Britain needs more new houses with gardens. That’s the finding of a new YouGov poll conducted for the New Homes Marketing Board. The survey found that from a list of over 20 attributes offered by new homes, a massive 53 per cent of respondents chose a garden as their main priority.
It is rather sad and indicative of how government social policy has lost its way. Ninety years ago, the Lloyd George government launched its homes fit for heroes. All these government built, social rent homes had generous gardens (as well as generously sized homes). Today, even so-called executive homes built for the private market have postage stamp sized gardens. Most new homes don’t have any gardens at all – they are pokey one and two bedroom flats with no open space.
The blame for this sad state of affairs is Britain’s planning system and the desire to build homes at higher densities. It is a policy that suits developers because they can cram in more flats helping profit margins. It suits local authorities, because they can demand higher levels of affordable housing. And it suits environmentalists and countryside campaigners, because it helps ease the pressure to build on the greenbelt. Indeed, it seems to suit everyone bar the consumer – the people that have to live in these new rabbit warren homes.
There is nothing wrong with high densities. If you want to live in a successful urban community with vibrant shops, bars and restaurants, well-designed, high density living is essential. But for those people that want to live in a more rural or suburban setting, we should stop building homes on top of each other and give people generous gardens with more space.
Sadly, this is impossible with the current planning system that restricts the availability of land for development. The only way to address this matter is to lift the restrictions on developing greenfield and greenbelt land. There is nothing special about the greenbelt - it does not necessarily mean that it is attractive or ecologically important land.
The idea of the greenbelt was born out of the 1947 Planning Act. Instead of cities growing organically and of urban areas converging into one another, the Labour Government felt it would be better to plan new towns away from the existing cities to accommodate a growing population.
Personally, I think organic growth and villages being subsumed by a larger neighbour works better than New towns. Islington and Wimbledon are certainly better places than Bracknell or Basildon.
But at least Atlee’s Labour Government was prepared to provide homes for a growing population – in recent years, planning policy has banned development in either New towns or the greenbelt. With some demographic predictions suggesting Britain’s population will rise to 71 million by 2031, this is no longer a credible position.
The perception among most people is that the South East has been concreted over and that we should protect what small green space we have left. This is nonsense. The next time you fly into London, take a look over the Home Counties and you’ll see it remains mainly green and undeveloped.
If we want to build homes (with modest gardens) fit for ordinary people in the 21st century, we need to abolish the planning rules which impose minimum density levels and prevent greenbelt development. John Prescott may not have literally meant it, but he was right – we should build on the greenbelt.
Posts
