Construction slows down, right down.
Local Plan targets are not met.
Government penalises councils by raising targets 20%.
Anyone spot the flaw?
And will developers cease buying up land for land-banking during this period?
Dream on, dream on.
Category Archives: Affordable and Social Housing
Development Management Committee defers Bovis Seaton affordables decision to study viability figures
East Devon’s Development Management Committee has refused to approve an application from Bovis to build extra houses on the Tesco regeneration site at Harbour Road. It decided instead to bring the matter back to its next meeting to look more closely at the viability assessment for Affordable Housing.
Members were surprised when officers said that they were free to look at the viability assessment, although it will not be made publicly available.
This setback for the developers came after the DMC’s chairman, David Keys, and the Council’s Development Officer, Ed Freeman, recommended approval of an extension of the ‘zero relaxation’ for affordable housing (which means NONE at all in the huge project) in March, without bringing the matter to the Committee or informing the town council of the application.
However, it transpires that Bovis had already applied for extra houses on the site, and said no affordable housing should be included because the scheme overall was still £6 million in the red.
But as Seaton ward member Jim Knight asked the DMC, why would they be building these additional houses if the site was not profitable?
The issue came to DMC only because of the persistence of Seaton Town Council, supported on the DMC by Councillor Peter Burrows who insisted that the matter be on the DMC agenda.
The Chair of Seaton’s planning committee, Martin Shaw, argued that the viability assessment for the new application, which linked it to the viability of the scheme as a whole, was flawed because it did not take account of the improved density of the development. He questioned whether the District Valuer had been fully informed when he signed off the viability assessment.
DMC members on all sides expressed concern. Independent leader, Ben Ingham, said that for a long time Seaton had not had enough new housing, but now that it was coming on stream, Seaton people could not afford to buy the houses being built.
Conservative councillor Simon Grundy said ‘We need to stop being treated like children over this matter. The Town council seem to have got a lot closer on this than we did.’
House builders won’t close the gap …
” … The public sector has to be a steady supplier of homes, much as it was during the 1950s under the Winston Churchill, Anthony Eden and Harold Macmillan governments.
To most people in the housing industry, this was obvious for years. Labour, under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, attempted to bully private housebuilders into including social housing in their estates. But it was always an uphill task. Tony Pidgley, the chairman of Berkeley Group, who pocketed a 42% rise in his take home pay to £23m last year, could not close the supply gap even if he wanted to.
He needs to make a profit for his hungry shareholders, who have set him a target of generating £2bn in pretax profit over three years from 2015, as reservations fall by 20%. Social housing is a discreet element of the Berkeley mix, but like most other major housebuilders, it cannot be more than that.
Turnbull makes no judgment on private developers, other than to highlight the empirically irrefutable point that they never build more than 120,000-130,000 homes a year in a country that, even if net migration were brought down to the tens of thousands, would require at least 200,000 new homes a year.
Fathom Consulting is one of the economic consultancies that continue to make this point year after year. It argues that property suffers from a market failure, which must be tackled by the government. Let’s hope that the Lords makes the same point.”
Top Conservative says: “look after NHS nurses not BHS bosses”
“The Conservative Party is “in danger of dying” unless it convinces people it stands for NHS nurses not BHS bosses, the party’s Deputy Chairman warned today.
Speaking to the HuffPost UK, Tory MP Robert Halfon spelt out his fears for the future of the Conservatives and warned that whoever takes over as leader will be inheriting a “collapsing” party.
Halfon, who served in the Treasury under George Osborne for 10 months before becoming Deputy Chairman last May, revealed some local associations were facing a “disaster” due to a lack of new members. He called on the party to stand up against “so-called crony capitalism” and pledge to redistribute money gained from tax cuts to poorer communities.
Halfon also said the public don’t trust the Tories on the NHS and any of David Cameron’s achievements are seen through the prism of austerity. Speaking in his parliamentary office, where a framed photo of Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson hangs on the wall next to a picture of Margaret Thatcher, Halfon explained the potentially dire situation his party is in.
