Written evidence from Bryan Jezeph Consultancy
(ARSS 154)
1.0 THE NEED
FOR TARGETS
1.1 I regard targets as absolutely fundamental
to the achievement of housing provision. The opposition to housing
is so ingrained in the psyche of the local residents that it is
essential that they are confronted with the reality of the position.
It is also evident that most Councils are dominated by Councillors
who are retired or close to retirement. Councillors younger than
50 years of age are relatively rare. As a result, the young and
poor are unrepresented.
1.2 Opposition to all forms of development enable
opponents to gather huge support while those in need are either
unable or unwilling to face the hostility of Nimbys. Opposition
to change is universal and logic and common sense is lost under
the pressure from "nimbys". The government's policies
appear to be framed to re-inforce nimbyism rather than the achievement
of social justice and cohesion.
1.3 The level of house building prior to the
recession was at an all time low since the end of the First World
War. The recession has exacerbated the position. However, the
government's policy of localism appears to accelerate the decline
in house building. On the other hand, the promotion of house building,
in particular, is a sector that could provide wide ranging benefits.
IS IT
A CRISIS?
1.4 The predicament for those in need of affordable
housing is set out succinctly in the Core Strategy for East Hampshire
District which was published in March of this year. It states
in paragraph 2.8 that :-
We already have a lack of affordable homes in
the area. The Council carried out Strategic Housing Market Assessments
in 2006 and 2008 which reveal that 670 additional affordable homes
need to be built each year to meet housing needs and address the
backlog over five years. To put this into perspective, it means
that even if all the homes required for the district by the South
East Plan were built as affordable homes, it still would not be
enough to meet the need.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
1.5 East Hampshire is not unusual, on the contrary,
it is typical and the same desperate situation is manifest across
the country. The magnitude of the requirement for affordable housing
is well known. The quote from a recent meeting of the West of
Waterlooville Forum (Winchester and Havant Districts) sets out
the desperate nature of this issue.
In 2006 a Housing Market Assessment was commissioned
to assess the need for affordable housing in the area. This indicated
a backlog of need of around 850 households. The study took no
account of newly arising need so given the limited development
in the area since it is probable that unmet need has increased,
and that it will increase further over the lifetime of the development.
It is also worth noting that there are over 10,000 households
on the Hampshire Home Choice register, and that as a consequence
there were 79 bids for each one bedroom affordable unit on the
Taylor Wimpey scheme, and 149 bids for each three bedroom property.
The market popularity of the Taylor Wimpey scheme also demonstrates
that it is meeting a need for high quality new market housing
in the area.
Paragraph 1.6; West of Waterlooville Forum: Progress
Report dated 7 July 2010
1.6 The area covered by Hampshire Home Choice
includes the Districts of East Hampshire, Havant and Winchester.
1.7 Furthermore, it is widely recognised that
there is also a serious shortage of funds for new affordable housing
projects. House builders are unable to find Housing Associations
capable of funding the affordable element of their schemes which
typically comprise 30-40% of the units.
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
1.8 Demographers have consistently claimed that
the housing requirement as set out in the South East Plan is too
low. The government's decision to abolish the Regional Spatial
Strategies which is the only body that provides the technical
support for the figures and to hand the decision making back to
the Counties and Districts where these skills are not available.
It is a case of shooting the messenger!
1.9 It cannot be so difficult to calculate the
need for housing and distribute it on a sustainable basis but
this seems to be lost when faced with public opposition and the
fact that there is no counter pressure group to coordinate the
case for more housing. For some reason, the difficulties of house
purchase for young people does not manifest itself in coordinated
opposition. As a result, the hypocrisy of nimbyism prevails.
HOUSE PRODUCTION
SUPPORTS THE
ECONOMY IN
RECESSION
1.10 The slowing of house production would be
deplorable in any circumstances but it is incomprehensible given
the forthcoming financial restraints. Besides the provision of
desperately needed homes, house building provides an exceptionally
wide range of employment from plumbers to electricians, to the
kitchen and furniture providers.
