When asked how the draft local plan would help the transition to a low carbon economy (between 6% and 10% carbon emissions reduction per year - towards the higher end unless starting now) and accommodate about 40% growth in houses (as per Strategic Housing Market Assessment - SHMA) and jobs (Local Enterprise Partnership guess) and associated infrastructure over the next 15 years, the responsible councillor said that it would and could not. When asked why the Lyons Review had not incorporated recommendations as to how new housing would be zero carbon the representative from the planning profession suggested that this would have made the report unwieldy. It seems transition towns or carbon descent is proving too difficult for planning and planners.
However, the statutory framework of the Climate Change Act and associated budgets (50% reductions by 2050 and 60% by 2030) give us no choice. It would be extraordinary, and nobody has suggested, that the use of land and buildings would be unaffected by this scale of change. What is lacking is the vision or imagination to identify the changes that would enable the transition to take place without social trauma if not revolution. I am afraid that the planning system is backward looking and mired in conventions that have delivered and continue to deliver urban developments almost all of which will require adaptation to a low and close to zero carbon economy.
A backcasting exercise (VIBAT 2006 UCL/Halcow) demonstrated that a low carbon (ie 40% of existing) transport system would require the national speed limit to be reduced to about 50mph. It would be very helpful to have an equivalent backcasting for the housing system. It seems unlikely that 70 million people will be able to live a zero carbon lifestyle in this country in 2050 unless under-occupation has been reduced from 80% to negligible proportions. If commuting will be less than today why are we intent on building more roads and railways? If houses will be carbon neutral or negative, why are houses being built to CSH 3 in 2014? If we will be eating a greater proportion of food from the local area why are houses being built on Best and Most Versatile Land and no houses being provided in the urban fringe for the increased workforce?
When asked whether the planning system should be responsible for widening the opportunities for co-housing and self-building a very senior and influential planner suggested that this was not a priority (divert from the priority of concentrating on building 250,000 units per year).
If the current planning system is badly placed (laws and policy) and staffed (competence and imagination) to facilitate the necessary transition then we should say so and leave the job to other planners. While keeping up the pretense that we are doing something (effective) about it, those better placed and with greater competence are being excluded.
Sunday, December 14, 2014
Friday, November 28, 2014
Exemptions from zero carbon homes consultation
This is the link for the current consultation on exemptions from the commitment to zero carbon homes by 2016 (already not strictly zero carbon)
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/next-steps-to-zero-carbon-homes-small-sites-exemption
Please look at it and reply to DCLG by 7 January 2015. My thoughts are as set out below. It is not the proposed exemption that will make the difference but the repeated signal that the Government does not " get it" when it comes to carbon reductions. The main point is the false dichotomy set up to excuse the inadequate attempts at carbon reductions as, to take effective action, might threaten economic growth. In fact it is not paying for carbon reductions which might undermine GDP but a low carbon economy, if it were ever achieved, is likely to be one where growth in GDP would not be discernible. There might well be growth in all sorts of more worthwhile ways. Anyway I am sure that the DCLG would welcome more reaction to its consultation.
Consultation
Introduction
This consultation is fundamentally about carbon
emissions but lacks the understanding necessary to produce a coherent and
effective policy. Two basic elements are
missing from the analysis:
1. The building
sector (including residential development) is possibly the only and definitely
the easiest sector within which to achieve early reductions consistent with the
statutory (ie 80%) cuts in carbon emissions required by 2050. In fact residential development has the potential
for 100% + carbon emission cuts – “carbon negative” or “solar positive”. This will be essential to meet the overall
targets as there is no workable plan for agriculture, industry, power
generation, and transport (including aviation and shipping) to meet the
necessary 80% savings.
2. It is not the
level of carbon emissions in 2050 that will matter. What are required are
substantial reductions as early as possible. The 6% annual reductions that
might be sufficient if achieved now, will very soon reach 10% (already the
minimum necessary according to the Tyndall Institute). Whilst with existing technology and knowhow, housing
has the potential to reduce its contribution to carbon emissions, even this is
proving to be very challenging particularly in respect of the 22million existing homes. This emphasises the need not to add to the
burden and to move towards carbon negative building to make up for the challenges
in other sectors and the problems with the Green Deal and the massive stock of
solid wall houses.
