Examination of Witnesses (Questions 326-339)
DR HUGH
ELLIS AND
MR SIMON
BULLOCK
12 DECEMBER 2005
Q326 Chair: Sorry we have started a bit
late but, as you will appreciate, that was a moderately contentious
session. Can I ask the two of you to start by saying who you are
and then we will move into the questions?
Dr Ellis: My name is Dr Hugh Ellis.
I am Planning Adviser to Friends of the Earth.
Mr Bullock: I am Simon Bullock.
I am Economy Adviser to Friends of the Earth.
Q327 Mr Olner: Just as an aside, you
heard the evidence we just had and I still feel there is something
missing between the planning authority, the housing authority
and the strategic authority, like the county council. What sort
of court does Friends of the Earth play in? Do they play in the
strategic one to the detriment of the planning authorities and
the housing authorities?
Dr Ellis: I think we do take a
strategic one. Our concern is that the right framework to deliver
sustainable development is in place. The difficulty we face is
that both Barker and the draft PPS3 undermine some fairly critical
elements of the framework that might deliver sustainable development.
It is most important to say that we are not an anti-development
organisation and it is important to recognise that the green sector
has not been as socially responsible as it needs to be in provision
of housing. That is not where we are at. Where we are at is trying
to say there is a need, how can we best provide it and deliver
it in the right framework. Government proposals are going to fundamentally
undermine our ability to achieve that.
Q328 Mr Olner: The evidence that you
gave to us was fairly enthusiastic about the merits of social
housing provision, and I do not demur from them, but you were
virtually silent on private supply. How much private supply of
housing is needed?
Mr Bullock: The Government's housing
objective is clear: everyone living in a decent home which they
can afford. For us, the priority is more affordable non-market
housing. We agree with Shelter on that. What the ODPM is proposing
here is more general market housing. Firstly, we think that should
be a lower priority compared with the social housing but, secondly,
we feel that the ODPM's mechanism of providing more general housing
is wrong. There are two things wrong with forced release of land
whenever it is deemed that demand outstrips supply in our view.
The first is it simply would not do the job that the Government
wants it to do in tackling the affordability ratios that they
have set out. There is far more than just releasing land as a
means to tackle these ratios if you look at other supply issues
or the whole demand side area of providing housing, which is almost
completely ignored. We are also concerned that homes that would
be built would not necessarily go to the people who need them.
Given the huge wealth and income equality in the country at present,
these homes may be just as likely to go to people who want second
homes rather than key sector workers. Finally, we think that there
is quite a small effect on affordability anyway. If you look at
the ODPM's projections in their affordability report, they have
got an affordability ratio of six and a half incomes to house
prices and that falls to 6.2 anyway and only to 5.8 for this 200,000
homes a year by 2016, which is not a great return. As a final
point, we have a whole series of objections to this approach.
The first is the fact that it will conflict with other areas of
Government policy, which is a fairly critical thing for ODPM's
approach to sustainable development. We are concerned that it
will focus housing growth in the South East with the massive local
environmental pressures that will entail, it will increase regional
inequalities where ODPM has a target to reduce regional inequalities,
and it will weaken the democratic process that exists through
the planning system.
Q329 Chair: Can you try and keep your
answers much shorter rather than re-rehearsing all of your written
evidence. We have got all the written evidence from 100-odd witnesses
that will be used in the report. What we are trying to do here
is to tease out some of the points, not to repeat what is in the
written evidence.
Mr Bullock: That was in relation
to the new paper.
Q330 Chair: I think you still did not
answer Mr Olner's key question, which was how much private market
housing are you willing to support? Any?
Dr Ellis: Yes, I think we are.
It was interesting listening to the previous debate that you just
had. The planning system has a critical role in integrating the
principles of sustainable development. It is impossible for us
to give you a figure about how many houses in the South East,
although we do not have a great argument with 200,000 houses but—there
is a critical but in that—if the Government had committed
itself to making those houses focus on social need and delivered
at high quality environmental standards then the debate would
be different. The debate is very different now because PPS3 completely
fails to deliver the houses at a high environmental standard.
The code for sustainable homes is a complete disaster. Our problem
with housing now is we cannot deliver the kind of housing we want
to see and, therefore, increasingly we are going to be opposed
to the large scale expansion of market housing when it is not
delivered to those standards.
Q331 Chair: Can I just pick you up on
what you have just said so we can be absolutely clear. If the
housing was environmentally sustainable and all of it was directed
to social need, normal social housing, you would be prepared to
go along with a 200,000 increase across the country?
