self build, renovations, extensions and conversions, and this year’s awards included a selection of properties that overcame the odds to complete their project. This year’s entrants faced a range of problems that can impact any project, such as planning delays, material shortages, builders bankruptcies and, of course, the pandemic.
The overall Home of the Year winner of the Daily Telegraph Homebuilding & Renovating Awards was Patch House, designed by Spencer and Emma Guy. This family home was a labour of love that was 10 years in the making, with the family finishing the rooms while living in the property between 2011 and 2019.
The property exhibits the couple’s passion, with perfect attention to detail and design principles carried through from the architecture to the interiors. The result is a home that is able to adapt to the needs of the family as it matures, and is highly sufficient as it only requires heating for 70% of the year.
Patch House, Winner of the Home of the Year (Credit Martin Gardner).
“This is a house fit for our challenging times, addressing climate change through harnessing renewable energy technologies,” says architect and judge Darren Bray. “It’s designed to enhance the site context and landscape, including the natural swimming pond that sits to one end of the two storey volumes.”
“We were particularly impressed by how this new home has been exactingly designed for its site, which was previously occupied by a derelict chicken shed,” adds editor and judge Claire Lloyd. “Not only does the house’s orientation ensure that the living areas benefit from passive solar gain, but carefully placed glazing frames the views like artwork and natural light brings different spaces to life throughout the day. This new home exudes warmth and character but, importantly, it’s also a practical, robust family home.”
We’re following the story of Anne, mother of six boys who is building a home for her family and one for the grandparents on the same site. They used the Right to Build to help them escape the private rental sector, acting as pioneers for the legislation, which even the council was unsure about at the time.
A quick recap:
Edged out by a new discourse between church and state, we tried to counter the market intentions of the Church’s property dept with community ideas, which secured an appointment to make a pitch to the Bishop of Edmonton. Meanwhile, we tried to reach someone in the council who might share a similar vision for Community Housing.
Having secured a meeting with the Bishop it seemed pragmatic to try and get support from Enfield Council so that any proposal using the combined church and council land would carry more weight.
While looking for supportive policy we stumbled across a document “Custom & Self Build in Enfield” (now removed, but see this meeting), which put forward a strategy for delivering custom and self build homes on small-scale council-owned sites. Based on a leasehold model, it reduced upfront costs for purchasers in return for long- term ground rental income for the council.
It seemed perfect – the ideas were very much in tune with parts of what we had been proposing (See Part Three: The Land Value Idea) but much more developed in terms of implementation. The report hoped its pioneering lead might encourage other public landowners to follow.
The report was by the Regeneration department at Enfield Council and its leader was Peter George, who in the words of ‘Naked House’ (Blog 7) was a forward thinking man, looking at innovative ways to solve the housing crisis. The Naked House idea put forward a plan as an alternative custom building service provider trying genuinely to provide affordable homes on a not-for-profit basis.
We thought we could position ourselves as the ‘self build’ service provider with a similar offering. Unfortunately getting to meet or even speak to Mr George was a challenge that even my persistent efforts failed to achieve. I was passed from one department to another until I ended up back to square one at the door of the property disposals manager!
We reconnected with Naked House and found we both had two major challenges:
We based our workings on the following:
Worked out in this way, the land proposition would be a good deal for the local Treasury, as it promised to recover the sale value of the land in a roughly 20 year period, and then would continue to deliver non-tax revenue to the local authority for the long term.
However, it is no longer affordable for the families if, on top of the mortgage, they have to pay 5% of £150k = £7,500 per year (or £625 month). We felt that this additional cost meant that 5% was clearly too high.
There is a similar scheme in Canberra, Australia, which was founded on Garden City principles. There the government land rent scheme was 4% with a discounted rate of 2% for families on low to middle incomes. The Government land rent is calculated on the unimproved value of land and lessees are required to construct a house on the land within two years of the lease being granted. So 2% is probably the level that Naked House would need and they subsequently were looking at that sort of level in the interest of affordability.
We hoped we could deliver affordable housing at 75% market price. 80% market price was the magic number picked by the Coalition government as a definition of ‘affordable housing’, although this still unaffordable to many families.
This would be achieved in three ways:
Our prospectus was coming together! We were ready to offer the church a ‘fresh revolution in housing’, just as the Archbishop of Canterbury had called for, one that was values led and offered a vision of better affordability.
Read the other parts of the Self Build Family Build Blog.
Part One: Deciding to Self Build, the Turning Point
Part Two: Looking for Land in London
Part Three: The Land Value Idea
Part Four: A Small Matter of Access
Part Five: The Mystery of the Road Unravelled
Part Seven: Best Consideration Pursuing our Community Building Idea
Part Eight: Calling on Higher Parts
Photo: printed with permission of Fiona Hanson 2020©
With the planned decrease in the usage of gas as a fuel source, government recently launched the Boiler Upgrade Scheme, a new scheme that will give homeowners up to £6,000 towards the cost of an upgrade to low-carbon heating systems. The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has released its Heat and Buildings Strategy with £450million in funding for heat pumps, both ground source and – more realistic for most people – air source heat pumps.
The Boiler Upgrade Scheme is designed to transform our energy usage in homes, although government has stopped short from requiring the banning of fossil-fuel boilers. The expectation is that by 2030 heat pumps, and other cleaner technology, will cost the same to run and buy as current gas systems. The other major alternative is hydrogen, which could power some existing systems, but the technology is still in its experimental stage, with products not yet available to buy.
Essentially Boiler Upgrade Scheme is a boiler upgrade scheme, which comes with many associated challenges around upping the spec in existing houses to make them compatible with these heat sources. This is because heat pumps work best in houses with high levels of energy efficiency and insulation.
Fortunately most self built houses are built to a far higher spec than to Building Regulations, which is a set of minimum standards. The Boiler Upgrade Scheme, which is a renaming of the Clean Heat Grant, is available in England and Wales, and is part of a wider £3.9bn funding pot set out in the Heat and Buildings Strategy.
While homeowners in new builds are not able to apply, self builders are eligible, and will have a three month period in which to apply. In addition, self builders won’t need an Energy Performance Certificate, which is a requirement for existing home owners.
Eligible homeowners will be able to receive government grants for the purchase of low carbon heating systems, with applications running between April 2022 and April 2025. This will replace the Domestic Renewable Heat Incentive, which officially closes next March.
The funding allows for either £5,000 for Air Source Heat Pumps (ASHP) or £6,000 for Ground Source Heat Pumps (including the rarer Water Source Heat Pumps), with more funding allocated for ASHPs as these are more compatible with most homes, due to space limitations.
In addition, biomass boilers in rural areas with low populations should also qualify for support.
It looks like grants will be on a voucher system that are applied for in advance of installations, with the vouchers – which have a usage date – being redeemed on completion. The scheme will also work on a first-come-first-served availability basis.