3. Paras 8 and 25
set up a false dichotomy between economic growth and reducing carbon. There will be no recognisable economy in a Country
with more than 2 degrees of planetry warming.
In other words economic growth has to be defined and, if necessary,
adjusted, to be compatible with carbon reductions known to be necessary to limit
warming 2 degrees (350 to 400 ppm).
Very little weight should be given to responses
received to the 6 questions in this consultation that are not based on the
premises that the housing sector must make a disproportionate contribution to
carbon emissions particularly in the immediate future during which other
sectors are needing to research, innovate and develop. The only evidence that that zero carbon housing
would not be compatible with the Climate Change Act is that even higher
standards might be required – without delay.
Question 1
should the exemption be targeted at site size, developer size, or a combination
of both? Is there any evidence to support the choice made? The consultation makes a compelling
case for having no exemptions by describing the various traps and false and
perverse incentives which arise when thresholds are created. The occupiers of the house will not know that
their heating bill is higher because of the number of builders employed in its
construction or the number or size of dwellings on the site. Passivhaus developments are often relatively
small and the extra cost (est 12% as the industry matures) is recovered in 7
years.
Question 2 – if
the Government chose a site size exemption, what level should this be set and
why? There is no
‘carbon reduction’ argument or justification for any exemption. The Government would like to see more small
builders and sees building standards as a brake on their growth. If exemptions succeed in the growth of this
sector then an increasing and
substantial number of sub-standard dwellings would be built – all adding
to a burden that will have to made good.
As there should be no pretence that any of these houses will actually be
upgraded, where will this locked-in deficit be recovered by 2050 and beyond?
There are many good planning reasons for large sites
to be developed in phases (CIL has already caused this – a positive but
unintended incentive) and areas reserved for self/group – builders or
finishers. Similar reservations could be made for relatively small builders.
Thresholds in the proposed regulations would complicate and interfere with
these desirable trends.
Question 3 – if
the Government chose a developer size exemption, what criteria should it apply
and why?
Same as above –exemptions from zero carbon (or carbon
negative) in the housing sector, will never be made good.
Question 4 –
What do you think the scope of the exemption should cover? An exemption for the
allowable solutions scheme only, or an additional exemption from Building
Regulations requirements? Do you have any evidence to support the choice
between these options?
It may be that, “29.The Government’s preferred approach is to
exempt small sites from the allowable solutions component only.” and it is
essential that at least the new houses are all built to zero carbon. However, even If it is only the allowable
solutions that are relaxed then there must be a programme for how this deficit
is made good without delay. As
allowable solutions should be concentrated on reducing carbon from housing (eg
building materials, associated infrastructure and electricity/heat) any
exemptions will make it impossible for the housing sector to achieve the
necessary quick and deep carbon emission reductions.
Question 5 –
What are your views on the proposed review period for the exemption? All regulations
can be reviewed. There would be no
obvious positive or perverse incentives for the industry to reduce emissions
faster and deeper if a review period was set up at the outset. If no exemptions
should be made in the first place the industry will quickly adapt – it is the
large scale developers that are least adaptable and agile.
Question 6(?) –
Do you have any further evidence that would help inform the impact assessment?
It is essential to remember that the purpose of zero
carbon housing is to incentivise faster and
deeper reductions in carbon
emissions from the building and occupation of housing. There is no reason why the industry would not
adapt to a positive, coherent and lasting regulatory regime. There is no time
in the house-building sector for the prevarication implied by this consultation. Exemptions will create unintended and
possibly perverse incentives that would detract from the industry’s job of
delivering new housing that would not add to the problem of carbon reductions
in this sector and across the board.
