20 COMMENT A POLLUTER’S CHARTER?
His latest initiative (delivered jointly with the Environment Secretary Therese offey has attracted fi erce criticism from many quarters. In an amendment tabled to the Levelling Up bill, the Government wanted to order local authorities to ignore nutrient pollution from new housing developments in ecologically sensitive areas in England.
The Government claimed this ‘build anywhere charter’ would unlock land for at least an extra 100,000 new homes a year to be built, helping to deliver on its longstanding commitment to build 300,000 new homes a year. The strong level of opposition it generated saw the amendment being defeated in the House of Lords. It remains to be seen how the Government will respond and whether it tries to get the change through in another way. Even if it can get Parliamentary approval, it is unlikely to have the desired impact on the building of new homes before the next general election (sometime within the next 15 months).
But we also need to consider why such a controversial measure is even necessary?
According to the Local Government Association, land for more than 2.6 million homes has already been allocated in Local Plans and nine of every ten planning applications are being approved. Councillor Darren Rodwell, housing spokesperson for the Local Government Association, said: “Councils are committed to working with government and developers to build the housing the country needs.” However, he added: “Local council planning departments face signifi cant challenges in recruitment and retention and we need a comprehensive planning skills strategy to address this, which should be urgently brought forward.”
SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS VOICED e also have signifi cant concerns that the proposed Infrastructure Levy will result in fewer, not more, affordable homes delivered, will expose councils to excessive levels of fi nancial risks, and be increasingly burdensome and complex for local authorities to implement and manage.
n a polite but fi rmly worded reprimand to Gove and his cabinet colleagues, Mr Rodwell said: “National, top-down algorithms and formulas can never be
dent in the homelessness numbers and those waiting on local authority waiting lists.
A BETTER APPROACH IS POSSIBLE Even among his supporters, there are fears the proposed rule changes to discharges of polluting nutrients would have caused problems. Sam Hall, the director of the
a substitute for local knowledge and decision-making by those who know their areas best. We have been clear that councils and communities are best placed to decide how to build the right homes in the right places in their local areas, with the right infrastructure.” Returning to the proposed u-turn on banning nutrients from ecologically sensitive areas, this initiative appears to run completely counter to another recent housing policy statement made by the same Michael Gove.
In his plan to build a better Britain, the Housing Secretary announced that he wanted to see many more homes built in the right places. He argued that it’s better to build in existing cities and towns and on ex-industrial brownfi eld sites than on green fi elds and in green belts. He also pointed out that it’s good to do so at high densities, which use land sparingly and can produce “productive, creative and attractive” places to live, like Paris, Edinburgh, New York and Barcelona.
This focus on concentrating the building of new homes in existing towns and cities surely runs counter to the idea of building 100,000 new homes a year in ecologically sensitive areas. It also appears to pander to the NIMBYist residents of suburban and rural England.
Meanwhile Mr Gove’s department recently handed back approximately £1.9bn to the Treasury, much of this was originally intended to be spent on new homes. his could have made a signifi cant
Conservative Environment Network, said: “Conservative environmentalists support both home ownership and environmental stewardship. The limited options for housebuilders to offset nutrient pollution from new homes meant that nutrient neutrality rules were acting as a de facto block on much-needed housing.” “A better approach for both nature recovery and housing supply is possible, and so the government was right to seek an alternative. The Government’s mitigation measures, which will avoid additional nutrient pollution entering rivers until 2030 when water treatment works will have been upgraded, are welcome.”
“It is disappointing, however, that the Government chose to exempt housebuilding’s nutrient pollution from the habitats regulations, rather than seek a holistic reform with developers paying proportionally for their pollution.” Others have pointed out that the costs of removing nutrients and phosphates would fall on the public purse rather than on housebuilders. Altogether, it is clear the situation has become a bit of a mess. Hence the need for a non-political organisation to be set up with the mandate and powers to deliver large numbers of new houses across the country, in places where people want to live but without ruining the countryside. It is likely that housing generally and where new housing is to be built will be a red hot topic during the general election. It is to be hoped that the politicians do not box themselves in by making ridiculous manifesto commitments that are impossible to deliver on. I suspect the Punch and Judy style of British politics will provide all the evidence necessary to justify the setting up of a housing delivery organisation. Of course if we get such a body, then it might also be accompanied by calls for the Housing Secretary role to be wound up, or for its focus to shift to other parts of its brief, like tackling homelessness or unscrupulous private sector landlords.
IN HIS PLAN TO BUILD A BETTER BRITAIN, THE HOUSING SECRETARY ANNOUNCED THAT HE WANTED TO SEE MANY MORE HOMES BUILT IN THE RIGHT PLACES
WWW.HBDONLINE.CO.UK
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100