1.11 A wide range of smaller schemes would also
provide a consequent spread of job opportunities revitalising
the local construction industry. Urban extensions are clearly
the preferred locations for new development as they optimise existing
capacity and can make good deficiencies. Besides the fact that
development on the edge of settlements involves minimal infrastructure
expenditure, it would provide immediate employment for local people
with a range of skills in a number of places.
EXISTING FACILITIES
1.12 What is the point in proposing new local
shopping centres in new settlements and Strategic Development
Areas when existing towns and villages are suffering from decline?
Many of the local village schools have falling rolls where new
housing could utilise existing space or additional classrooms
could be provided. Existing facilities could be improved. New
housing should be used as a "multiplier" to boost work
and jobs. Unbelievably, the exisitng range of facilities including
schools is not a consideration in sustainbility matrices.
NIMBYISM
1.13 Nimbyism is a corrosive and distorting force.
It is corrosive because it prevents engagement with communities.
It is a distorting force because if development is directed by
nimbys, it will prevent the appropriate assessment of sustainability.
The District Councillors responsible for the decisions upon the
location of new development will be influenced by political considerations
first and foremost and will direct development to areas where
the least objection is expected.
1.14 It also leads to ridiculous decisions, for
example, the one to provide a "Strategic Gap" near Whiteley.
This was rejected by the Inspectors at the EiP who recognised
that there was not really a gap at all.
8.12 The Meon Valley Gap clearly serves a
strategic purpose in separating the major built up areas in South
Hampshire, with Southampton to the west and Fareham and Gosport
to the east. But it too is very extensive and takes in some six
km of coastline where the risk of coalescence is vrtually nil
notwithstanding the other coast and countryside policies of the
HCSPR (Structure Plan). Winchester City Council suggest that the
gap should be extended northwards (five miles) beyond the railway
and reach up to Wickham. This is a case
of extending a gap to find a settlement when the motorway, let
alone the railway is an appropriate physical barrir to curtail
development.
1.15 What happened next? Yes, the one sided gap
was extended beyond both the railway and the motorway!
1.16 Nimbyism is not confined to individuals
or Councillors. I can provide several examples where the local
newspapers have provided a biased report. For example, an article
from the Portsmouth Evening News which shows a picture of Butser
Hill one of the highest points in this part of Hampshire and a
popular area for walkers. The view implies that the proposed new
developments at Clanfield and Petersfield can be seen from the
local beauty spot known as Butser Hill. These developments are
three or four miles from Butser Hill and the proposals
also are extensions to existing urban areas and, if they are visible
at all, it would be against the backcloth of the existing urban
area.
1.17 Even the local newspapers do not let the
facts get in the way of a story albeit based simply on the anti-development
nimbys. There is no atempt to be objective or to recognise that
there is a desperate need for new housing.
THE IMPORTANCE
OF PROVIDING
HOMES
1.18 Besides the importance of providing homes
for those who need them, the development of housing offers the
opportunity to stimulate the local economy and contribute towards
the provision or improvement of local facilities. Higher levels
of provision would also minimise the rise in house values and,
thereby, reducing the risks and problems created by such increases.
1.19 The Government's decision to abolish Regional
Spatial Strategies and targets appears to be a recipe for chaos.
However imperfect the current system, the method ensures that
there is some basic guidance on the distribution of housing and
targets across the regions. The previous system of Local Plans
was abandoned because they took so long to complete and public
involvement was minimal. However, the only way to involve the
public is to confront them with the reality. Houses must be provided;
each settlement must provide some unless there are such constraints
that this is unrealistic. There are not many places where all
possibilities are exhausted.
1.20 There is acceptance that there is a desperate
need for more housing. Few people question the population figures
or the need for affordable housing. The release of a wide range
of sites ahead of the managed release proposed in Core Strategies
would provide a market led approach which would enable developments
to proceed in relation to demand.
