Yes, Britain’s housing market is currently in a state of disarray. However, it would be unwise and shortsighted to completely disregard 75 years of town planning simply to gain a few more seats for the Tories. The recent speeches on housebuilding by Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, and Rishi Sunak, his boss, contain both sensible and nonsensical points.
It is true that there is no urgent “need” for extensive new construction across Britain’s countryside. The preference for lucrative rural sites by developers who donate to political parties does not constitute a necessity. The focus should now be on implementing a green urban policy, which involves increasing population density in existing built-up areas and improving infrastructure, particularly in extensive suburban areas. This concept of density is celebrated by Edward Glaeser, an American urbanologist, in his book “Triumph of the City”, as he highlights the unexpected environmental benefits of Manhattan.
Anyone who travels through England’s Midlands and north cannot deny the existence of miles of unused brownfield land, idle factories, warehouses, and even streets filled with abandoned houses. These areas have been neglected due to decades of economic policies that have fueled wealth inequality, favoring the south-east.
At the same time, ecological conservation advocates for the preservation of green zones, nature corridors, and open countryside.
The housing debate, however, seems to be fixated on new construction, with lobbyists repeatedly shouting “crisis” in every discussion. In reality, building new houses, especially on new sites, is an expensive venture that primarily caters to the wealthy. These new developments have a minimal impact on overall housing supply. The real issue lies in demand, which is heavily influenced by prices that are falling far behind inflation. Home ownership is more of a cultural concept than a welfare necessity. Curiously, some of the wealthiest European nations, such as Germany, Switzerland, and Denmark, have the lowest percentage of homeowners. On the other hand, poorer nations like Romania, Slovakia, and Hungary have higher percentages of homeowners.
The most effective way to increase housing supply is not through arbitrary national targets but by encouraging renting and better utilizing the millions of underoccupied, unextended, unimproved, and unlet houses that exist due to poor regulation in the British housing market. These properties are most likely to be inhabited by low-income individuals and those at risk of homelessness, who should be the government’s primary concern. These individuals require access to housing benefits and affordable rental options, rather than joining a long queue for a rare opportunity to obtain a council house for life. A report from the House of Lords in 2016 concluded that “the existing stock of housing in England is not used particularly efficiently,” highlighting disappointing figures for underoccupied homes.
The government would benefit from studying housing regulations in other European countries, especially Germany, to learn from their successes. Unfortunately, today’s speeches lacked any indication of a willingness to learn. There was no mention of implementing higher but fairer property taxes or abolishing stamp duty, which acts as a tax on downsizing. Furthermore, there was no discussion about eliminating value-added tax (VAT) on conversions and improvements, which effectively imposes a 20% tax on the quickest path to creating new homes.
As for planning reform, Sunak is reasonably interested in loosening controls on changing the use of properties. However, the decision-making power in such matters should not rest solely with central government but should involve local communities as well. The easing of these controls by the David Cameron government has adversely affected high streets, leading to the closure of 51 pubs every month in England and Wales, not because people have stopped drinking, but often due to developers seizing valuable sites. Austerity measures have also resulted in a decrease in the number of planning staff, causing delays in decision-making processes and reducing morale.
In an attempt to mitigate these issues, Gove proposes the deployment of “super-squads” comprising his own planners to handle critical sites. For example, he aims to transform the thriving city of Cambridge into a megacity. As the levelling up secretary, he should instead focus on boosting Manchester, which is already a regional hub for science and the only northern metropolis with the potential to rival London. Cambridge can manage its own development.
Sunak and Gove often mention that planning should be driven by “community support.” However, the real issue is not support but control. The character and destiny of our living environment, where and how we live, should not be determined solely by central politicians. It is a fundamental aspect of local democracy that should be decided by the people who inhabit these communities.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
