**2. The pros and cons of downsizing**

In the latter part of this paper I look at how a more considered and co-ordinated approach to meeting the housing needs of older people would actually represent a national opportunity: the key to better care, fewer (and shorter) hospital stays and a more integrated society. But first I'd like to address the related and highly controversial issue of downsizing that, at the moment, is diverting attention away from seizing this opportunity.

It's not unusual in our society for older people to be portrayed either as an economic and social burden and a roadblock to progress, and/or as the owners of a disproportionate amount of the nation's wealth and assets… with housing the prime example of that.

Blaming older people for the country's housing crisis is not only discriminatory but also demonstrably untrue: the problem is far more deep-rooted and borne of decades of undersupply against a background of a rising population. Despite that, older people are routinely characterised as selfishly "rattling around" in the large houses they were fortunate enough to purchase before housing became unaffordable to a large swathe of the population… and they are regularly being exhorted to make way for others. In November 2021 [2], then Housing Minister Chris Pincher became one of the latest, telling a House of Lords committee that almost four in ten properties were currently "under-occupied" and could be better used by younger families with children.

He went on to insist that the Government was keen to encourage housebuilders to create more developments suitable for pensioners. Having heard a string of Ministers make similar noises over the years, but seen little to further the process (not least, failing to change obstructive planning regimes) you'll excuse me if I do not hold my breath.

In fact, research by WPI Economics and Homes for Later Living [3] estimates that three million older people would like to downsize, yet only about 7000 new retirement properties are built each year. Their "key national policy recommendation is for a 10-year programme of building 30,000 retirement properties every year", which would represent a complete step change in the planning and development process.

For those seeking smaller, more manageable and accessible homes, bungalows have long been hugely popular and could easily form an important part of this equation… if enough were being built. But in 2020, just 1942 came out of the ground, according to the National House Building Council: around 2% of total housing supply [4], against a figure of 26,000 in 1987. Further research in 2021 by McCarthy Stone [5] found that 70% of over-65 s would consider moving to a bungalow. Older people cannot be asked to move to housing that is not there.

Agreed, on the face of it, downsizing to more suitable housing makes good sense on all sides. The prospect of reducing maintenance and heating costs, along with lower Council Tax payments for those downsizing… perhaps even releasing some much-needed capital along the way; plus a chance to get families into larger accommodation. Moreover, two million homes occupied by older people are currently deemed "not decent", invariably because they cannot afford to adapt or improve them; reducing that figure by enabling older singles and couples to move into housing that was in good repair, warm and accessible would also be very welcome.

Further, if a proportion of those new retirement units were to be located on our currently decaying High Streets, they could play a big role in revitalising our town and city centres, as has been set out by organisations including ARCO (Associated Retirement Community Operators) [6] – as well as enable the occupants to live close to the shops and other services they need in their daily lives.