Sunday, November 16, 2014
Planning, carbon reduction and low hanging fruit
I have just read through draft Local Plan that is intended to guide development in an English rural area (three market towns and about 30 villages) over the next 15 years. This is the period that carbon emissions must be reduced by 60% in accordance with the Climate Change Act. It is also a period during which 20,000 houses are expected to be built with a proportionate level of employment growth (and commuting). The 4th carbon budget is based on annual carbon reductions of about 6% aimed at getting to 80% reductions by 2050, while the Tyndall Institute already regard between 8% and 10% to be necessary (looking at 90% reductions and seeking to secure these earlier rather than later).
My modest contribution to this debate is to raise a couple of questions to which I am not hearing any answers.
1. Assuming we are not deluding ourselves that immediate annual savings of about 6% can be achieved - why are carbon emissions still rising?
2. If even early reductions are not being achieved - ie those most affordable and using existing technologies - what hope is there to achieve cuts with expensive and not yet available technologies?
So back to the Local Plan, substantial levels of carbon emissions are attributable to housing, transport, energy production and food supply all of which can be controlled to some extent by planning policies. It would be surprising if a world (or rural English district) emitting 60% less carbon would look very much the same as now. However, looking at the Plan, the only certainty is that there will be more buildings and roads. There may be a few more solar panels and somewhat less agricultural land. The 'low hanging carbon fruit' of carbon negative/solar plus buildings, low energy car clubs, a step change increase in bus travel and cycling (based on privileging buses/ and cycling over cars through investment and regulation), supporting local food production/processing/ distribution, and using new housing (small, south facing terraces) to reduce under-occupancy, is all being left on the tree. It must be doubtful that even these measures could achieve more than modest carbon reductions without significant behavioural change which remains taboo.
Without the first signs that the planning system has understood the gravity of the situation, and the challenge of 6% plus annual carbon reductions, the planned growth in housing and jobs in this district and elsewhere looks very much like resulting in a proportionate growth in carbon emissions (including those resulting from building/construction). However, new houses and jobs are needed and could and should act as the drivers of change to a low carbon society/economy. It seems that the current operators of the planning system are not up to this task but, of course, the same questions need to be asked of our politicians and public.
My modest contribution to this debate is to raise a couple of questions to which I am not hearing any answers.
1. Assuming we are not deluding ourselves that immediate annual savings of about 6% can be achieved - why are carbon emissions still rising?
2. If even early reductions are not being achieved - ie those most affordable and using existing technologies - what hope is there to achieve cuts with expensive and not yet available technologies?
So back to the Local Plan, substantial levels of carbon emissions are attributable to housing, transport, energy production and food supply all of which can be controlled to some extent by planning policies. It would be surprising if a world (or rural English district) emitting 60% less carbon would look very much the same as now. However, looking at the Plan, the only certainty is that there will be more buildings and roads. There may be a few more solar panels and somewhat less agricultural land. The 'low hanging carbon fruit' of carbon negative/solar plus buildings, low energy car clubs, a step change increase in bus travel and cycling (based on privileging buses/ and cycling over cars through investment and regulation), supporting local food production/processing/ distribution, and using new housing (small, south facing terraces) to reduce under-occupancy, is all being left on the tree. It must be doubtful that even these measures could achieve more than modest carbon reductions without significant behavioural change which remains taboo.
Without the first signs that the planning system has understood the gravity of the situation, and the challenge of 6% plus annual carbon reductions, the planned growth in housing and jobs in this district and elsewhere looks very much like resulting in a proportionate growth in carbon emissions (including those resulting from building/construction). However, new houses and jobs are needed and could and should act as the drivers of change to a low carbon society/economy. It seems that the current operators of the planning system are not up to this task but, of course, the same questions need to be asked of our politicians and public.
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Social Care
There will be nothing new in this Blog but the message is one of the most important for planners in this country - and possibly elsewhere. The costs of social care is probably the only common life risks where the costs are not pooled and paid for by the state like the NHS for health treatment and care or insurable like our cars and property. Sir Andrew Dilnot recommended state support would be beneficial and could be politically attractive if capped so that there would be sharing of the expense. his proposal was a cap to the individual of between 25k and 50k with the state picking up the extra. He believes that the cap might be nearer 60k for those who have it (there would be a means test). Higher figures have been suggested but the means test would afford some protection to those of modest means.
