Octavia Hill was a pioneer with her work providing housing for the poor in the 1830s.
Among her core beliefs was that this provision should be managed and funded independently of the state.
This social reformer warned presciently that “municipal socialism” would mean indiscriminate demolition and the destruction of communities.
In 1869 she declared: “Where a man persistently refuses to exert himself, external help is worse than useless.” This is a powerful critique of what a century and a bit later would be called the “dependency culture.”
Sadly this legacy has been betrayed. Housing Associations have become so absorbed by the state that last year the Office for National Statistics decided to classify them as part of the public sector.
David Orr, the chief executive of the National Housing Federation which represents the “sector”, is always keen to blame “swingeing cuts” in public spending for the shortage of housing association properties due to the “catastrophic” impact on house building.
Yet housing association can find their own salvation when it comes to funding the building of new homes: sell off the most expensive stock to provide a larger number of replacement properties.
They should certainly be keen to do this. Their mission should include alleviating overcrowding and having people languishing in temporary accommodation – often in squalid hostels or at the mercy of slum landlords.
If these imperatives are accepted then it is clearly an absurdity for housing associations to be providing tenants with luxury housing way above the average value of housing on the open market.
When I was on the management committee of the Shepherd’s Bush Housing Association I gently suggested that retaining a £4 million house in Kensington Square wasn’t the most effective way to alleviate housing need for the greatest possible number.
The response was scornful. I was told the property was among the association’s “jewels in the crown.”
“Lucky family, good for them!” was the reply. Sadly this mentality is far from unique.
Thus it has come about that Octavia Hill’s moral crusade has been betrayed into a kind of socialism by jackpot. Her successors have become subsidy junkies on six-figure salaries busy manipulating the system. They have forgotten why they are here and who they supposed to be here for.
A YouGov poll found that 73% agreed that “people should not be offered council houses that are worth more than the average house in their local authority.” Only 15% disagreed.
There are new rules being brought in for council housing to ensure that “high value” stock is sold when it is vacant. The proceeds will fund replacement housing association properties. In return, housing associations have agreed to provide their tenants with a right to buy.
It is high time that housing associations stopped clinging on to expensive properties. As the think-tank Policy Exchange has said: “There is a strong case that housing associations’ charitable status carries a responsibility
to use scarce resources appropriately. Charity trustees are legally obliged to invest sensibly.”
The law needs to be tightened to put the matter beyond doubt.
The asset management failures of housing associations might seem like a dry and technical subject.
But there is a huge human cost: 1.2 million children in England live in overcrowded housing. Ideology and inertia has meant housing associations are letting down those to whom they have a duty of care.
The Government must not allow this abuse to continue. Housing associations must get back to their roots.