There are perhaps not too many areas where the CBI,
the Ready
for Ageing Alliance, housebuilders
and the Labour,
Liberal Democrats
and the Conservatives
all agree.
But one of them is that we need to build more homes.
ILC-UK’s
own analysis has revealed, for example, that just to keep up with
demographic change, we need new homes built at the fastest rate since the
1970s.
Some of these homes will need to be retirement homes. A new
study published this month by Knight Frank has highlighted a “chronic
shortage” of retirement homes. The organisation, which surveyed people over 55,
found that 25% (4.4 million) would buy or rent in a retirement village.
In 2011 Professor
Ball said that the UK has capacity to get to 16k units a year for
owner-occupied retirement housing. In 2013 Demos
argued that around 1 in 4 of the over 60s would consider retirement housing
(similar to the Knight Frank percentage).
In the UK, just
around 1% of us live in retirement housing. This compares with 17% in the
US and 13% in Austria. Even if Knight Frank and others have overestimated
demand, it is clear there is likely to be a shortage of new retirement housing.
So why isn’t it happening?. The recession has had a negative
impact. There was not enough money around to build and not enough demand as
inertia and other barriers prevented older people making the move. Planning
remains a barrier.
But perhaps things are about to change? Glenigan
have found for example that the number of retirement housing units awaiting
planning consent is more than double the number currently being built. This
either reflects an imminent increase in new schemes or a slow planning process.
Possibly both.
McCarthy and Stone have recently announced plans to reach
3,000 units a year by 2018, having sold 1,667 in the year up to 31 August 2014.
EAC and McCarthy and Stone have provided
ILC-UK with new data on the number of retirement housing schemes (1) completed
since 2005. These figures reveal a fall up to 2010 and a subsequent increase.
The total number of new properties remains a long way off the 2007 figure.
Units (properties) update October 2014
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
Year completed
|
McCarthy and Stone
|
All
|
%
|
2005
|
1747
|
2708
|
65%
|
2006
|
2296
|
4152
|
55%
|
2007
|
2205
|
4542
|
49%
|
2008
|
2452
|
4249
|
58%
|
2009
|
870
|
2417
|
36%
|
2010
|
491
|
1160
|
42%
|
2011
|
892
|
1745
|
51%
|
2012
|
1166
|
2376
|
49%
|
2013
|
2071
|
2938
|
70%
|
It’s nice to see industry, charities, thinktanks and the three
largest (2) political parties all agreeing. But whilst there is a consensus
about need, making it happen seems a harder. Whilst the political parties
advocate nationally, local MPs and Counsellors find reasons to object to
housing. There is always somewhere better to put it (ideally someone else’s
constituency).
And whilst the signs might look good, we have only built 200,000
homes in 4 out of the last 14 years. As our analysis showed, 200,000 is
just enough to keep up with demographic change rather than address the current
shortage. Even if we were to build 200,000, how do we increase the proportion
of retirement housing as part of these numbers?
If we are to ensure the supply meets expectations, new
housing (retirement and general needs) must be built according to the needs of
an ageing society. We need lifetime homes standards, not a nonsense of
“optional” age friendly standards for housing. If we don’t build the right
homes, there will be limited incentive for older people to choose to rightsize
and potentially free up bigger family homes.
Let’s get building. But let’s also build good stuff.
David Sinclair
Thanks to EAC and McCarthy and Stone for providing the new
data.
1) UK numbers only include schemes that are staffed by
something approximating to a traditional scheme/court manager. They therefore
exclude developments that are simply age exclusive by virtue of planning
consent. They are captured by year of completion, ie when people start to move
in. The numbers includes schemes whose primary tenure is leasehold / freehold
and the Scottish equivalent. There is likely to be some undercounting of
(largely housing association) mixed tenure provision. EAC allocate all
properties in a scheme to its dominant tenure.
2) In terms of Westminster Parliamentary seats
No comments:
Post a Comment