He said: “The party is in danger of dying in my view – the infrastructure is collapsing around the country, the membership is ever aging. “Of course we have an incredible party and the members are unbelievable, and I would not be here if it wasn’t for volunteers, but everywhere you go, particularly in marginal seats, it’s a disaster in many cases.
Halfon, who campaigned for the UK to remain in the EU, went on: “Labour are getting thousands of new members, Ukip are getting thousands of new members and if anything, if I can praise Vote Leave, what did they do in one year with very little money – they created a grassroots organisation, in every constituency in the country with badges, stickers and signs, brilliantly organised from nothing.
“That is the way politics is nowadays. The Conservative Party has to create a grassroots movement like Vote Leave and campaign on issues one by one which are appealing to people. “You have to rally people around an issue but do it in modern ways – whether it’s through social media and also doing the ground war. “You can have the existing stuff going on but you need to create a new kind of grassroots movement.”
Halfon has represented the Essex seat of Harlow since 2010, winning it from Labour in that year’s General Election. He admits that since working in the town, which has below average earnings compared to both the region and the country, his political views have changed from being a “free market Thatcherite” to someone who recognises the need for a “social ambulance” alongside a meritocratic ladder.
Halfon said: “We are in danger of being deserted by the millions of working people who have deserted Labour because they don’t feel we are on their side. They feel they are the party of BHS and not the NHS – by BHS I mean the corporate, awful revolting people like that Phillip Green and the dodgy guy he sold it to.” Halfon claimed workers in his constituency’s branch of BHS were “thrown on the scrap heap because of the greed, the mismanagement of corporate capitalism.”
He went on: “The modern Conservative party needs to launch an assault on the so-called crony capitalism and protect workers and stand up for them.” Branching into policy ideas, Halfon called for the Conservatives to become the “party of redistribution”, arguing that extra money generated for the Treasury by tax cuts for the wealthy should be used to cut taxes for the poor or help impoverished communities. “That’s a Conservative idea of redistribution, rather than a socialist one which says you increase taxes on people and redistribute the wealth,” Halfon said.
He also called for a massive increase in house building, and argued that while schemes such as Help to Buy are a step in the right direction, it was not enough to solve the crisis. “If I think of my own constituents and I think of millions working people across the country they can barely afford a few thousand quid. “The idea of getting £5,000 is impossible. Even if the Government says ‘We’ll match it’ they can’t do it.
“We need to build millions of social housing. I prefer it to be done by housing associations but I’m not against council housing. “But social housing should be as much of a priority of as building millions of affordable houses or by-to-let schemes.”
There is one area where Halfon does not want to see fundamental reform, and that is the NHS. The Tory MP is very open about how the voters view his party when it comes to the health service. a“The public don’t trust us on the NHS. There is an umbilical chord between the public and NHS, they do not want us to privatise it. They do not want us to mess around with it. They just want a good service.”
Halfon has yet to decide who he will back in the Conservative leadership election, but the support of the man who so successfully battled for a freeze on fuel duty will be a bonus for any candidate’s “white van” credentials.
When asked by the HuffPost UK why he didn’t put himself forward, Halfon shook his head said he didn’t think it was a role to which he was suited. “Whoever is the leader, this is a huge chance,” he said, before reeling off the achievements of David Cameron’s Governments: equal marriage, the National Living Wage, the pupil premium, free school meals.
“Everything was seen in the frame of austerity by the public,” said Halfon.
“We will never get support again unless, in my view, we radically change our narrative, radically change our policies in terms of how we reach out to the public and radically change the way our political party operates.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/robert-halfon-conservative-dying_uk_5776b79be4b0c9460800c912
Brexit and housing
From Daily Telegraph Money/Property:
“What does it mean for the supply crisis?
While we don’t know whether immigration will be curbed, if there are fewer people allowed to work in the UK’s construction industry, it will exacerbate the already acute skills shortage. About 12 per cent of construction workers across the country are from abroad, and in London that rises to 23 per cent.
