One of the most disappointing aspects of the ‘progressive’ policy space is their complete rejection of housebuilding. Green Party councillor Andy Brown’s article on Keir Starmer’s embrace of planning reform has been a prime example of just this.
The article is full of myths which, if we are ever to solve the housing crisis, need busting.
The planning system is obstructing housing
Research endorsed across the housing sector has shown that England needs to build 340,000 homes a year to meet market demands. Last year saw half that number built.
Britain’s planning system is currently hindering growth, because it’s ‘discretionary’, i.e., local areas pick and choose which homes get built, rather than ‘rules-based’, where developments which fulfil certain criteria get approved, developments can be refused for arbitrary reasons. What’s more, political pressure from residents is often enough to make councillors, MPs, and even ministers, step in to veto otherwise reasonable developments.
This outdated system has resulted in the UK building 4.3 million fewer homes than it would otherwise have done. This lack of housing supply is one of the key factors driving rising house prices.
The public sector cannot meet this demand alone
While the public sector should be encouraged to build more homes, it cannot meet demand by itself, particularly after a decade and a half of austerity. Only one in ten council planning departments are fully staffed, while labour is in high demand due to a construction sector skills shortage (in part aided by Brexit).
As a result of this, housing associations and councils in England only built 32,170 homes last year.
The private sector is thus needed to fill the gap. It is a sector with limited incentives to do the things which Cllr Brown demands, like installing solar panels and electric vehicles. The planning system should certainly take these things into account, and a rules-based system could even make it easier to require more sustainable developments. But private companies cannot be expected to act against their short-term financial interest without regulation.
This is hardly an ideal situation, but empowering the public sector to build the homes we need will take decades. To fail to recognise this will only let down those currently suffering the worst from the housing crisis.
Emphasis on ‘affordability’ is often misplaced
Too often, objections to developments concern the affordability of the homes in question. Brown refers to ‘executive homes’ being built which cost more than residents can afford. This, however, ignores the fact that not only is the average new-build house in the UK 38% smaller than the European average, but buying even the most modest home is now out of reach for most. Amping up housebuilding is a crucial tool to making all homes more affordable.
What’s more, insisting on a certain portion of homes being ‘affordable’ will only increase the cost of the other homes on the site. If a developer has to make a loss to ensure one house is affordable, they will need to increase profits elsewhere to offset it.
Building a certain portion of affordable homes is, of course, necessary for those most at need. But balancing of this versus building enough houses for the open market is also necessary.
Environmentally valuable areas are not at threat
While many object to homes being built in areas of natural beauty, this is very rare. Councils’ local plans, including that of Brown’s Craven District Council, already have to complete sustainability appraisals, to ensure that green spaces are protected and that biodiversity levels are maintained or increased.
More often than not, objections are instead raised about developing the ‘green belt’, which largely does not overlap with recognised ‘areas of outstanding natural beauty’. Much of the green belt is not green at all, instead consisting of former industrial land and car parks. Even releasing green belt land around train stations close to urban centres which happen to be in the green belt could provide the sites for 2.1 million homes.
While many point to brownfield sites as a place to build homes, not only are there not enough brownfield sites to meet housing demand, but many of these sites are in the ‘green belt’, and so very difficult to build on.
International examples give hope
Examples from across the world show not only how the UK’s system is bizarrely out of date, but how Keir Starmer’s reforming vision can have positive impacts. Few countries have gone down the UK’s path, with most instead opting for a ‘zoning’ system, where certain types of building are permitted in appropriate areas of land.
What’s more, New Zealand introduced several planning reforms to remove local discretion in the past decade, which has seen a housebuilding boom and, as a result, distribution from the wealthiest to the poorest as pressure on the rental market eased.
The struggle is not developers vs communities
Too often, opponents of building claim that politicians who embrace housebuilding are favouring developers over communities, with implications that they are being ‘bought off’. But framing housing policy as ‘communities’ versus ‘developers’ ignores the millions of young people eager to join these communities, but who are being priced out due to the lack of housing.
Disproportionately, younger tenants are already spending half of their income on rent, often to older homeowners who can afford multiple properties and who benefit from rising house prices. They deserve better than to be disenfranchised in this debate.
Instead of getting in the way of building homes for the future, I, and many other young people, would urge Cllr Brown to get behind new homes, to make sure that future generations have the same chances as their predecessors to get on the property ladder.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