My layman's eye view of this (supported by any number of reports on the costs (eg from IPPR, the Kings Fund and Age UK) is that we are in denial about the affordability and desirability of the current system, by which I mean the caring burden carried by families and institutions. I can't see that families will be able to cope with the extraordinary increase in older people including an increasing number of frail elderly with multiple conditions. And I can't see that the state can pick up the cost of what families cannot do, as the tax payers of the future will have many other financial commitments (including student fees, mortgages, pensions - theirs and those of the retired) but having more precarious employment. The Chancellor has already experienced a low tax take despite high levels of employment.
But my point is that the financial cost of social care is not the point. It is the need to reduce the need for care by the state (and sometimes by families) by building caring environments. We should not be building one more private house that is not designed to relate closely to the public realm and to a space where people can stand and sit and be noticed in all weathers. Just by designing spaces where falls are less likely to happen will have a substantial bearing on the costs to the NHS. If falls do not occur or are less serious, older people will continue to venture out and the need for care in the home will be reduced. If a neighbourhood builds levels of familiarity and companionship then people will feel more comfortable about providing companionship and elements of care in the home.
This should not need saying and of course there are places where these traditions are alive and well, and in Leeds and Cornwall systems are being introduced to nurture this informal care. However, planners, architects and urban designers are still pandering to privacy and making it sufficiently difficult for incidental caring to flourish at the scale that will be necessary when (and not if) existing social care systems crash. So the point that needs repeating is that the growth of informal and mutual caring should be a massive benefit arising from the failure to maintain the institutionalised methods. And I can't end without saying that co-housing models would do all these things, whether designed from scratch or as a plan to adapt existing urban areas.
My layman's eye view of this (supported by any number of reports on the costs (eg from IPPR, the Kings Fund and Age UK) is that we are in denial about the affordability and desirability of the current system, by which I mean the caring burden carried by families and institutions. I can't see that families will be able to cope with the extraordinary increase in older people including an increasing number of frail elderly with multiple conditions. And I can't see that the state can pick up the cost of what families cannot do, as the tax payers of the future will have many other financial commitments (including student fees, mortgages, pensions - theirs and those of the retired) but having more precarious employment. The Chancellor has already experienced a low tax take despite high levels of employment.
But my point is that the financial cost of social care is not the point. It is the need to reduce the need for care by the state (and sometimes by families) by building caring environments. We should not be building one more private house that is not designed to relate closely to the public realm and to a space where people can stand and sit and be noticed in all weathers. Just by designing spaces where falls are less likely to happen will have a substantial bearing on the costs to the NHS. If falls do not occur or are less serious, older people will continue to venture out and the need for care in the home will be reduced. If a neighbourhood builds levels of familiarity and companionship then people will feel more comfortable about providing companionship and elements of care in the home.
This should not need saying and of course there are places where these traditions are alive and well, and in Leeds and Cornwall systems are being introduced to nurture this informal care. However, planners, architects and urban designers are still pandering to privacy and making it sufficiently difficult for incidental caring to flourish at the scale that will be necessary when (and not if) existing social care systems crash. So the point that needs repeating is that the growth of informal and mutual caring should be a massive benefit arising from the failure to maintain the institutionalised methods. And I can't end without saying that co-housing models would do all these things, whether designed from scratch or as a plan to adapt existing urban areas.
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
A rght to self/custom - build?
On 24 October 2014 the Government published the consultation Right to Build: supporting custom and self-build https://www.gov.uk/government/
This consultation is on top of several financial incentives (many to group self-builders) and the private member's bill to make it a statutory requirement for planning authorities to keep registers of potential self-builders.