Dr Ellis: Certainly I would be
very happy to sit in a regional examination in public and look
at the product of a full strategic environmental assessment and
change our view, perhaps, if that housing was delivered to the
technical standards we know we can deliver.
Q332 Chair: And all of it social housing
or some of it market housing?
Dr Ellis: No, some of it clearly
has to be market housing but that brings about a question on the
distribution of that. This relates to the National Spatial Framework
question really, but in our view there are limits to growth. Of
course, the phrase "limits to growth" is heresy but,
nonetheless, there are limits to growth and those limits are defined
by the big provision of infrastructure that we have heard about
and there are also environmental limits.
Q333 Mr Olner: You cannot quantify some
private growth, you cannot put a percentage on it as opposed to
social housing?
Dr Ellis: Shelter—I will
give you their evidence—have put precise numbers on how
much social housing we require. As I say, it is very difficult
because in some sense you are prejudging what the planning system
is there to achieve. The planning system is there to reach these
judgments in detail when we understand in detail what the impacts
might be. 200,000 houses in the South East is deliverable sustainably.
Q334 Chair: My understanding is it is
not 200,000 in the South East, it is 200,000 houses across the
whole of England.
Dr Ellis: My apologies. 200,000
houses across the whole of England is easily deliverable in our
view with the caveat that Government has not reneged on its commitments
to build to high environmental standards.
Q335 Anne Main: I would like to touch
on high environmental standards. Do you feel that cost-wise it
is not in a builders' interests, or it should be enshrined perhaps
in the planning system, to have a higher environmental standard?
Looking at the social housing provision, what are your views in
terms of encouraging people to buy? Is this the way forward? I
felt the premise in the Barker report seemed to be light on environment
and high on encouraging people to buy. Do you believe that is
the right balance?
Mr Bullock: Firstly, we do believe
that environmental standards are essential. Climate change is
a growing problem, all world leaders agree with that, and housing
is a third of the UK's carbon emissions. I think it would be terribly
damaging to the UK economy if we were faced with climate disasters
on the scale of the droughts in Spain, Hurricane Katrina and that
sort of thing in the decades to come. It is a fairly essential
economic as well as environmental requirement to have high environmental
standards. We do not believe that the environmental costs would
be damaging to people in need of social housing. High environmental
standards in housing reduce the running costs. The highest environmental
standard houses can reduce running costs by about £500 a
year and, of course, for poorer people who pay more of their income
on water and energy that is going to be a crucial thing.
Q336 Anne Main: Is there enough emphasis
in the planning system on environmental?
Dr Ellis: No, absolutely not.
There is an unbelievable absence of a joined-up position from
ODPM on climate change. There is a strong call being made for
a national statement on climate change, there is no PPS that deals
with it comprehensively. If you want an absolute indictment of
the way the Government tackles climate change in housing, look
at draft PPS3 which simply says it might be a good idea to "encourage"
local authorities to promote the code, the code itself being voluntary.
Q337 Chair: Would you like the code to
be mandatory?
Dr Ellis: The code can be mandatory
in a very simple and easy way, and that is PPS3 housing simply
should say that local planning authorities should be required
through development plan policy to incorporate the code, and the
highest standard of the code. It is very simple.
Q338 Martin Horwood: First of all, I
would like to say on the record I do not think the idea that there
are limits to growth is heresy at all and I welcome your report
in its general thrust and a lot of the detail, I think it is an
important contribution. Just on this issue of the raising of the
standard for environmentally friendly homes, in general I support
that but I have asked social housing providers and private house
providers whether they could afford to do that and at the moment
they are unwilling to meet those costs. Where do you think that
cost should fall? Do you think they should be forced to meet it
or do you think we should meet it from the public purse?
Mr Bullock: Currently greener
homes can cost more. Merton Local Authority put green design at
2.5% of costs, which is not a large deal, but we would agree that
green housing can cost more at the moment.
Q339 Martin Horwood: The private developer
I talked to, for instance, said it may only cost a couple of percentage
points more but it does not command any price premium at the moment
for them to sell. To obey their obligations to their shareholders,
how do they do that?
Mr Bullock: Bill Dunster architects,
who have built the BedZED development in London, have said currently
their costs are higher. They have done some analysis on it and
if you raise the proportion of the new homes built to just 3%
of those high standards then that brings their unit costs down
to such a degree that their housing would be the same price as
conventional housing. In a very short time we feel it would be
cost-effective.
| 