Construction costs could jump 12 per cent as a result of the vote to leave, according to Ted Macdougal, development director for Forrest, a housebuilder.
Our housing supply-demand imbalance will not be solved any time soon: the Government’s pledge to build 200,000 homes per year is still way off target. Investment in house building is on hold and until there are enough homes built, the lack of supply could cushion house prices, regardless of Brexit.”
The law of unintended consequences strikes yet again
“The fallout from last week’s vote to leave the European Union is rattling business and finance, far and wide. One aftershock is being felt at the European Investment Bank.
The EIB is owned by the 28 member states of the EU. The UK, alongside Germany, France and Italy, is among its largest shareholders, with about 16%.
The bank provides finance to a wide range of projects around Europe, with a particular focus on areas like infrastructure, social housing, renewable energy and education. It invested £5.6bn (6.7bn euros) in the UK last year and has ploughed £42bn (50bn euros) into the country over the last decade.
But after the Leave vote, there may already be a freeze descending on some new investment.
The good news is that the EIB says that its recent deals in the UK should proceed as planned. Those include funding to an automotive parts business in County Durham, to Swansea University, to housing associations in Northern Ireland and to an off-shore windfarm in Scotland.
But the EIB told Newsnight that the uncertainty created by the vote to leave the EU means that some UK projects, which previously would have stood a good chance, are now less likely to be approved.
There are reasons why the EIB might be cautious. It is unclear whether the UK could or would remain a shareholder after it leaves the EU. That might depend on the form of its relationship with the remaining 27 members. The situation is unprecedented and the EIB’s statue doesn’t contain any guidance or provisions for a shareholder leaving the EU.
Where does the money go? EIB lending to UK 2011-2015:
Energy – 28%
Transport – 25%
Water, sewerage, solid waste, urban development – 25%
Industry, services, agriculture – 7%
Education, health – 11%
Small and medium-scale projects – 4%
Source: EIB”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36668129
Brexit, developers, local plans and devolution
So, we voted out – and suddenly housebuilders (developers) shares plunged by 40%.
There does not seem to be an immediate link with voting out, but there is. We are in for an unstable time. There will be a recession and pundits differ only on whether it will be short (around 2 years) or long (anywhere from 5-20 years depending on who you listen to). House prices will reflect this by falling and mortgage rates may well rise, pushing some into negative equity and others wary of buying in case they fall into negative equity.
Housebuilders will also need to factor in higher import costs coming in the near future when EU trade reduces and new trade agreements have not begun, along with a local skills gap as workers from the EU dry up. Plus likely (possibly temporary)increases in income tax to cover lost government income from (again possibly temporary) shrinking markets. Not to mention higher unemployment benefits to those whose jobs currently depend directly and indirectly on those employers who would normally benefit from being in the EU.
To compound this, many developers have recently taken their huge profits out of their businesses by giving their directors massive bonuses.
All these factors cause a “perfect storm” for Local Plans and the general East Devon economy. Our Local Plan is predicated on continuous growth and increasing employment, fuelling a constant demand for new housing. And, more worryingly, there are penalties if this does not happen. If we (and all other councils) do not maintain a 5-year land supply, we are penalised by having our housing numbers INCREASED by 20%.
Another complication is that, currently, our council (and others) depend for income on the government’s “New Homes Bonus” – the more new homes it gets a developer to build, the more income it gets.
All this conspires to suddenly make our local plans hardly worth the paper they were written on.
Then there is devolution – which in Devon and Somerset also highly depends on housebuilding – having “promised” an extra 176,000 houses over and above Local Plans, and also dependent on continuous growth and constantly increasing employment. It is no coincidence that the Chairman of our Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP: the lead in the devolution bid) is Chairman of big developer, Midas.
Our LEP was also promised “jam tomorrow” funds (over 30 years) from the government AND anticipated masses of EU funding, all riding on the back of a new Hinkley C nuclear power station. All other devolved areas were given similar promises.