When preparing a response it seems that the Government is shy of the obvious mechanism of increasing supply of self/custom-build plots which is to require a (say) 20% of all larger sites to be reserved for those purposes. 20% is more than the 10% of all new dwellings which is the recent trend seen as inadequate to meet either the demand (eg 145 from 900 households in my village) or the need to build more dwellings without relying on the large volume builders. In fact the paper does refer to the Teignbridge Plan that requires 5% of plots on large sites to be reserved for these purposes. This might create some supply but below trend. The prospect of Councils finding land to meet the 'right' implied by having a name included on a register seems to be unrealistic. And what would be the legalistic nightmare of a Council's failure to satisfy that right?
As so often a better response can be found in policy and not in law. The Paper says that the supply should be in accordance with the planning system that implies that supportive policies and proposals should be included in the hundreds of neighbourhood development plans and local plans in preparation. Changes in legislation will not be made until the next Government in 2015 when many development plans will have taken further steps towards adoption. There seems to be no reason why all such plans could not require 20% of plots on sites of 5 dwellings and over to be reserved for sel/custom-building - both to be carefully defined in the plan. If there are no takers from the registers then the developer would be free to finish these plots. These larger sites are much more likely to be on land that it is appropriate/sustainable to develop than for Councils to find what might be "exception sites" that are unsuitable for housing.
The Paper makes no reference to the need for these self-custom-built homes to be sustainable and to be zero-carbon. The general need for two bedroomed south facing terraced housing might not be easy to reconcile with a self-build community used to building four bedroomed detached homes. There is also an interesting question of whether models of self/custom-building can meet the need for downsizers. It would be fantastic if the capital from downsizers could be added to the energy and skills of those after their first (small) that could be built for rent (but with staircasing options. The Paper discusses the role of Community Land Trusts (and Housing Associations) as assisting with the provision of self/custom-built housing for affordable rent and CLTs might provide the platform for these partnerships. It would be too much to hope for to find a reference to co-housing as an ideal way of joining these interests - and possibility of building themselves a commonhouse and other shared facilities.
Good marks to the Government for picking up on this issue but I hope that respondents will explain that models should include enabling policies in development plans that describe how self/custom-building should be zero carbon, 'affordable' in terms of the required quota and should be part of the phased development of all sites of five or over (less than 20% would be lower than the current trend). No change of the law is required if Councils accept the benefits of this kind of houising and recognise these in development plans.
This consultation is on top of several financial incentives (many to group self-builders) and the private member's bill to make it a statutory requirement for planning authorities to keep registers of potential self-builders.
When preparing a response it seems that the Government is shy of the obvious mechanism of increasing supply of self/custom-build plots which is to require a (say) 20% of all larger sites to be reserved for those purposes. 20% is more than the 10% of all new dwellings which is the recent trend seen as inadequate to meet either the demand (eg 145 from 900 households in my village) or the need to build more dwellings without relying on the large volume builders. In fact the paper does refer to the Teignbridge Plan that requires 5% of plots on large sites to be reserved for these purposes. This might create some supply but below trend. The prospect of Councils finding land to meet the 'right' implied by having a name included on a register seems to be unrealistic. And what would be the legalistic nightmare of a Council's failure to satisfy that right?
As so often a better response can be found in policy and not in law. The Paper says that the supply should be in accordance with the planning system that implies that supportive policies and proposals should be included in the hundreds of neighbourhood development plans and local plans in preparation. Changes in legislation will not be made until the next Government in 2015 when many development plans will have taken further steps towards adoption. There seems to be no reason why all such plans could not require 20% of plots on sites of 5 dwellings and over to be reserved for sel/custom-building - both to be carefully defined in the plan. If there are no takers from the registers then the developer would be free to finish these plots. These larger sites are much more likely to be on land that it is appropriate/sustainable to develop than for Councils to find what might be "exception sites" that are unsuitable for housing.
The Paper makes no reference to the need for these self-custom-built homes to be sustainable and to be zero-carbon. The general need for two bedroomed south facing terraced housing might not be easy to reconcile with a self-build community used to building four bedroomed detached homes. There is also an interesting question of whether models of self/custom-building can meet the need for downsizers. It would be fantastic if the capital from downsizers could be added to the energy and skills of those after their first (small) that could be built for rent (but with staircasing options. The Paper discusses the role of Community Land Trusts (and Housing Associations) as assisting with the provision of self/custom-built housing for affordable rent and CLTs might provide the platform for these partnerships. It would be too much to hope for to find a reference to co-housing as an ideal way of joining these interests - and possibility of building themselves a commonhouse and other shared facilities.
