Is Building New the Only Option?
The government have announced plans to deliver £1.5 million homes during their term through the building of new residences. Their plan sees to prioritise building on brown field land, but are telling councils to review their green belt land if needed to meet their housing targets. In addition to this they have created a new term called ‘grey belt land’ which they have described as the following: ”This includes land on the edge of existing settlements or roads, as well as old petrol stations and car parks.”
There is no denying the incredible pressure on the housing supply, with the cost of living crisis among many other factors contributing to an increasing number of people finding themselves without a permanent home. Do we think that building more homes is the answer to this complex issue?. An article by Dezeen highlights the flaws in the development and construction industry that may see the downfall to this plan, based on economic viability and stakeholder profit. Building more houses to address the housing crisis seems so simple, yet if it were that easy, wouldn’t it have worked by now?
We live in a country where there are over 261,000 long-term empty homes and over 700,000 unfurnished and empty (Action on Empty Homes). Perhaps there would be benefit in the government addressing these empty homes as a part of the solution to accessible housing. These figures indicate that there are issues in our systems, that almost half of their target could be met with existing empty homes should not be ignored. Not every single existing empty property could be used for this, of course, but the government don’t seem to have even acknowledged this in their statement. Wouldn’t it make sense to combine two solutions, one that works on existing buildings and the other on the new. As a country we are wasting essential resources. To bring them back into use would be of great benefit both for those who need homes and for those with empty properties.
The construction industry is incredibly carbon-intensive and is significantly worse than adapting and repurposing existing buildings. My overall concern with this plan is the lack of detail over the sustainability of the proposal, with Keir Starmer promising “New infrastructure to support families and communities to grow. Roads, tunnels, power stations – built quicker and cheaper.” My feeling when hearing ‘quicker and cheaper’ is there could be compromises on sustainability and quality. Labour have said they will protect green belts and green spaces but made no mention of the future homes standard that is due to be implemented next year, where new homes must be net zero ready. This 2025 target brings with it plenty of challenges for the construction and housing sector.
There are also other factors that are putting strain on this system, most notably the local housing allowance rates which do not reflect the real-world pricing of the rental market, leading to shortfalls in rent payments from those in vulnerable positions. Competition also leads to lower quality properties, where tenants are forced to accept damp-ridden homes among other issues that lead to unhealthy outcomes for residents, which ultimately leads to added pressure on our healthcare systems.
I really hope that the plan for supplying more housing in the country takes on a more holistic approach, one that considers existing empty buildings, building on brownfield land and tackling the gap in housing support for the most vulnerable. The plans Labour have put forward are ambitious and I am concerned about the challenges they face. I can only hope they will not only achieve affordable homes but do so in a sustainable way.
Lauren Page
Founder