Our new government will now have its hands full attempting to negotiate its way out of the EU, rewriting or scrapping those EU laws we have (including those on environmental protection and workers rights) and trying desperately to work out where this notional extra £350 million a week is eventually going to be spent. It has already been promised to the health service, areas currently in receipt of EU regeneration funding and academic research programmes currently supported by EU grants. That is simply an arithmetical nightmare and almost certainly an impossibility.
This leaves East Devon in a precarious position: heavily dependant on new housebuilding and continuous year on year economic growth with constant employment growth and receipt of funds from a distracted government which has also promised to stem immigration – many having voted for this as its first priority. These two priorities will mean little time for other things. Not to mention having to deal at the same time with the implications of Scotland and Northern Ireland’s differing position on their future in the UK and EU.
The Local Plan and devolution deals are now almost certainly of much lower priority to this beleaguered government and this may well lead to unintended consequences the like of which our council and our LEP can only imagine and for which they have no plan B.
Many warned that economic growth and increasing employment between now and 2030, when our local plan ends, was unattainable and that at least one event would intervene for which there was no contingency. Few expected it to happen quite so quickly.
“‘Astonishing’ refusal of plans for 94 affordable homes in Ipswich”
“The Government has “astonishingly” turned down plans for 94 affordable homes in Ipswich.
Ipswich Borough Council (IBC) approved the Ravenswood scheme in Nacton Road in November 2014, but the Government called it in to review in January 2015.
A planning inspector backed the scheme after a public inquiry in September, but yesterday Greg Clark, secretary of state for communities and local government, told the council the proposals were refused for not providing a mix of affordable and market housing.
David Ellesmere, IBC leader, said: “After sitting on the report for more than six months, the Secretary of State has now blocked the application.
“This is astonishing. I cannot think of an application turned down because the housing wasn’t expensive enough.
“The length of time it has taken to take this decision is likely to cost the council millions of pounds in lost rent, grants and increased construction costs, while families have been left languishing on the waiting list.”
Newton Poppleford affordable housing: “and then there were none”
EDDC have received an amendment to planning application 16/0218/OUT at Waterleat, High St. Newton Poppleford.
“Reduction in number of units from 12 to 9 (all open market following a change in Government advice); provision of a financial contribution towards affordable housing, open space and habitat mitigation (subject to viability); and submission of a new indicative layout plan showing the reduced number of dwellings and two parking spaces per dwelling.”
So GOVERNMENT ADVICE now means no affordable homes in this site in the centre of the village with its level access to transport and the village’s facilities which, of course, particularly lends itself to homes dedicated to the elderly.
A 2012 application was refused, one reason being the inadequate number of affordable homes. Consultee’s comments from EDDC’s Housing Strategy Officer, the Parish Council and the emerging Neighbourhood Plan Strategy Group all expressed deep unhappiness at the derisory 2 affordable housing units previously submitted in this current application. Now there are to be none!
Given the location of the site this is an opportunity sorely missed.
135,000 40-60+ year olds looking for a spare room to rent
“The flat-sharing site SpareRoom.com has revealed it has 100,000 clients in their late 40s and early 50s on its books, and 35,000 customers in their late 50s and early 60s.
I was not surprised to learn that older tenants are rising in number: many older house-hunters might be unable to get a mortgage due to their age, with renting the only option.”
“Affordable” rents – a new hoop for anyone under 35 to jump through
“Letter in Guildford Dragon from Lib Dem ward councillor for Friary & St Nicolas
I have seen and heard comments that we Guildford Borough Counci], as an authority, are not filling places in some of the town centre residential developments, in particular the Barratt’s site in Walnut Tree Close, and implying that we therefore don’t have an urgent need for housing.
There are reasons why these newly built flats are taking time to fill.
Firstly, it is normal to phase the letting of properties in new developments simply for logistical reasons. There are 20 rented one bedroom flats in the development that are classified as “affordable” and let at what is referred to as “affordable rents”.