STABLE HOUSE
PRICES AND
MARKETS
1.21 There must also be the benefit that house
prices can be maintained at more restricted levels that enable
more people to acquire housing without prices running out of control.
The restricted market favours existing owners to the detriment
new purchasers trying to get on the housing ladder. Stable house
prices could also limit the level of re-mortgaging that contributed
to the boom and bust that fuelled the recession.
1.22 There is a clear need to incentivise local
communities. At present, new developments are foist upon them
with no benefits. My approach would also ensure that local communities
are provided with enhanced facilities in a period of limited public
resources.
1.23 Councils should be examining the best way
to stimulate their economies by working with landowners and developers
to obtain the greatest benefits. The early release of land already
identified for development can ensure a market based demand rather
than rising prices through shortages.
THE AGEING
POPULATION: THE
OTHER CRISIS
1.24 Figures from the ONS are stratling. From
the 1950's onwards the number of centenarians (people aged 100
years or more) in England and Wales has increased at a faster
rate than any other age group. The estimated number of centenarians
for England and Wales for the period 1911 to 2008 shows that the
number of centenarians has increased 95-fold from only 100 in
1911 to 9,600 in 2008.
1.25 This increase however, has not been constant
across the period. Growth was slowest between 1911 and 1946; over
this thirty-five year period the number of centenarians increased
by less than 100. In comparison, the centenarian population grew
by 2,000 over the thirty-five years from 1946 to 1981. Between
1981 and 2008, the number grew from 2,200 to 9,600, an increase
of 7,400 centenarians over this final 27 year period.
The major contributor to the rising number of
centenarians is increased survival between the age of 80 and 100
due to improved medical treatment, housing and living standards,
and nutrition. Since 1911 female centenarians have always outnumbered
male centenarians due to the higher life expectancies for women.
In 2008 there were approximately seven female centenarians for
every male centenarian. In contrast, there were about three women
for every centenarian man in 1911. However the ratio of male to
female centenarians has fluctuated over time and it has started
to fall in recent years due to recent improvements in male mortality.
(ONS 2007)
1.26 Future numbers of centenarians will depend
on both the numbers of people at younger age groups in the population
today and their future survival. Current population projections
suggest the number of centenarians in England and Wales will reach
almost 64,200 by mid-2033. This is nearly a seven fold increase
from the 2008 figure, and an annual average increase of 8 per
cent a year.
WHAT ARE
THE ALTERNATIVES?
1.27 In my opinion, there is a clear need for
the "carrot and stick" approach. The "carrot"
is finance towards local facilities and in this respect is should
go right down to the village or suburb. The "stick"
is no money from other sources and only monies for support for
development.
HOW CAN
THIS BE
ACHIEVED?
1.28 I believe that a formula especially on greenfield
sites can be readily agreed. The difference in the land value
of agricultural land versus land with planning permission is so
great that developers could easily afford to pay more towards
local facilities and infrastructure. Financial contributions must
go primarily to the immediate area of the development and not
to the District Council. The possibility of developers providing
the affordable housing rather than just providing the land should
also be investigated.
LAND RELEASES
1.29 All sites in the five year programme and
more should be released at the earliest opportunity where they
have been identified as suitable for development. This would facilitate
the greatest possible spread of sites. This would ensure that
there is a diverse range of dwellings so that people seeking housing
can live where they choose rather than to where they are directed
because of limted choice. All land releases should include both
aspiration on the relevant sustainability codes and also seek
to maximise community benefits.
1.30 Without targets, there is no incentive for
authorities to achieve the required housing provision. The proposed
incentives of Council tax benefits are insufficent to persuade
authorities to do more than the minimum. In large Districts such
as Winchester new housing proposals can be as far as 17 miles
from the City and the financial benefits may not go to the locality.
1.31 Targets should be restored as soon as possible.
September 2010
| 