Good marks to the Government for picking up on this issue but I hope that respondents will explain that models should include enabling policies in development plans that describe how self/custom-building should be zero carbon, 'affordable' in terms of the required quota and should be part of the phased development of all sites of five or over (less than 20% would be lower than the current trend). No change of the law is required if Councils accept the benefits of this kind of houising and recognise these in development plans.
Thursday, October 16, 2014
The pursuit of loneliness and the affordablility of housing
This is a letter written to the Guardian in response to an article by George Monbiot.
"George Monbiot (Life in the age of loneliness 15 October) does not
refer to the role that our planning system has played, at least as an
accomplice, in creating the loneliest 'society' in Europe. During the
next few years hundreds of thousands of new homes will be built,
mostly following a model that could reasonably be described as
“pandering to privacy". In 1968 an American sociologist Philip Slater
suggested that, “The longing for privacy is generated by the drastic
conditions that a longing for privacy produces.” We seem to be in
this vicious cycle where our individualism makes it increasingly
difficult to provide mutual support and affection. Private housing is
being designed to be not only privately owned but anti-social in its
occupation. Planners should be engaged in the provision of co-housing
where care and companionship are the norm."
The Slater book was called the Pursuit of Loneliness and the vicious circle he describes has been dividing society since he identified the insidious effects of privacy.
On unrelated matters I thought that I would share a thought from a friend about how to make climate change conversations more compelling. Mutually Assured Destruction or the Path of MADnesss is well understood as one of the factors which induced nuclear powers to keep their weapons under wraps for the second half of the 20th Century. MAD would seem equally apt in respect of the effects of climate change and should be an inducement to all emitters to agree to reductions.
On the topic of acronyms I am now using SI units (not for Systeme International - mm, cm, m, km etc) but for units of Self-Indulgence as a handy label for individualistic behaviour. Examples would be a long haul flight to a sandy beach being close to the max of 10 points but the same flight to help care for ebola sufferers would be zero. A short haul to attend a conference that was being skyped/streamed would be about 5. We then move to degrees C of curmudgeonliness, where my complaints about the planning system are at least 5 and would be much higher if not justified by the facts.
A new week and a new initiative to build 200,000 plus dwellings per year. This time it is the Labour Party failing to understand that we have reached the limits of affordability ie all housing for those not being able to climb onto the housing ladder through earning at least a living wage (and in most places much more) has to have a public subsidy. This subsidy whether for rent or purchase goes straight to the landowner. Why would the majority of voters not support a scheme for the compulsory purchase of land designated for housing in development plans - with ample funds going to physical and social infrastructure?
"George Monbiot (Life in the age of loneliness 15 October) does not
refer to the role that our planning system has played, at least as an
accomplice, in creating the loneliest 'society' in Europe. During the
next few years hundreds of thousands of new homes will be built,
mostly following a model that could reasonably be described as
“pandering to privacy". In 1968 an American sociologist Philip Slater
suggested that, “The longing for privacy is generated by the drastic
conditions that a longing for privacy produces.” We seem to be in
this vicious cycle where our individualism makes it increasingly
difficult to provide mutual support and affection. Private housing is
being designed to be not only privately owned but anti-social in its
occupation. Planners should be engaged in the provision of co-housing
where care and companionship are the norm."
The Slater book was called the Pursuit of Loneliness and the vicious circle he describes has been dividing society since he identified the insidious effects of privacy.
On unrelated matters I thought that I would share a thought from a friend about how to make climate change conversations more compelling. Mutually Assured Destruction or the Path of MADnesss is well understood as one of the factors which induced nuclear powers to keep their weapons under wraps for the second half of the 20th Century. MAD would seem equally apt in respect of the effects of climate change and should be an inducement to all emitters to agree to reductions.
