A brief history of housing in England and Wales

The historical recognition of the form of houses tends to be identified by reference to a period of English architectural style, for example Tudor or Victorian. The majority of the current housing stock dates from the middle of the nineteenth century and later, although there are earlier houses in existence, such as sixteenth century (Tudor), seventeenth century (Stuart, Carolingian, William and Mary), eighteenth century (Queen Ann, Georgian) and early nineteenth century (Regency). Nearly all of the extant houses of the sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries are houses that were built for the so-called middle class (e.g. merchants and professionals) and upper class. Only rare examples of cheaper housing from these periods still exist.

The mid- and late nineteenth century (Victorian) saw a huge boom in the construction of housing in response to the mass movement of people from the countryside into the cities as a result of the Industrial Revolution. Cheap terraced houses for the workers, more spacious semi-detached houses for the managers and detached villas for the owners were developed in vast numbers on the outskirts of older towns, often by speculative builders, sometimes by the well-off themselves. These houses had solid walls of brickwork and/or stone, sometimes finished with render, roofs of clay tiles or slates, brick or timber-framed internal partitions, gas lighting, rudimentary cooking, washing and lavatory facilities and coal fires for heating. Much of the cheapest housing was of poor quality, using, for example, sun-baked bricks, and has subsequently been demolished. However, large numbers of terraced, semi-detached and detached Victorian houses are still in existence, albeit modernised at various times during the intervening period.

Houses built in the first decade of the twentieth century (the Edwardian period) are considered by many experts to be the pinnacle of quality in terms of workmanship and materials. Facilities are similar to those of the preceding century but of better quality. This period also saw the rise of the Garden City Movement, based on the writing of Sir Ebenezer Howard, who was highly critical of the urban development of the period and promoted the idea of a planned city with generous public spaces and buildings, low-density houses with large gardens in broad tree-lined streets and separate zones for factories and other industrial development. This led to the creation of garden city towns, such as Letchworth, Hampstead Garden Suburb and Welwyn.

The period between the First World War and the Second World War (the inter-war period) saw much greater state intervention in housing. Previously, involvement on the part of the state had been restricted to the provision of legislation encouraging local authorities to take action, but now the government legislated and provided the funding for the development of council housing, i.e. local authority social housing. There was also considerable private speculative housing development, leading to the suburban expansion of many cities. Both the council and the private housing of the period, particularly the former, reflected some of the principles of the Garden City Movement, especially the low-density housing, large gardens and broad tree-lined streets. This period saw cavity-wall construction and concrete foundations become standard. Floors and roofs were still constructed using cut timbers, bathroom and kitchen fittings were installed as standard, but were still very basic, hot water was often provided by a gas heater and space heating was again based on open fireplaces. Many rural houses still had no piped water, mains electricity or mains drainage.

During both World Wars housing development was suspended and after the Second World War little housing construction took place, apart from repairing bomb-damaged houses, until the mid-1950s when the post-war period of house building really commenced. Both council housing and private speculative development boomed for the next 20 years, although the standards were still relatively low, e.g. few new houses had central heating and roof insulation was non-existent until 1965, and then only minimal. However, most rural properties now had mains electricity and water, and mains drainage became more common.

Gradually, from the 1970s onwards, trussed roofs, often finished with concrete tiles, became standard and modern timber framed construction became relatively popular after a difficult introductory period; even where cavity construction continued to be used, timber or steel framed internal partitions were commonly installed. Central heating became the norm, and during the 1990s, cavity wall insulation and double glazing became standard in new housing developments. Dry wall finishes were also prevalent for new development. During the past 30 years or so, increasing use has been made of new materials and techniques. Examples include composite timber products for structural purposes and finishes and plasticised products, ranging from components such as windows to paint systems. There has also been recognition that many older and sometimes discarded, or unfashionable, products and materials are still relevant, e.g. clay roof tiles, roofing slates, lead work and lime mortar.

Property Investment Appraisal

What exactly does the ‘appraisal’ of property mean? There are two distinct applications in mind. By ‘appraise’ we could mean

a. To fix a price for (an asset);
b. To estimate the amount, or worth or value, of (an asset)

The first of these meanings implies what is known, in the UK, as the valuation process or, in the US, as the appraisal process: the estimation of market value or the prediction of the most likely selling price. There is now widespread acceptance of the international definition of market value set out in the valuation standard of the International Valuation Standards Committee, commonly known as ‘the White Book’ (IVSC, 2005), which is now in its seventh edition.

