Campaigners have urged the council to buy more genuinely affordable “living rent homes” rather than renting or buying from private firms.
One said that Brighton and Hove City Council had bought some properties and planned to build some scores more too – but added: “We need to go further and faster.”
The Living Rent Campaign said that it was calling on the council “not to believe in developers to solve the housing crisis”.
The group held a demo outside Hove Town Hall before the most recent meeting of the full council to urge members to fund new homes rather than subsidise housing developers.
The Living Rent Campaign said: “The government has pledged to deliver 180,000 additional social homes to tackle the housing crisis.
“But this is spread over 10 years and, historically, in an average 10 years, 450,000 council homes are lost to the ‘right to buy’.
“So the campaign claims that for the 180,000 additional social homes to make a difference, they need to be created in the next three years.
“They are relying on developers to do this but they are doomed to fail because developers thrive on high prices that come from a shortage of housing so ‘turkeys won’t vote for Christmas’ by building enough homes to end the shortage.
“It is also flawed because it is actually the loss of social homes under the ‘right to buy’ and the shortage of truly affordable homes that is at the root of the housing crisis and record levels of homelessness, not a shortage of homes in general.
“These social rented homes are precisely the kind of homes that developers don’t want to build and go to great lengths to avoid building because they are not profitable.”
When built by councils, they cost money in the short term but those costs are repaid from tenants’ rents. The Living Rent Campaign said: “In the long term it saves taxpayers loads.
“The only way to get to grips with the housing crisis is a spend-to-save massive increase in social housing grant so that councils can get close to building 100,000-plus council homes a year as was achieved in the 1950s and 1960s.
“Tragically, the government is promising give-away loans to private registered providers at eye-watering interest rates of 0.1 per cent rather than providing this money to councils.”
Former councillor David Gibson, from the Living Rent Campaign, said: “We are protesting about the mistaken pro-housing developer approach of the current government.
“It won’t solve the housing crisis as developers make most money out of housing shortage and they won’t build at sufficient scale as it will bring prices down. Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.
“Furthermore, homelessness is caused by a shortage of truly affordable housing at living rents or less not a shortage of all types of housing.
“What is really needed to make up for the 1.8 million social homes lost under the ‘right to buy’ under national governments is more social housing grant for councils to build.
“This happened at scale in the 1950s and 1960s, with an average of 100,000 to 200,000 council homes built each year.
“Housing developers always try to wriggle out of providing even ‘affordable’ rented homes and will never deliver.
“We have a homeless crisis in Brighton and Hove, with soaring numbers of homeless households living in miserable emergency accommodation costing the council an estimated £6 million more this year alone.
“Instead of giveaway loans at 0.1 per cent to registered private housing providers, the government should be making the cash available to councils to tackle homelessness with a step change in the supply of truly affordable rented homes.
“We are asking the local council to support and call for this.”
The council has stepped up its purchase of homes in recent years from houses and flats sold under the right to buy to new-build blocks.
Some of theses have been added to its general housing stock and some have been used for temporary and emergency housing.
Labour councillors Jacob Taylor and Gill Williams have both spoken about investing tens of millions of pounds in new-builds as well as making better use of some empty properties.
I hope they are aware of the RTB pilot, that intends to avoid losing council flats, which is exactly what they are campaigning for.
…there’s a lot of good intention here, most of it seems to be things already in the pipeline.
What does that entail Benjamin? The only thing I can find out is buying back the former RTB properties. Is there a caveat on the properties they’re buying back, to stop them being sold in the future. Although, this is good short term, I’d like to see RTB Act abolished. Do you think that’s in the pipeline?
Yeah, it’s been talked about at council and the housing panels by Cllr. Williams, although I don’t think it has been reported on here. The basic concept is that instead of selling the property using RTB, the occupant gets a sizable non-repayable grant (Approximately £50k) – quite a decent deposit, throw into a LISA and get the maximum 25% bonus yearly, etc.
The basic maths makes sense; it saves the council money by not having to replace that property (£250,000 saved on a £300,000 property, for example). I’m completely in agreement with you, Anne; I also want RTB to be demolished completely, but this is an innovative stopgap.
Devolution potentially gives a Sussex regional Mayor powers to prevent RTB as well, alongside labouring towards a strategic housing plan, which is excatly fits with this campaign group’s advocacy. It depends on what the regional deal looks like ultimately – I certainly want housing to be a foundational focus of this government moving forward. I think it is the quintessential lever that can be pulled to make life more affordable for everyone.
Benjamin, the RTB pilot might slow the loss of council homes, but it doesn’t really solve the bigger issue.
It’s not just about stopping homes being sold — it’s about actually increasing supply and making sure it goes to local people. Right now, even new “affordable” homes often don’t end up in the local housing pool.
So while the pilot helps at the margins, it doesn’t address the scale of the shortage or the wider demand pressures.
…hence devolution, like I just mentioned?
The former Smart View hotel in Kingsway has planning permission to be converted into 30 flats. Buy that for starters. The infrastructure is already there. It could be ready within 12 months, providing stunning council accommodation. The current owners have been letting it deteriorate to a worrying degree over the last four years and do not deserve to keep it.
Actually, a CPO might be a good move worth considering if the current developers are not doing anything with the site. Hotels are so ideal because, as you said, most of the rooms already have water, waste, and electricity running into them, so it’s much easier to convert, I’d imagine.
Put up council tax for rich people who own houses to pay for it. Simple
By adding additional council tax bands, absolutely. It’s well overdue for reform, since it’s still based on the 1991 valuations.
We can keep building, but it won’t fix anything if the homes don’t go to local people.
Too many “affordable” properties are snapped up by foreign investors, second-home buyers, or turned into Airbnb-style lets. That means they never enter the real local housing supply.
So yes, build more — but unless there are strict protections on who can buy and use these homes, the shortage will continue. Right now, supply is being drained as fast as it’s created.
Yep, and why the new C5 class usage is an important piece of that puzzle, alongside legal aspects like primary residency clauses.
I can’t afford to live where I want either, but I don’t expect anyone to solve that for me.
Very reasonable, and I’d agree that people should take responsibility for themselves to a certain extent, but it hurts the city when housing ratios become extremely high. See the effect on our schools, adult social care, jobs, and local economy, for example.
Thinking of it as a broader picture, there’s an element that’s less Kantian, but utilitarian. Being able to live somewhere means you can bring your skills and knowledge to that area, and that benefits the area as a whole. Does that make sense?
No. Define to a certain extent
Personal responsibility with a safety net, because unpredictable events can and do happen, through no fault of the individual.
Oh good grief. How many years was Dave Gibson a councillor and Chair of Housing?!
Did he do any of these things he’s campaigning for when he had the power? NO.
The perfect Green, loves being in opposition, hates being in power.
That’s a thought…he would have been the person stopping Community Land Trust from doing what he is campaigning for now.