On the topic of acronyms I am now using SI units (not for Systeme International - mm, cm, m, km etc) but for units of Self-Indulgence as a handy label for individualistic behaviour. Examples would be a long haul flight to a sandy beach being close to the max of 10 points but the same flight to help care for ebola sufferers would be zero. A short haul to attend a conference that was being skyped/streamed would be about 5. We then move to degrees C of curmudgeonliness, where my complaints about the planning system are at least 5 and would be much higher if not justified by the facts.
A new week and a new initiative to build 200,000 plus dwellings per year. This time it is the Labour Party failing to understand that we have reached the limits of affordability ie all housing for those not being able to climb onto the housing ladder through earning at least a living wage (and in most places much more) has to have a public subsidy. This subsidy whether for rent or purchase goes straight to the landowner. Why would the majority of voters not support a scheme for the compulsory purchase of land designated for housing in development plans - with ample funds going to physical and social infrastructure?
Thursday, October 2, 2014
Affordable housing
It would be impertinent to attempt to deal with the issue of affordable housing in a single blog. However, there are a few matters that I think could be discussed as this becomes ever more pressing issue and one that will play an important part of the debate between the parties leading up to the 2015 General Election.
At the Conservative Party conference the Prime Minister found it opportune to announce the discounting of 100,000 new homes that will also be free of obligations relating to energy efficiency. CIL, or other financial contributions (under s.106) that are needed to provide local infrastructure and housing at affordable rents.
The Conservative Party might well be in tune with the majority of voters in concentrating on home ownership and being convinced that the majority of homeowners will vote for them. The exemption from the future zero carbon homes requirement ignores the importance of 'affordable living' (based on lower fuel bills) in an attempt to get more people onto the ladder of home ownership. This is just the most recent attempt to make home ownership more affordable following on from the Funding for Lending and Help to Buy schemes which, together with the bank of 'mum and dad' have helped to fuel the national increases in house prices. Government is increasingly spending taxpayers money on subsidising the purchasing of houses being made less affordable by the subsidies.
It was Mr Pickles who introduced a scheme whereby housing associations and other providers can bid for a share of £400m in low-cost loans to build up to 10,000 new homes during 2015 to 2018. They will mainly consist of one- and two- bedroom flats. Landlords must then make the homes available for rent at below-market rates for a minimum of seven years. This fixed period will give tenants the chance to save up for a deposit and get ready to buy their own home. A welcome but tiny initiative that uses the inflated land/housing costs as its datum and holds out the bait of home ownership.
Meanwhile, rents in the private sector are also increasing as tenants are having to pay more for less space (obviously a trend that is more prevalent in property hot spots).
To some extent the cost of housing will be affected by the cost of supplying new houses and any discussion on affordability should include the cost of the components of building a dwelling (land, materials and labour) and then the components of the available finance. On the supply side there have been rises in the cost of both materials and labour but not to the extent that would create a price bubble. If a house was built on land at agricultural value the land component would be in the order of £800 and not £80,000 that is the average cost of a single plot in the south-east and other areas with a buoyant economy. The 100 fold increase is largely down to the desire and ability to pay - which is influenced by subsidies from government and parents. Incidentally, the benefit to parents is in maintaining the price of existing houses, including those owned by them. It seems obvious, and it is part of the campaign to build new settlements ( increasingly referred to as garden cities), that by discounting the land value new housing can be built at lower prices and there would still be surplus for the provision of physical and social infrastructure.
While Government does nothing to interfere with the market for housing land, housing has probably reached the limits of affordability without the scale of subsidies appearing to be politically unacceptable. In these circumstances the Government should not be attempting to reduce standards but focusing attention on the need for attractive smaller dwellings. Small dwellings use less materials (and less transport and embedded carbon) and less labour, but not necessarily less land if garden areas are part of what would make them attractive to those downsizing from larger properties. However, smaller dwellings would be cheaper and therefore more affordable and cheaper to furnish and heat. They lend themselves to terracing that is the most energy-efficient form of housing, especially if built with south facing roofs and windows for solar gain. Downsizing to such developments at scale would be more likely to occur is built as in-filling and urban extensions rather than new settlements. Larger dwellings would be released into the market and in private and social rental sectors.
