This article in the Guardian examines the politics of insufficient space for building new houses in the UK. It makes the case that public ownership of land and the actions the public sector takes to make these lands available for building houses have to cohere with the plans of home builders for maximization of urban space:
It owns third of developable sites in the UK – so the public sector must deliver on its commitment to sell up
In the passionate debate about housing, there is probably only one piece of consensus: that there is a shortage and it is growing rapidly.
Put bluntly, as a nation we are building at least 100,000 too few homes every year. This shortage affects every tenure and every location.
After that, the consensus breaks down. Where should houses be built – greenfield, green belt or brown field? What role should local people have as national and local needs are attempted to be met? What designs and tenures should be built? Is it planning that limits building, or developers hoarding land?
All the blame is often pinned on the planning process but that is unfair. Yes, it can be frustratingly slow – but improving the process alone is only part of the answer.
Barratt is not hoarding land – we buy land subject to planning and there is very little land that we own (and which has planning permission) where we are not on site building. The fact is that even before planning, there is not enough land coming forward for development.
The public sector in all its forms owns around a third of developable land in the UK, and so has a direct and urgent role in addressing this. Most of this land will be brown field, and the rate at which this land is brought forward for development needs to be largely increased. It's a commitment both this government and the former one have made, but although more land has been released in the last year than we can remember it is yet to be fully delivered.
If the public sector makes more land available, it is right and proper that it should also define the economic and social outcomes. The public sector should stipulate the mix of housing and what other social objectives, for example local employment, need to be achieved on public land.
Of course, land should be sold on terms that are economically viable for all parties. That means incentives for housebuilders to build and incentives for the public sector to sell. There should also be strings attached that specify delivery. This is a process that can work well. We now have more partnership schemes than any other housebuilder and a specialist regeneration unit that will work with the public sector on what can be achieved.
Take Heritage Park, Silverdale, where we are redeveloping the former colliery site with the Homes and Communities Agency. Redundant land is being transformed into 300 new homes, leisure facilities and a country park. This project was started in the depths of the recession.
Cane Hill is another example, where there is close collaboration between us as the developer, the Greater London Assembly, Croydon council and local people – to regenerate one of the biggest sites for housing within the M25, building 650 homes.
Partnership can also deliver research and development for the sector. AtHanham Hall near Bristol, we have worked with the public sector to build one of the most environmentally advanced housing projects anywhere in Europe.
To increase housing on redundant public sector sites will need a powerful leadership role for the Homes and Communities Agency, and I support the proposal that they should lead the disposal of public land for housing.
There has to be a clear plan from major public landowners to identify surplus land and kickstart the development process.
But it will also require change from the housing sector. There must be a new determination to work in partnership. To achieve this we have to demonstrate that design and quality are at the forefront of our thinking.
That the economic and social use of public assets are being maximised and that we are building a lasting legacy.
Follow this Jeff Rutt Facebook page for news on movements in the housing sector, both in the US and abroad.
