IN 1966, leading Modern Movement architect Richard Seifert completed his iconic Centre Point office building at Tottenham Court Road. There were no takers for this space. It was empty for a decade. 

The developer got it wrong. In an area where homeless people gather, it was inevitable that it was occupied for a time. 

The homelessness charity Centrepoint, named as a reverse tribute to the empty hulk, was set up in a church nearby to tackle street homeless young people. 

A recent change of use to residential enabled a redevelopment of the building. Centre Point Residences is prime residential property, next to a Crossrail station.

However, it was reported that the developer had been unable to sell half of the flats at the price he wanted. So he has taken them off the market completely, saying that they had covered the construction costs and leased the retail spaces at ground level, so there was “no point” trying to sell. 

So half the flats will remain empty. The developer got it wrong.
As winter approaches, we have hundreds of street homeless people huddled in doorways. Last year across the UK 449 people died on the street. 

Meanwhile, there are a recorded 20,000 empty homes in dark buildings across the capital, and 15,000 high-end properties on the market — not counting those taken off the market.

So how has the recent Budget addressed this? 

A few small inducements for new shared ownership buyers, including no stamp duty, an extension of help to buy, further inducements to convert retail to residential, removal of the borrowing cap for council building programmes and funding for housing associations. 

While the long-demanded removal of the cap for council borrowing is welcome, it doesn’t provide any funding. Many of these schemes have unintended consequences. Some actually inflate housing prices, only benefiting the landlords and developers we continue to rely upon to supply housing. 

Under the current trajectory, all we are doing is lining the pockets of developers with taxpayers’ money.

In Kensington, across London and in other areas where property is expensive in relation to income, delivery of new social rented homes relies upon selling private high-value property. This market has failed spectacularly.

If we continue to use this failed formula we will not, ever, get the social rented homes we desperately need. We will never house our homeless.

Let’s look briefly at the tax breaks which encourage people into private home ownership:

• Council tax, based on values at 1991, effectively a subsidy to landlords
• Capital gains tax relief, which costs the country £6 billion a year
• Lack of property tax, costing £11bn a year
• Right to buy subsidy, costing £2bn a year
• Shared ownership subsidies
• Tax relief for buy-to-let interest-only mortgages
• Help to buy, which has had many unintended outcomes, such as subsidising second homes for those earning six-figure sums

We need a thorough, honest and accurate review and a frank discussion about these subsidies and who in reality they are helping.

There must be better ways of spending taxpayers’ money to provide stable homes for our overcrowded families, young people starting out in life, our military veterans who end up street homeless, our elders, as well as people with specific physical needs. 

We need a thorough review and a frank discussion about the role and practices of housing associations, now redefined as “developers with social purpose,” and their management of existing and new buildings.

We need to get a grip on construction companies offering apprenticeships, for which many do not have the capacity to train anyone, while £1.3bn in apprenticeship levy lies unspent. Where are our construction training centres turning out skilled workers with a good career ahead of them? We cannot build without builders.

And we need a nationwide needs assessment to inform our housebuilding. Evidence is a far better guide than developer greed.

You may not have noticed that the word “Grenfell” did not appear once in the Chancellor’s speech. I did. 

RBKC Council applied to the government for £50 million for the Grenfell Recovery Plan. Not a penny has been forthcoming.
Doesn’t the government trust the council either?

The £400m announced earlier this year for cladding replacement in council buildings was welcomed, but it is not nearly enough. Who is to pay for the shortfall? 

Winter is coming and countless numbers of my constituents are potentially facing a harsh winter in draughty and poorly maintained social housing. Elsewhere around London and across the nation there are social tenants whose buildings have been stripped of cladding.

Some are in for a second freezing winter. Who will pay for their fuel bills? How many elderly and frail people will simply fade away with hypothermia because they are too afraid to ramp up the heating? 

The Fuel Poverty Action Group is campaigning hard on this issue. Money must be found. This is a public health emergency. Cold kills.

This brings us onto the essential work of updating fire safety and building regulations. I spend a lot of time with specialists in these fields. 

The policing, fire and Grenfell minister spoke last week at an event on fire safety. I heard these words — consultations, reports, pilots, reports, consultations on pilot reports. No substance and no action now, let alone a commitment to fund work needed to upgrade building regs. We are informed “the industry will pay.” I truly doubt it. 

Platitudes won’t save lives. 

There is nothing in this Budget to fix our housing crisis and nothing to address the unholy mess we are in post-Grenfell. 

As the Centre Point monument to developer greed lies half empty, 151 Grenfell affected households are still homeless and hundreds of families are in fear of a harsh winter. 

To those maintaining the fallacy of “market delivery,” to those turning their backs on the mortal danger so many are forced to live in — shame on you all!

Emma Dent Coad is Labour MP for Kensington.