The Government’s attack on small-scale buy-to-let landlords,
through a punitive tax regime and aggressive regulation, predicated on a policy
of growing a new alternative rented housing provision through large-scale
developers and institutional investors could itself be under threat.
The “Tescoisation” of what the Government has called the
“Cottage Industry” of private renting could falter if, as appears to be the
case, the uptake of the build-to-sell and build-to-rent schemes for affordable
homes is well below target.
With over 90% of private rented housing being supplied by
small-scale landlords; buy-to-letters with less than three properties, and
small company landlords with limited portfolios, it would take a huge influx of
large scale-development to make a dent in that.
A recent study (Understanding the Next Housing Crisis)
carried out by researchers at the University of Reading and presented as a
paper at the Royal Economic Society’s annual conference (April 2017) concludes
that Britain will never build enough houses to make property affordable for
young people, stating: “The increases in housing supply required to improve
affordability have to be very large and long-lasting: the step change would
need to be much larger than has ever been experienced before on a permanent
basis.”
To compound the Government’s problems, it seems that
developers have been regularly reneging on promises to build cheaper homes
alongside those being sold at full market rates. According to an investigation
by campaigners, the Sunday Times reports that: developers are “quietly walking
away from promises to build affordable homes.”
Council officials, it would seem, are being “outgunned” by
the financial and legal might of the large private developers who were granted
permission by local councils for building schemes, on condition that affordable
homes were included.
Some councils are said to be “giving-in” to demands to
change the developer’s pledges, while in other cases property companies are
said to be flouting legal agreements because of lax monitoring.
According to the Sunday Times article, in four developments
involving one developer group (a London based Housing Association) council
officials believe there has been a deliberate and unlawful scheme ongoing which
is systematically selling or renting affordable homes at full market rates,
though the housing association in question denies knowledge of any wrongdoing.
One dossier seen by the paper, submitted to the local
government ombudsman, has identified 46 developments in London where it is
claimed affordable homes may not have been provided as pledged.
The ombudsman ruled last December that there had been a
failure in monitoring the delivery of affordable homes, including the rent
levels changed. The allegations made in this dossier are the just latest
setback in the Government’s provision of more affordable homes. A 2013 study
showed that 60% of the biggest housing schemes fell well short of local
affordable housing targets including projects in Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff,
Manchester and Sheffield.
Councils are given targets by central Government to build a
given proportion of affordable homes, which are typically in the rage of
35%-40% of new-build housing. They should be rented at lower rates or...sold in
shared ownership schemes, and it is usually a condition of planning permission
for big developments that these affordable homes are provided.
Why is it that even though the Government offers loan
guarantees and tax incentives for large scale developments for rent, there is still
a lack of enthusiasm for large-scale institutionally backed developments in the
UK?
One significant factor must be the historic importance in
the UK of owner-occupation over private renting, but the main one appears to be
that private rented sector (PRS) investment model relies more on long-term
financial gain (capital appreciation as well as rental income) rather than
short-term capital value creation from a quick sale of new-build owner-occupier
properties. The PRS model creates greater risk for institutional investors who
want certainty.
Some years ago, Mark Hafner of American PRS investor
Greystar, speaking about the UK residential property market, said: “The answer
is very simple and very obvious; the reason PRS hasn’t flourished in the UK to
date is because the for-sale market is so robust. For virtually any piece of
land you are going to achieve a higher return faster from a for-sale strategy
than you are with rental.”
The issue then is one of investment returns; it is very
important to institution investors in terms of risk. Changes in market rent
rates, or a change of government, introducing new rental tenures or rent
control, particularly with new-build PRS developments, which require a
significant investment of capital up-front, are a significant risk factor for
them.
How much of an impact large-scale institutional investment
in the PRS will have on the small-scale buy-to-let investor remains to be seen,
but it would seem that in one respect the economics of this go against the
grain of Government thinking, and could well result in the end in a policy
re-think at some point.
In the meantime it means that smaller landlords will have to
adapt to the changes in their industry, treating these as normal business
hazards, reducing costs and adapting to the new conditions as all businesses
must. Buy-to-let investments, when managed properly, still offer far better
returns than anything else available on the high street.
Tom Entwistle