Social vs Affordable Housing

Date 20 June 2018
Date updated 21 June 2018

Social Housing delivery breakdown

What does this chart show?

This graph shows the breakdown between the number of social and affordable rented homes delivered in each London borough. “Affordable rented housing” is defined in this graph as having rent which is 80% or below of market value. This is the definition of affordability which was used in the London Plan in 2017 and in the current draft London Plan. 

Social housing is distributed by the council’s allocation scheme, owned and managed by social landlords, and offers low rent which is designed to be genuinely affordable to people on low incomes. It is almost always more affordable for those on low income than “affordable rented housing” from a private landlord.

This graph shows that 8,100 social rented homes were delivered between 2013/14 and 2015/16, compared to 4,900 “affordable rented homes”. Greenwich delivered the most social rented housing, with 1,066 new properties delivered during this period. There were 4 boroughs, Redbridge, Harrow, Waltham and Bexley, which demolished more social housing than they delivered. Some of these demolitions are part of phased redevelopment schemes. 

Waltham Forest delivered the most new “affordable rented homes” – 693 new properties. Five boroughs – Hammersmith, Westminster, Kensington & Chelsea, Richmond and Islington – as well as the City of London, reported that they had delivered zero new “affordable rented homes” during this period. Four boroughs – Harrow, Waltham Forest, Redbridge and Bexley, reported a net loss in social housing during this time.

*Please note, the social rent delivery figures here do not include loss of stock through Right to Buy.

**Furthermore, the data on affordable rent completions comes from "returns" required by central Government, which asks Local Authorities to report on new affordable housing, but does not require them to report on affordable housing which has been converted to another tenure. So it is likely that these figures do not take into account affordable housing stock which was lost during that period.