Do Liberal Reform really want Manhattan on the Gipping?

I suppose that I ought to be wary when I see Liberal Reform pushing something supported by the Adam Smith Institute, but the suggestion that individual streets should be allowed to come together to build up to six stories high ranks as one of the more challenging ones.

In theory, building taller buildings for people to live in would increase housing density in areas of high demand. It would also create, if successful, a collection of ‘concrete canyons’ which would be pretty unfriendly and dark.

But, let’s take a look at this more closely, and I’ll take as an example my old stomping ground of East Dulwich. Made up of long terraces, occasionally broken up with small paths along the sides, with small, 30 feet long gardens and a minute front garden, the footprints of each home are rather small, and not really designed for anything much more than three stories.

And yes, you could extend them all, but if we’re talking about a whole street, or even part of one, the disruption caused by building work on a large scale, or even as a series of individual projects, would be highly disruptive.

The suggestion is that the street would decide for itself, which leads one to question how that decision would be taken, what would be done in the case of conservation areas (and it never ceases to amaze me how many of those there are), and what compensation would be paid to those negatively impacted by the development, and by whom.

Yes, you can devolve power down to quite small units, but in cities, the inter-relationship between streets and the impact on shared infrastructure, means that the level of sovereignty that this implies is to some extent limited. Increased housing density, unless matched by enhanced provision for schools, surgeries and the like, not to mention roads, public transport and drainage, actually causes more problems than it solves. And don’t start me on parking, unless you believe that having a car is unnecessary (which it could be, but feels like an effective restriction on choice).

Of course, the inference is that my street, here in the Gipping Valley, could do likewise. The notion of a clutch of six storey buildings in my quiet country village is risible, but I can’t imagine that anyone would seriously suggest the idea.

I note, however, that the article linked to by Liberal Vision suggests that parishes could develop their green belt. I welcome their suggestions as to how a parish like mine, with a population of 270 and an annual precept of about £5,000 could credibly carry out such a scheme.

Housing policy should be holistic, not hot air, it should take into account the needs of a wider community, not narrow self-interest, and I’m afraid that the only people likely to benefit from this are those who already own property and would benefit from the benefits of planning gain. As for everyone else, I wouldn’t get too excited...

A la recherche du Stowupland perdu*

It is hard to believe that it is now nearly five years since my gallant, but ill-fated, attempt to become the District Councillor for Stowupland ward, but I found myself on familiar territory this weekend, delivering leaflets for the Remain campaign. After all, a majority of those who actually turned out that day voted for parties that support our membership of the European Union, and if Ros and I don't get a pro-European message out, who will?

Funnily enough, five years ago, there was controversy over plans to build some new housing association properties, and now, the hedges and windows are full of signs condemning a proposal to build one hundred and seventy-five houses on a greenfield site on the edge of the village. There is little doubt that it is highly speculative, but it does offer up a slightly uncomfortable dilemma for local residents.

You see, Stowupland is quite a nice place, and people want to live there. More homes and thus, more people, means, potentially, better services or, in the current climate, more chance of keeping the ones they have. It also means that their children and grandchildren have some prospect of living locally when it becomes their turn to set up home.

And yet, with Stowmarket growing apace, there is a risk of one being absorbed into the other. One wonders how a local councillor might reconcile the opposing tensions, but luckily, I guess, that isn't my problem.

At least my memories of the 2011 campaign make deliveries rather easier - I remember where some of the trickier letterboxes are - and we've made pretty good progress thus far. If only the weather wasn't so unreliable...

* (for those of you whose French is rather better than mine, an apology...)

190 new homes in Stowupland - a challenge for honesty in politics?

The neighbouring village of Stowupland forms about 88% of my District ward, the one I gallantly fought and lost in 2011. Had I won then, I would now be faced with what appears to be a highly unpopular planning application to build new houses on the eastern edge of the village, on what is currently agricultural land.

