Sustainable development or pretty green fields – how serious are we?

building site (credit: ictsan

It is really becoming just so common now to see local councils turn down housing development because it lies on a pretty green field. In the last quarter of 2010 only 33,000 homes were approved for construction by local authorities and for those on a budget it was even worse with only 5,500 approvals for social housing needs. The UK now has the highest rate of homelessness in Europe.

Lowest number of planning permission for homes in the middle of housing crisis.

We are already into the midst of a major housing crisis in the UK – certainly one of the worst since Victorian times and this refusal of local authorities in England to allow more homes to be built in their areas will lead to a worsening housing crisis in 3 years time as the amount of available housing crashes.

Last year we saw the completion of the lowest number of homes since 1923 – 103,140 homes were completed in total. However this need to be set against the number of people who arrived in Britain as migrants – a record of 226,000. The newly completed housing barely covered the extra housing required through migration and there would be few housing if any left to tackle the already established housing crisis.

The UK now has the highest rate of homelessness in Europe

At least 1 million homes short in England.

Many housing organisations say that we need a minimum of 1 million new affordable homes built to tackle the urgent need of the 5 million people currently on the local authorities housing needs register. You also need to add on to that 1 million new homes that are needed to replace a further 1 million homes currently being rented privately that environmental health officers say are in such poor conditions that they are hazardous to the health of the residents.

To start making even a small head way on tackling our housing disaster we need to be completing a minim of 300,000 new homes each year and 50% of those at a minimum need to be affordable or social housing. Local authorities giving planning permission for 5,500 new homes demonstrates incompetence on behalf of the planning committees and councillors. They have an obligation to ensure that people have somewhere to live, they have an obligation to ensure that the next generation can start their own families on safe and affordable homes. At the moment local authorities are committing the next generation to a life of sofa surfing, hostels and sleeping rough.

Wildlife used as an excuse to justify housing shortage.

For me the most obscene part of the actions of councillors on planning committees is their use of wildlife to justify refusing permission to build homes for people. Time and time again we see evidence and studies that demonstrate urban and suburban gardens to be more beneficial for wildlife than some greenfield sites especially modern agricultural fields.

When plans are submitted for a housing estate on a greenfield site the protesters throw up their arms and claim that a valuable wildlife asset is being lost – even if it’s not. Wildlife is used as an excuse for objectors to protect their pretty little views from their windows and gardens – they vary, vary rarely have a genuine concern for wildlife. Local authorities are more than happy to fall for this story because it gives them good press. The local media are more interested in reporting how a home for a rabbit or mouse has been saved rather than the fact that local young people are now going to be committed to a life of insecure substandard housing or indeed in some cases homelessness and sleeping rough on the street. We really do have to protect those little bunnies at any cost.

A couple of recent planning decisions just highlights how planning committees have lost touch with their responsibilities in order to look ‘green’. In Cockermouth a housing scheme was turned down. This is despite the fact that the number of affordable homes included in the scheme would have met the needs of 74% of the towns affordable housing requirements. The developers were going to landscape the estate and include wetlands and ponds for wildlife. The estate would be within walking distance of the town centre and the developers were going to install new footpaths and cycle paths for residents. This is the sort of scheme that is sustainable and urgently needed. But it was turned down.

A more ridiculous case involved Paddock Wood where a housing scheme was turned down just in case some of the new residents decided to buy a cat as a pet and that pet decided to go for a walk in the woods near by and eat the dormice. It’s ridiculous – it’s just an excuse not to build and spoil someones view. In fact it’s quite likely that the mice would benefit from the housing estate through increased food availability and habitat niches that come with suburban gardens.

Sustainable development is not banning development.

The time has come for local authorities to stop playing games with peoples lives and futures. They need to accept their responsibilities of providing housing for their local communities and stop protecting the NIMBY crowd. Planning committees have a responsibility to ensure sustainable development in their region – but sustainable development is not the same as banning development which is what is happening at the moment.

Modern eco housing have very low carbon footprints. The average fuel bill in the UK is now over £1000 for a family but an eco homes fuel bill is under £100 a year. The job of the planning committee is not to ban new homes being built but ensure that those home are built to the highest energy standards. New homes can cut carbon emission by over 90%. New estate wide water management and rain capture techniques can be installed that reduce the use of energy expensive mains water for things like gardening or car-washing.

These new technologies are what local councils should be concerned with so that we can meet the needs of a growing population in a sustainable way. Ignoring population growth and forcing people to live in overcrowded housing or living a life of homelessness is not sustainable development.

Local council must provide alternatives to decisions encouraging homelessness.

If a local council refuse to grant planning permission for a housing estate on the grounds that it is on a greenfield then the law needs to be changed to force the council to name at least one location that it will allow the housing scheme to be granted on so at least the developers know where they are going to be granted planning permission. If the local council are unable to name an actual location that they prefer then they should not have the right to turn down planning permission they should only have the right to ensure that the latest best method and techniques are used to mitigate and reduce the impact of the development.

With so few housing applications now being granted by local authorities perhaps the time has come for one of the housing charities to challenge the local authorities for neglect of duty if they fail to grant sufficient planning permission to met the local housing need.