No alarms, no surprises

Your article (21 February 2003, page 7) highlights that councils have been allowed to build 7000 homes a year funded through local authority social housing grant.

Should we be surprised by this latest cut? Undoubtedly, something will be put in its place, but it will probably be less than is there at present.

It appears to have been the aim of past and present governments to reduce the number of social housing units provided, irrespective of the numbers on waiting lists.

The number of social homes provided in 1981 was 96,000. By 1991 this had been reduced to 9800. Perhaps numbers had to reduce as more of the population sought home ownership; in parallel, the right-to-buy scheme was introduced, removing much-needed rented stock – a double whammy for the sector. Needs surveys seem only to be the responsibility of social landlords, not those in control of social housing policy.

The increasing cost of homes in the South-east means that social housing is becoming more important than ever, as the young struggle to get onto the property ladder – many have the debts of university

fees to repay, reducing the prospect of home ownership – and market renting is a struggle.

The amount of abortive work by development departments and contractors throughout the country on uncommitted schemes will affect the credibility of the sector. Will section 106 sites with up to 50% social housing provision now revert to the private sector or, worse still, lay fallow pending the next policy change?

Perhaps this is all a cunning plan to address the skills shortage in the building industry – if there is less to build, the need for skilled labour will go away!