There is no doubt that the planned development is quite substantial, proportionately at least. 190 homes equates to about 22% of the existing housing stock, and would have a sizeable impact on local infrastructure. The village has no doctor's surgery and poor public transport links, although it does have a post office, two schools (primary and secondary), two pubs and a butcher's shop, plus a fish and chip shop and a Chinese takeaway.

From the proliferation of signs along the main road through the village, the development is most unwelcome but, if one is to be entirely honest, there are some strong arguments for building new homes in the village, even if the location might not be ideal.

People want to live in Stowupland. It's convenient for the A14 to Ipswich, Bury St Edmunds and Cambridge, and for the railway station at Stowmarket, and the village itself is not unattractive. Undoubtedly, we need more housing in Mid Suffolk - the new developments around Stowmarket didn't lack for buyers, and I often hear people remark about the difficulties their children experience in finding somewhere affordable to buy. Increasing the housing stock might help with that.

The problem with Mid Suffolk District Council's strategy on housing in recent years is that it presumes that most new development will be in Stowmarket, and given that the town is pushing against its development limits, that offers increasingly little scope for dealing with population growth inspired demand. Most villages in the District have a planning envelope that prevents any new development at all. And so, if developers can find scope for profitable housing schemes, they will push for them.

Given that Stowupland is surrounded on virtually every side by open country, any development will be on agricultural land - the only other option being the allotments between the village and the A14 (and woe betide anyone proposing building there...) - there will be an impact on the cherished rural vista. But, inevitably, unless villagers are intent to closing the door to expansion, and can successfully do so, more housing is going to come, and the village will become a suburb of Stowmarket.

My problem is that I am prone to taking a wider view on such issues, whereas a more cynical politician would ignore the realities of rural housing needs and campaign for something locally popular but possibly against long-term interests. And I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if a more cynical person doesn't offer themselves in May's District elections...

For the benefit of Iain Duncan-Smith: a definition of homelessness

This morning, on BBC's Breakfast Show, Iain Duncan-Smith was talking about the impact of his proposals on a benefit cap. He suggested that the 'scare stories' were exaggerated, claiming that the Shelter definition of homelessness was unrealistic.

When pressed, he stated that their definition of homelessness includes circumstances where bedrooms are being shared. At this point, Ros noted that he was being less than entirely accurate.

So, I thought that I ought to check. Given that Ros has plenty of knowledge on housing issues, and has held senior office at District and County level, I'd tend to trust her judgement. And here, for the benefit of the Secretary of State, is Shelter's actual definition;

"Homelessness means not having a home - most people who are homeless don't sleep on the street. Even if you have a roof over your head you can still be homeless. This is because you may not have any rights to stay where you live or your home might be unsuitable for you due to severe overcrowding or other reasons."

If I was being extremely generous, I would accept that he may have misinterpreted this. But I'm not. To my mind, most people would see severe overcrowding as being rather more than simply sharing a bedroom.

So, either he is wilfully misrepresenting the facts, or he is ignorant of them. And on that basis, he is unworthy of any faith that Parliamentarians might wish to place in his judgement. And that rather casts doubt on the quality of the legislation he is promoting...

Ros in the Lords: Housing (8 July 2010)

This was, apparently, the first debate on this subject in the Lords for four years, sought by Baroness Ford from the Labour benches. Ros was called upon to summate from the Liberal Democrat benches... 

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, this afternoon's debate has been about housing. Many television programmes, which millions of people enjoy, talk about property. However, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Ford and Lady Wilkins, reminded us, we are talking about people's homes-the places that should form the secure base from which we all lead our lives, and most of us are lucky enough to do that. In many cases, however, that fails. It is not just that we do not have enough houses; too many houses are in the wrong place at the wrong price and in the wrong condition, and the results are stark. Shelter estimates that more than 1.5 million children live in overcrowded, temporary or run-down accommodation. The effects on their health and educational attainment are profound. We know that their life chances are adversely affected through no fault of their own. Any Government who want to create a genuinely fair society must address that.

