Slow pace of later living

We’re all aware that the wheels of government turn slowly, and that many hopes are crushed beneath those wheels in the process. The latest case in point is the government’s response to the Older People’s Housing Taskforce . Lem Bingley The response arrived on Tuesday, almost two years after the taskforce report was published, which was in turn six months after the text was handed to government.

To be fair, the document did land on the desk of former housing secretary Michael Gove just one day before Rishi Sunak called a general election. While reading the official response this week, the term ‘anaemic’ sprang to mind. After patting itself on the back for minor measures in the National Planning Policy Framework and the Social and Affordable Housing Programme, the government promised future guidance for local authorities and pledged to launch a study into the market dynamics of later-living property.

Speed does matter. A ponderous response risks solving obsolete problems A comment published this week by Housing and Ageing Alliance co-chairs Mario Ambrosi and Professor Julienne Meyer, who chaired the taskforce, welcomed the response but also called for “swift and sustained action to create more choice and better homes for people in later life”.

Speed does matter. A ponderous response risks solving obsolete problems. As Michael Voges, chief executive of trade body ARCO, observed: “The world has changed since the taskforce concluded, with economic headwinds sweeping the housing sector and inflationary pressures on household budgets.” Going back to the taskforce report today, it does indeed read like a document from a time before Donald Trump’s second term, which of course it is.

For example, there is not much in it about development viability, or the lack of it. Were the report being handed to government today, I suspect the 10 taskforce recommendations might read a little differently. Or perhaps not.

The calls to action set out in 2024 do seem a little fluffy. For example, in their fifth recommendation to government, on ensuring that housing for older people is “affordable to live in, and viable to finance, build and operate”, the taskforce neglected to call for any actual tax breaks or other direct financial incentives.

This was an odd omission, given the taskforce report does explore the key role of stamp duty in dampening demand. The transaction tax blocks operators from buying back properties, and acts as a huge disincentive against downsizing into retirement communities in the first place. This in turn fuels a trend of retirement schemes selling more slowly than mainstream housing.

Voges applauded the government’s pledge to research the resale market, noting that tenure models “in which operators have a direct financial interest in resale values” have tended to track average house prices over the long term. He added: “Half a million people now turn 80 each year. [...] The government has bold plans for devolution, placemaking and a National Care Service – but equally bold action on housing for our ageing population is required.” There is much more the government could still do to make later-living development more viable.

And it would be great if it didn’t hang about.