My contention is that the housing models including a predominantly3 and 4 bedroomed detached dwellings should be regarded as intrinsically unsustainable (unable to benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development In the National Planning Policy Framework) and unaffordable on social, economic and environmental grounds. The Government should be concentrating on ways to incentivise the subdivision of larger dwellings. We should be looking at how housing can be made 'sustainable' and would likely find that socially inclusive housing that minimises its environmental impact would also be the most affordable - win, win, win.
At the Conservative Party conference the Prime Minister found it opportune to announce the discounting of 100,000 new homes that will also be free of obligations relating to energy efficiency. CIL, or other financial contributions (under s.106) that are needed to provide local infrastructure and housing at affordable rents.
The Conservative Party might well be in tune with the majority of voters in concentrating on home ownership and being convinced that the majority of homeowners will vote for them. The exemption from the future zero carbon homes requirement ignores the importance of 'affordable living' (based on lower fuel bills) in an attempt to get more people onto the ladder of home ownership. This is just the most recent attempt to make home ownership more affordable following on from the Funding for Lending and Help to Buy schemes which, together with the bank of 'mum and dad' have helped to fuel the national increases in house prices. Government is increasingly spending taxpayers money on subsidising the purchasing of houses being made less affordable by the subsidies.
It was Mr Pickles who introduced a scheme whereby housing associations and other providers can bid for a share of £400m in low-cost loans to build up to 10,000 new homes during 2015 to 2018. They will mainly consist of one- and two- bedroom flats. Landlords must then make the homes available for rent at below-market rates for a minimum of seven years. This fixed period will give tenants the chance to save up for a deposit and get ready to buy their own home. A welcome but tiny initiative that uses the inflated land/housing costs as its datum and holds out the bait of home ownership.
Meanwhile, rents in the private sector are also increasing as tenants are having to pay more for less space (obviously a trend that is more prevalent in property hot spots).
To some extent the cost of housing will be affected by the cost of supplying new houses and any discussion on affordability should include the cost of the components of building a dwelling (land, materials and labour) and then the components of the available finance. On the supply side there have been rises in the cost of both materials and labour but not to the extent that would create a price bubble. If a house was built on land at agricultural value the land component would be in the order of £800 and not £80,000 that is the average cost of a single plot in the south-east and other areas with a buoyant economy. The 100 fold increase is largely down to the desire and ability to pay - which is influenced by subsidies from government and parents. Incidentally, the benefit to parents is in maintaining the price of existing houses, including those owned by them. It seems obvious, and it is part of the campaign to build new settlements ( increasingly referred to as garden cities), that by discounting the land value new housing can be built at lower prices and there would still be surplus for the provision of physical and social infrastructure.
While Government does nothing to interfere with the market for housing land, housing has probably reached the limits of affordability without the scale of subsidies appearing to be politically unacceptable. In these circumstances the Government should not be attempting to reduce standards but focusing attention on the need for attractive smaller dwellings. Small dwellings use less materials (and less transport and embedded carbon) and less labour, but not necessarily less land if garden areas are part of what would make them attractive to those downsizing from larger properties. However, smaller dwellings would be cheaper and therefore more affordable and cheaper to furnish and heat. They lend themselves to terracing that is the most energy-efficient form of housing, especially if built with south facing roofs and windows for solar gain. Downsizing to such developments at scale would be more likely to occur is built as in-filling and urban extensions rather than new settlements. Larger dwellings would be released into the market and in private and social rental sectors.
My contention is that the housing models including a predominantly3 and 4 bedroomed detached dwellings should be regarded as intrinsically unsustainable (unable to benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development In the National Planning Policy Framework) and unaffordable on social, economic and environmental grounds. The Government should be concentrating on ways to incentivise the subdivision of larger dwellings. We should be looking at how housing can be made 'sustainable' and would likely find that socially inclusive housing that minimises its environmental impact would also be the most affordable - win, win, win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)