Affordable rents are normally 80% of a market rent or may be set at the equivalent Local Housing Allowance rate (Housing Benefit rate) if this is lower, which means the rents are currently some 40% higher than equivalent town centre council owned one-bedroomed flats.
The term “affordable” is a misrepresentation. Although lower than the market rent, these flats are beyond the reach of many with a regular but not highly paid job.
Additionally, new welfare reforms also affect younger single people and have made these flats unsuitable for those that will be under the age of 35 on April 1st 2018, as, after that date, any new tenants will only be entitled to less than 50% of the housing benefit than they can claim at present.
Given that over half of our single housing applicants are under 35, they would not be able to afford to live at this development.
The affordability issue means all those that have expressed interest in the flats have been subject to financial assessments to ensure that they can afford the rents and council tax as well as meet their day to day living expenses without getting into financial difficulty in the future.
Sadly it has been shown that although there are very many housing applicants that would love to live in these properties, they simply cannot afford to do so.
In a new development such as this it is right that the council spend time getting a good mix of tenants, and more importantly ensure that they can afford to meet the rent and other living.
The fact that it is taking time does not mean that there’s no urgent need for housing across the whole borough.”
“Gold bricks” – a new housing phenomenon
“One-in-four investors from Gulf states intending to buy property in London plan purely to gain from rising prices without living there, according to research among wealthy people seen by the Guardian.
Concerns have been raised over “buy to leave” properties, which are often owned by overseas buyers who do not use them for much of the year. In May, the Guardian revealed that 184 of the 214 apartments in the luxury central London development the Tower did not have anyone registered to vote and that almost two-thirds of the properties were owned by overseas buyers. The new mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has spoken out about buyers who use homes in the capital as “gold bricks for investment”. …
… A quarter of those who said they planned to buy a property in London said they were targeting capital gains rather than looking for somewhere to live or let out, while 22% said they were planning to buy to let.”
The housing crisis … a crisis of failing capitalism
” … across Britain, people are facing a crisis in housing and in basic pay. Headlines about the collapse of BHS and the horrific conditions at Mike Ashley’s Sports Direct have understandably shocked people, but these aren’t mere consequences of one or two rogue businessmen, but the symptoms of rapacious capitalism. The women in the Sports Direct warehouses who went into labour at work did so because work has become precarious, and zero-hours contracts have been allowed to bloom, because of government attacks on workers’ rights both under Labour and, to an increased degree, under the Tories.
If you’re on a zero-hours contract, you’re forced to scrabble for any work possible to pay your rent, accepting conditions most salaried people would walk out over. If you want to take your employer to court for sexual harassment, racial discrimination, or for forcing you out when you announced your pregnancy, you now have to pay to do so. The poorest have been denied justice, as well as decent pay and conditions.
Cuts to benefits, the cataclysmic farce of the universal credit rollout, and the assault on support for disabled people mean that, post-recession, people who struggle to earn a decent wage are denied basic support. The housing crisis is an affordability crisis, but not one that solely lies in the cost of London flats: people across the country simply can’t afford to live. Rents in the north west are lower, but pay is lower still. Geographic inequalities have worsened post-recession, and many areas feel as though they’ve been left behind.
The housing crisis is everywhere, because pay, benefits and working conditions have worsened or been cut. Attacks on unionisation and government defences of zero-hours contracts will do nothing but fuel an already blazing fire. This is a nationwide crisis, because it’s a crisis of capitalism: as long as we subsidise companies for paying poverty wages, whilst blaming low earners for their own poverty, nothing will change.”
Cranbrook ” consultation”
“People who live and work in and around Cranbrook are to have their say on a range of subjects as part of the ‘Your town, Your future, Your say’ consultation.
