How would YOU fix the housing market? We ask Aneisha Beveridge from Hamptons

Whether it's unaffordable house prices, higher mortgage rates, rising rents or increased homelessness: the housing market seems to be stuck in an endless crisis.

There remains an insatiable appetite to buy real estate. Many of those who do not own property strive and put their savings towards achieving it.

It is a dream that is increasingly out of reach for many, as the chronic shortage of housing causes house prices to rise and rents to rise.

Those who already own tend to want more. Whether that means buying a bigger and better house, buying a holiday home or investing in buy-to-let, the British obsession with acquiring property doesn't stop at the former.

Owning real estate has become synonymous with both wealth creation and wealth preservation, and as the money continues to flow in, prices continue to rise.

Government interventions often seem to add fuel to the fire. Stamp duty holidays, Help to Buy, Right to Buy and other schemes were aimed at helping more people onto the ladder.

But while many of these initiatives were successful, they also had the effect of further increasing house prices for subsequent initiatives.

Worst of all, homelessness is increasing. According to research by the charity Shelter, more than 300,000 people are homeless in England, many of whom are in temporary accommodation.

In the new series This is Money, we speak to a property expert every week to ask them what's wrong with the UK housing market – and how they would fix it.

This week we spoke to Aneisha Beveridge, head of research at estate agent Hamptons.

Does Britain have a housing crisis?

Aneisha Beveridge replies: A housing crisis means different things to different people. Regardless of their age or situation, many people are stuck and have to pay a lot for poor-quality housing. But the current housing crisis is being felt most by the younger generations.

Anyone who has come of age since the 2007 crisis is likely to spend more on their home (in relative terms) than their parents did at the same age, often for a smaller home in a cheaper area.

This applies to both tenants and homeowners. Millennials could be the first generation to be worse off than their parents, not just in terms of their earning power, but also in terms of the home they live in.

How does this compare to the past?

Home ownership peaked in 2003, when almost 71 percent of households owned their own home.

Although owning a home is not the right choice for everyone, it provides a safety net in the long term: it provides security of tenure and fixes monthly housing costs.

Over the life of a mortgage, homeowners are almost always better off, especially as they get older and their incomes tend to decline.

Since 2007, a further 3.2 million households call England home. However, the number with a mortgage has fallen by just over a million in the same period.

Many of those households with a mortgage have paid it off, but have not been replaced by the next generation of homeowners.

Instead, more of these new households have grown up in the private rental sector, which has more than doubled in size over the past two decades.

Instead of being a stopgap solution for people in their twenties and thirties, renting becomes an employment relationship for life.

As home prices and, more recently, rents have risen faster than incomes, it has become increasingly difficult for renters to leave.

What was the biggest cause of the housing crisis?

Owners and renters across the country are spending an increasing share of their income on housing – money that could be spent elsewhere in the economy.

This is particularly true in London and the South East, where house prices and rents have become more disconnected from local incomes.

Here the number of houses built has lagged furthest behind the number of newly formed households.

Demand here reflects the growing share of economic growth, which has attracted people from across the UK and beyond.

As a result, locals, especially those with lower incomes, face stiff competition from higher earners, both nationally and internationally.

For lower incomes and young people, this is exacerbated by a lack of new, affordable housing.

There are as many social housing units today as there were 23 years ago. This means that the safety net has become increasingly frayed, with young households less likely to have access to affordable housing than their parents or grandparents.

The private rental sector has filled most of the void, but recent rental growth has made it particularly difficult for tenants on low incomes or benefits to find somewhere to live.

It is increasingly likely that new households will move into the private rental sector and stay there longer.

So it is left primarily to private landlords, who have come under increasing pressure to meet this demand in recent years as more and more tenants rent for longer.

Higher interest rates are likely to widen this deficit, making building more housing more difficult.

The major housebuilders are on track to build 30 to 40 percent fewer homes than a year ago. This reflects higher interest rates making homes more unaffordable, which in turn has slowed sales.

In the past, municipalities and housing associations picked up the slack during recessions.

But as they increasingly rely on private housing sales to subsidize the affordable element; It is difficult for them too.

How would you solve the crisis?

Given that few homes are likely to be built this year, we think there is an opportunity for the government to take a stake in the rental market.

This would take the form of buying houses from homebuilders and renting them out until interest rates fall and the market improves. A bit like the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund, but investing in houses instead of oil.

The fund would buy new homes, from both private developers and housing associations, and rent them to tenants. That is why housing construction must be stimulated.

It typically takes three to five years for a new development to go from the drawing board to completion, a time comparable to the period between general elections.

So while the level of housing construction is generally a reflection of the market at the time, it is also a product of decisions made by a previous parliament.

Anything that removes some uncertainty and helps builders plan over a longer period of time will likely mean more homes are built.

But perhaps most importantly: a major investment in the rental market would put downward pressure on rental prices relatively quickly.

Lower rents would also help reduce the cost of rental subsidies and local government spending on emergency housing.

It could also target younger generations who are at the sharp end of the housing crisis and in some cases improve their ability to save for a deposit to buy.

Will the housing crisis ever be solved?

Over the past thirty to forty years, private home builders have built a relatively constant number of homes on average – between 150,000 and 200,000 per year, with only a few exceptions in the years immediately following the Great Recession. Realistically, it's hard to see this changing anytime soon.

The growth of build-to-rent – ​​where real estate investment trusts develop homes and then act as business owners and rent them directly to tenants – has gone some way to easing the crisis.

While some buyers are busy shielding themselves from higher interest rates, build-to-rent operators have continued to buy and build new homes.

This likely means that more homes will be built this year than would otherwise have been the case. Provided the rental market remains strong, build-to-rent will continue to provide an opportunity for housebuilders as those who build homes to sell can scale up again.

But to consistently build more houses than we are doing now, at a level close to the government's targets, some degree of state impetus is needed.

By taking a direct stake in the rental market, the government can provide support to those who cannot afford to pay the market price for a home.

These are people who would probably have been at the front of the queue for state aid a generation ago, but who are now being left to fend for themselves.