Common sense in the big homes debate.

Article for the Southern Evening Echo - November 1999

There has been much furious reaction recently to a report which suggested that, between 1996 and 2016, 1.1 million new homes would need to be built in the South East. Visions of the South East being ‘concreted over’ were conjured up, and battle lines were drawn. When a round robin letter drawn up by a number of Conservative MPs was not signed by the region’s Labour members cries of ‘gagging by the government’ went up. Demands were raised (regrettably also from this newspaper) that the Government should repudiate ‘its’ report.

Of course, the government cannot do that, because it is not ‘its’ report at all. It is the work of an independent inspectorate, commentating on last year’s South East Regional Planning conference report that suggested a lower figure (718,000) over the same period. It is part of a consultation which is open and transparent, and will need, at the end of the process to be considered by government. To throw a part of the process out before any proper consideration has been given would be quite wrong. It is hard to believe that the Conservative MPs making all the fuss do not know this, and if they do they are open to a charge of a degree of hypocrisy. After all, in 1996 the last Tory Government produced a report (NOT a consultation) which concluded that over a million houses would be needed in the region – and not a peep of protest was heard from these MPs at the time.

But after all the posturing, there are, of course, very real issues. The recent dispute between Southampton, Portsmouth and Hampshire County Council over housing numbers in the County illustrates this. At least this resulted in initial numbers being agreed, with a review procedure for consideration as the level of need becomes clearer over time. That is the right way to proceed. We need some form of framework to plan within. What is lamentable about the recent debate is the apparent stance of the South's Tory MPs that we do not need to plan: but if we do not we may well find in a few years time that there are no homes when they are desperately needed by the next generation. If this happens we can all guess who will benefit and who will not – the well off will always be able to buy their way out of the problem, but the less well off will find homes priced beyond their reach or non existent.

The numbers issue is important in the context of what is happening to future households. It seems that, because we are marrying later, divorcing more often, and living longer, many more homes for single people will be needed. This means more units, but perhaps not taking up any more land than a smaller number of larger homes. The south is also a magnet for migration from other parts of the country. Do we simply turn people away at the Watford Gap Service area if we suspect they are coming south to live? In any event, most of the migration in the south actually comes from the South itself – mainly from London.

The key issue remains for the south – where do we actually put the houses that we eventually agree are needed? The Government has recently introduced new policy guidance which requires Local authorities to provide what is called a ‘sequential test’ for new housing before planning permission is given. Can the new housing go on previously used land (‘brownfield sites’)? Is the proposed development in, or close to an existing urban area, so that maximum use can be made of existing amenities and travel links? The Government wants to end the previous free for all where permission was given for large out-of town stores built in green fields which pulled traffic and new settlements in their wake.

But even that policy requires some careful thought. If we simply cram high density housing into the centre of cities such as Southampton and Portsmouth we will, eventually create unliveable ghettos from which people will attempt to escape in a few years time. The regeneration of cities and the careful planning of new housing in urban areas are essential elements of the process. In this context, we need to be clear about what an urban area actually is. Part of the posturing on where homes should be has involved the pretence that ‘urban areas’ for places like Hampshire means the areas within the local government boundaries of the big towns. But we know in Hampshire that these are drawn tightly around the urban core of places like Southampton and Portsmouth. The ‘real’ urban area of Southampton, for example, spreads far beyond the local government boundaries – a stab at the ‘urban zone’ might run from Hythe through Totton, Eastleigh, Hedge End, West End and down to Netley. If we want to keep a good balance between the urban and the rural, then urban housing means a plan for new homes in this area, and not just in the centre of the city.

That is a joint responsibility of a number of Local authorities. We need to defend ourselves collectively against suggestions that destroy the balance of provision and the quality of life in Hampshire. But we also need some realistic talking and planning. If we do not and we pretend the problem will go away we will all regret it in the end.