Health and wellbeing, culture, sport and community, economy and enterprise, energy and climate change, transport, landscape and biodiversity, design and housing which have been published in a Cranbrook Issues and Options Report. …
… Mark Williams, Chief Executive of East Devon District Council said:“This is the first major consultation to engage residents of Cranbrook and give people an opportunity to influence how their town grows and what they would like to see happen.
We have made amazing progress over the past five years. Cranbrook has grown from zero to over 1,300 homes and in the next five it will more than double in size. In 20 year’s time Cranbrook will be as big as Barnstaple!” …
Good luck with that, people of Cranbrook – especially if you don’t want to live in a town the size of Barnstaple.
And you might want to check the developers’ plans – they will be very well advanced and will certainly take precedence over any ideas you may have.
Perhaps start with truly-affordable housing, garages wide enough for cars, streets wide enough for buses and a hospital (after all there is one in Barnstaple with 423 beds for its 20,000 plus population) … see where that gets you!
“Housing crisis giving capitalism a bad name”
“… In the early 1990’s, low and middle-income workers needed to save 5% of their wages for three years to build a deposit for a first-time property. Today they need 24 years of such savings. …
… Survey evidence suggests over half of first-time buyers in 2015 had to rely on financial assistance from their parents, rising to two-thirds in London and the South-East. The UK housing market is giving capitalism a bad name. We are no longer a progressive, meitocratic society”. ...
Liam Halligan, today’s Sunday Telegraph, article: “No amount of EU hysteria can bury our housing crisis”, page 4, Business section
The housing crisis – who is to blame?
“Labour, Conservative and even Coalition Governments have failed to solve the UK housing crisis. Here’s why.
Britain’s housing crisis is nothing new. We’ve had a shortage of homes for decades, and the problem is no closer to being fixed today.
The problem is that those with the power to do so might actually be worse off if they succeeded in meeting our housing needs. …”
Budleigh Salterton in top 10 most expensive seaside towns
At number 10 – average house price £360,984.
No doubt the developers will be beating a path to EDDC’s door so they can both find a way of building the social or affordable housing on a brownfield site that the town will need to keep its young people near home – if there are any young people left.
Short inquiry into Local Plans Expert Group recommendations
The Communities and Local Government Committee has launched a short inquiry into the recommendations put forward by the Local Plans Expert Group (LPEG) to improve the local plan-making process:
Accepting written submissions; the deadline is 27 June 2016
The Committee invites written evidence on the following areas:
The Local Plans Expert Group’s recommendations
The next steps for the local plan-making process
The deadline for written submissions is Monday 27 June 2016.
Send a written submission via the Local Plans Expert Group recommendations inquiry page
Chair’s comments
Clive Betts, Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee, said:
“The Local Plans Expert Group concluded that substantial reform of the local plan-making process was required and made detailed recommendations for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of local plan making.
The Committee will consider these recommendations and look at how DCLG plans to act on them.”
Background to the inquiry
The LPEG report highlighted difficulties assessing and meeting housing needs through local plans as a central issue, the dominance of which was sometimes to the detriment of other local plan elements. Other issues raised by the report included insufficient engagement with local communities.
In April 2016, the Committee reported on DCLG’s consultation on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). In the previous parliament the Committee held an inquiry into the NPPF and an inquiry into the operation of the NPPF.
“Housing crisis: affordable homes vanish as developers outmanoeuvre councils”
“Private property developers are outmanoeuvring councils in housing negotiations and routinely delivering fewer affordable homes than town halls want, an industry analysis has revealed.
Amid growing anger at the sale to foreign buyers of almost two-thirds of London’s tallest residential skyscraper, which includes no affordable housing, it has emerged that not one London borough that set targets has met them in the last six years.
Councils sometimes secured as little as 13% affordable housing when their stated targets were as high as 50%, according to analysis commissioned by BNP Paribas Real Estate, which advises local authorities and housebuilders in negotiations. On average, the 34 boroughs achieved 22% affordable housing, on targets ranging from 30% to 50%.
A key factor has been the rising value of land for commercial use, which has made developers more willing to abandon housing schemes and turn sites over to more profitable office buildings, the research suggests.