There is no doubt that the move to a property-owning society has had profound consequences on all of us. It is interesting how falling house prices are greeted with wailing and gnashing of teeth by the three-quarters of us who currently own our own properties. It ought perhaps to be a glimmer of hope for those who aspire to own property. Recently, however, house price falls have been accompanied by a lending squeeze; so the reality of home ownership is now as far away for many as it ever has been, a point which was well made by my noble friend Lord Teverson. Recent RICS figures show that loan approvals for house purchases are continuing to fall. My first question, therefore, is whether the Government will continue to press the banks over which they have control to free up mortgage lending where that is appropriate.

Over the years that I have been in your Lordships' House, I do not think that I have ever heard any Government put a figure on how far they think property ownership can extend-or, indeed, any kind of recognition that home ownership is simply not the right option for a proportion of people. That has resulted in a lack of genuine planning in terms of the variety and quantities of housing tenure that ought to be available in this country. The lack of viable alternatives has forced some people into home ownership even when that is not the best option for them. The result, particularly now, is that many live in constant fear of default.

The private rented sector has to an extent stepped into that breach and is on the rise. However, it is in urgent need of reform. Most of our private rented sector is in the hands of individual private landlords who own just a few properties and 45 per cent of those properties fail to meet the decent home standards. Do the Government have any plans to boost the provision of rented accommodation through the formation of larger companies which could provide not only a useful investment vehicle but-the point which the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, made in his excellent maiden speech-a more professional and more easily regulated private sector?

Rents in the private sector are very high, and in some places this is being driven by the housing benefit system. It is therefore time that we had a review. However, I urge the Government to consider the fact that this review should be driven not solely by the need to cut costs. There is a question of value to the taxpayer. Apart from the human misery concerned, simply driving people into homelessness or creating other problems which actually cost more to put right would be extremely short-sighted. We must be very careful about an arbitrary cap on housing benefit that does not take into account the local costs of housing, a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Best. Whatever happens in government, the one piece of legislation that never changes is the law of unintended consequences. The Government must think carefully before they leap into this. Other noble Lords have asked about the levels of funding for housing associations and local authorities. I look forward to the Minister's answer.

On other forms of housing, can the Minister tell us anything about the future of low-cost home ownership schemes such as HomeBuy Direct? Do the Government intend to simplify some of these options, or even to continue them?

The affordability of housing is no doubt governed largely by housing availability. That is driven in turn by the planning system. I welcome the abolition of regional spatial strategies and all that comes with them. I am pleased that local councils will have more control over housing in their areas. However, there are caveats and things that must be watched.

I am worried by the extent to which housing that is driven from the bottom up, welcome as that may be, will not fully take into account other strategic issues such as transport, hospital provision and education. I come from a rural area. Until three years ago, we had an effective sub-regional planning tier known as a county council. It was extremely good. I wonder whether the Government have any plans to give some of the planning powers back to county councils so that they can play a strategic role alongside the districts.

I turn to the question of empty properties. I am very grateful to the Empty Homes Agency for its useful briefing. There are, it tells me, currently 652,000 empty homes in England alone. These are clearly an affront to any society. The coalition agreement said:

"We will explore a range of measures to bring empty homes into use".

Those words are welcome but not as welcome as action would be. When I raised the matter this morning at Question Time, the noble Baroness said that the use of empty homes is a "matter for local authorities". That is true to an extent, but I would be interested to know whether the Government plan to incentivise local authorities to get empty houses back into use. Can the Government encourage the Homes and Communities Agency to change the grant rules for housing associations so that local authorities have a real incentive to buy and refurbish empty homes? Picking up a point made by the right reverend Prelate, could the HCA work up a scheme which would allow homelessness charities, churches and local community groups to buy empty properties in their areas, refurbish them and provide affordable housing? Finally, would the local housing trusts proposed by the Government also be allowed to refurbish empty properties? All of these things could make a very useful contribution to the provision of housing and are very much in line with the themes of big society and localism.

I finish by thanking the noble Baroness for securing this important debate today. I had not appreciated that it had been four years since the last; it does not seem like it. It has also given us the opportunity to hear two extremely good maiden speeches from two noble Lords from whom we look forward to hearing more.