This definition is the estimated amount for which a property should exchange on the date of valuation between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm’s length transaction after proper marketing wherein the parties had acted knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion.

Many nations also feel the need to have their own valuation standards, not least the UK, whose standards [maintained by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)] have been through a number of editions of what is commonly referred to as ‘the Red Book’. The latest edition (RICS, 2003) is the fifth and has adopted the aforementioned basic international definition.

There are even attempts to create regional standards (such as the European ‘Blue Book’, published by TEGOVA, The European Group of Valuers of Fixed Assets), and this has created some tension and rivalry between international, regional and national bodies, particularly in Europe.

However, there is now very little disagreement, if any, on the general wording of the market value definition, even if there are some differences in interpretation. These differences will continue to diminish as the property investment market becomes more and more international.

The second of the two meanings, the estimation of worth or value, is not necessarily market-based. Since 1995 this concept has been developed and institutionalised, having entered UK valuation standards in the 1990s as the ‘calculation of worth’, and now defined in the White Book under the term ‘investment value’.

The term ‘calculation of worth’ has now – happily – been dropped by the RICS in favour of the international definition.

The definition is as follows: the value of the property to a particular owner, investor or class of investor, for identified investment objectives. This subjective concept relates specific property to a specified investor, group of investors, or entity with identifiable investment objectives and/or criteria. This definition does appear to fudge a major issue, specifically whether worth or value is to an individual investor or to a group of investors. This has significant implications about how it might be assessed in practice, as the value to an individual and the value to a group may not be the same.

Individual investors are influenced by a set of criteria by which the value of an asset might be assessed. For example, their tax situation, the rate at which they can borrow, how much equity capital they have to spare, what adjoining assets they own and the strengths and weaknesses of their existing investment portfolio are all factors that may lead them to perceive value in a particular property.

Hence, while all investors may agree upon such important variables as the size of the asset being appraised, the cash-flow implications of the lease and the likelihood of achieving planning permission for a change of use, individual investors will always be subject to different motivations.

The distinction between value and worth can be important. Further, it is possible that a group of investors will use the same criteria and share the same characteristics, and would as a result attach a similar value to a property asset. Identifying the possible buyer group is very relevant to appraisal, which is therefore the process of identifying a mixture of objectively measured market variables and the prospective owner’s (or group of owners’) subjective estimates of other relevant factors.

We could use the term ‘appraisal’ to cover the process of estimating either market value (the prediction of the most likely selling price) or investment value (the estimation of worth to an individual or to a group of individuals).

We could therefore encourage the use of the term ‘market valuation’ or ‘valuation for pricing’ for the former, and we would prefer to use ‘investment value’ for the latter. We hope this will not cause too much confusion, but the possibility of confusion unfortunately exists, grounded in the fact that the development of property terminology has been influenced by the isolation of the property world from the securities markets.

There is no doubt regarding the meaning of valuation in the securities markets: it means the estimation of worth.

Pricing is a function that is carried out by buyers, sellers and market makers. The price of a particular company in the stock market is publicly quoted, and large numbers of identical shares in that company can be bought and sold. In property, however, there are no market makers.

The price at which a transaction will take place has to be influenced by an expert opinion – a ‘valuation’ – because there is both insufficient market evidence and insufficient homogeneity of product for traders to be able to fix prices. It is therefore to be expected that at any one time different views of worth will be held by different individuals and these differences will fuel market turnover.

In addition to the main concepts of market value and investment value, ‘sustainable value’ (mortgage lending value), a relatively new phenomenon used in the bank-lending process, has been developed in mainland Europe. It has found some favour, particularly within German banking systems, and the mortgage lending value basis has been adopted, along with market value, within the international banking regulatory process known as Basel.

The concept sustainable value has been subject to intense criticism, as of it does not conform to any recognised economic concept of value and the definition is virtually incomprehensible. The implications for investors can be damaging and may have had some impact on the German open-ended fund crisis of 2005/2006. But it is arguably of no merit and should be abandoned.

The stock (property) selection policies of both major and minor property investors often include an examination of the mismatch between estimates of market value and investment value in order to spot pricing anomalies, and any investor or advisor will benefit from a clear understanding of the difference between the market value of an asset and its worth to an investor or group of investors.

If there is a difference, is this evidence of poor-quality appraisal? It is widely believed that market valuations should primarily be accurate; that is, they should closely predict selling price.

Accuracy may therefore be a relevant and useful test of the quality of a market valuation. Investment valuations, on the other hand, should primarily be rational; they should be professional and expert reflections of a combination of objectively measured market variables and the prospective owner’s subjective estimates.