The difficulty that councils have faced in persuading developers to meet their needs illustrates the scale of the challenge facing the new London mayor, Sadiq Khan, who has pledged to dramatically boost affordable housing. Khan revealed on Wednesday that only 13% of the homes given planning consent in London last year were affordable. He has said his “long-term strategic target” is half.
If Khan moves too fast to reintroduce that 50% target, he risks stalling housing development completely, experts have warned. Move too slowly and he will face anger from his electorate, who voted him in with a mandate to tackle the housing crisis.
“Planners are mindful of the need to avoid squeezing the pips so hard that developments stall,” said Dr Anthony Lee, a BNP Paribas adviser who has represented London boroughs in negotiations with developers. “They need to strike a balance between pushing too hard in their negotiations on the affordable housing level on schemes and the impact this could have on overall housing land supply.”
Councils and developers have long been engaged in what amounts to a grand haggle. Developers examine a council’s affordable housing target and then make an opening offer, which is likely to be much lower. It is up to the planning authority to determine whether the basis for the calculations is fair and correct and a battle of the experts often ensues.
Frequently, the developer has not yet bought the site from the landowner, which gives them a significant negotiating advantage because there is a constant threat that if the negotiation doesn’t go their way, they could back out of the deal and the landowner could sell the site for commercial use instead. The local council risks losing not only the affordable homes, but all the homes.
Furthermore, said Lee, council leaders “need developers to deliver their vision for their areas, including town centre regeneration schemes. Councils can’t do it themselves. Marrying the two competing objectives can be quite tough.” …
… So for Professor Danny Dorling, an Oxford University housing expert, haggling with developers to build cheap homes is “nasty planning” and should be abandoned. “We are losing social housing through right to buy at a far faster rate than section 106 agreements could ever replace it,” he said. “There is no reason a strong government can’t do this properly by raising money through tax and develop social housing itself with compulsory purchases if needed.” …
“Literary Landscape Loss Lament”
“This week, leading contemporary writers and artists joined the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) in warning that our matchless and finite countryside is threatened by the Government’s relaxation of planning laws. The group came together to sign a letter to the Sunday Times (published on 29 September) warning that iconic English landscapes are under threat.
The writers support CPRE in saying that Government plans for new homes should prioritise brownfield sites in towns and cities, not the more profitable greenfield sites where housing developers would prefer to build.
In the letter poet Simon Armitage, novelist John le Carre, writer Jeanette Winterson and the sculptor Cornelia Parker and others argue that the Government’s policy of giving preference to greenfield sites over brownfield sites is threatening the “matchless beauty of England” and failing to provide affordable homes.
In support of the letter, Jeanette Winterson said:
‘Concreting the countryside isn’t the answer to Britain’s housing problems. This government is out of touch with real life and tries to cover up its privilege by making what it thinks are popular decisions. We need imaginative people, not policy wonks or developers with vested interests, to re-draw the UK housing strategy. I don’t know why politicians can’t think in colour. Especially the colour green. We can build enough homes. We don’t need to lose our fields for that.’
The letter said:
Dear Sir,
In the two months since the launch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England’s charter to save our countryside we have seen new research showing that over half a million houses are planned for open countryside, with a further 150,000 in the Green Belt.
The scale of this projected development is unprecedented. This needless sacrifice of our green spaces should not be tolerated when England currently has suitable brownfield land for 1.5m new homes which could help regenerate our towns and cities.
As artists and writers who have been inspired by the matchless beauty of England, we urge the Government to support the three basic principles set out in CPRE’s charter to save our countryside.
First, build on suitable brownfield land first, rather than unnecessarily sacrificing the countryside. Second, real localism: give people a proper say in shaping the places they love.
Finally, we must build more houses – not executive houses on green fields, as is too often the case now, but well-designed affordable homes in the right places.
We urge your readers to support CPRE’s charter atwww.saveourcountryside.org.uk
.
East Devon Watch 