A key political demand over many, many years has been for more housing. This has come at a cost to other vital uses of land. Continued loss of greenbelt, greenfield and agricultural land to housing has to be unsustainable over the long term.
Both Labour and Conservative parties in government have been successfully lobbied and convinced of this need for housing. First to sustain the construction industry whose key input is land and, second, because more housing provides more income to local and central government. Has to be win-win doesn’t it?
It is this narrow interest that is contributing to unprecedented change for us all and, more significantly, to the environment, food security and climate.
We are being misguided by charlatans.
Some relevant facts
- Britain has an area of 244,376km2.
- It has an increasing population density.
- It has an increasing population.
- It also has a diminishing natural environment.
- Native wildlife is in continued and significant decline.
- And the climate is changing rapidly.
More food from less land?
The UK cannot feed itself.
One source states the UK imports 46% of its food. This means depending on international supply chains and being exposed to international fluctuations in prices for food.
Our former political leaders facilitated Brexit while focusing on building more houses, with more and more being built on agricultural land. Where is the sense in that?
Why is more attention not being given to ensuring there is suitable and sufficient food security? The answer has to be short term gain, more people make more money from housing. And food? Well people can just keep on paying higher prices for it.
I cannot fathom the insane logic of successive governments that have established increased dependency on the outside world to feed ourselves while planning to turn the country into a housing estate.
Housing need is based on a calculation
The policies of successive post WW2 governments have always had a priority associated with the need to build more houses (Hansard 1960).
Where does this ‘need’ come from? What is it based on and has it ever been challenged?
The government guidance for councils to assess their housing need provides information about how housing needs are to be ‘calculated’. Yes, it’s nothing more than a formulaic calculation.
The real housing need has always been for the right type (and quality) of houses at the right price in the right place.
More houses?
Housing targets are set. But are these to meet the needs of people or of housebuilders? That depends on how it is dressed up. Housebuilding targets are seldom if ever achieved, so what is the point in setting them? Are they simply a framework for construction companies to base their resourcing needs on, and in providing a degree of confidence for the housebuilder?
Builders of new houses and their supply chains are major employers, providing multiple revenue streams both to the industry and for local and national government. Construction and all the activities associated with it sustains the livelihoods of many people employed directly and indirectly. Government data ‘workforce by region & industry’ (10 June 2025) states there are 2,249,000 employees and self-employed personnel working directly in the construction sector as of March 2025 (spreadsheet needs to be downloaded to view the data).
The associated supply chain employs many more, then there is a part of the transport sector engaged in moving construction-related goods and services around the country, as well as imported construction materials. All of which is taxed and provides a healthy revenue stream. The Achilles heel is that land is a finite resource.
Brownfield versus greenfield
There are additional costs the developer will need to take into account when developing a brownfield site. There may be demolition costs and land may be contaminated. This causes delay and non-value-adding costs for the housebuilder to absorb.
A greenfield site has a greater probability of not incurring similar costs, although there may be delays caused by archaeological research. This is where the scales tip in the direction of delivering more housing on greenfield sites. The Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) for example points to the loss of agricultural land to housing.
More and more greenfield sites and agricultural lands are being built on. This is an unbalanced approach. It makes no consideration of other basic human needs such as food or water. Yet there are numerous examples (to be found from a simple search on the web) where agricultural land continues to be lost to housing.
The cynic in me believes one motive behind the changes to reliefs from inheritance tax on farms is that farms may have to be broken up and sold, and one of the uses will be land for housing.
I am not alone in holding that view.
Home sweet home
Property developers, supported by the government, entice some first time homebuyers through ‘shared ownership’. This means of encouraging people to buy rather than rent is a cosy relationship between the housebuilder and the government.
As if those costs aren’t enough, most new homeowners have to contend with snagging issues. The pace at which new houses are built is one of the reasons why they are not being built defect free. The scales are tipped firmly in favour of quantity over quality, leaving the consumer left to put up with the consequences. Any other industry and this level of defects would be unacceptable. Just be thankful they aren’t building planes.
The latest government information on repossessions covers January to March 2024 and shows an increase in all areas where money is lent for the purposes of owning a house. The statistician’s comments: “The statistics this quarter shows mortgage possession actions have continued their gradual upward trend with mortgage claims at their highest since 2019. This quarter, mortgage claims, orders, warrants and repossessions are 28%, 19%, 9% and 4% respectively above the previous year’s levels.”
We’ve got a deal for you
People are therefore being lured into taking advantage of these deals to buy a new house. If something goes wrong – a person loses their job, can’t keep up with payments – it is a recipe for disaster. No wonder so many adults are living at home with their parents. This is the result of government policy. (How nice to have sympathetic parents, spare a thought though for the many who don’t).
More supporting services
In September 2024 the County Councils Network were warning of the impact of imposed housing targets on local infrastructure.
Furthermore more new houses are built without due care and attention to the need for necessary improvements to infrastructure, healthcare facilities or schools. Waiting lists become longer, traffic queues longer and schools just have to take more pupils.
This has, to use that oft quoted expression, all the makings of ‘a perfect storm’ and those who created it will be history and certainly not held accountable for what is to come.
In my opinion there is an urgent need for people to become more aware of these issues and to challenge the direction of travel our political leaders are manipulating us into accepting as being needed. We need to change the conversation to the greater imperative: environment and climate change.
