According to researchers at LSE, more land in Surrey is devoted to golf courses than housing. Never has a statistic better underlined the ridiculousness of the residential market.
Politicians’ dogged insistence that every inch of the green belt remains sacrosanct has fuelled these market dysfunctions by ensuring such land remains cheap since nothing can be built on it.
Few campaigners seem to be able to differentiate between ‘green field’ and ‘green belt’. And when the housing crisis isn’t being unfairly blamed on foreign investors or immigration, we are told there is a “shortage” of land.
There isn’t. There are, however, a number of solutions at our disposal for changing the game.
We firstly need to be more upfront in confronting the inevitable barriers we face, such as nimbyism.
It is not without irony that the areas most vociferously opposing development are those best placed to cater for it and with the most unaffordable homes. But the onus must be on us as developers to engage locally and make a compelling case.
Yet the reality is that the response from local authorities is inconsistent at best – another major barrier.
What is starting to become apparent is the value of mixed tenure developments and their ability to hasten the pace of regeneration.
A crucial point, with any development is having infrastructure in place. This is precisely why sites like Ebbsfleet, the supposed home of Britain’s first “garden city” in decades, have largely stalled. Having a fast rail link is fine, but people can’t live without healthcare, education and a decent local pub.
That’s why having a coherent policy that allows the re-use of existing sites to be viable is also key.
In March, Lord Adonis argued that old council estates should be rebuilt at higher densities — including homes for sale at open market prices to create a net increase in housing without needing any funding from the state.
He’s right. And though higher densities will invariably mean more tall buildings, in the right locations sympathetic design can add to the sense of place without detracting from heritage.
As we saw with the London Olympics in 2012, CPO powers, when used appropriately, can also be an effective tool in assembling sites.
The public sector should be encouraged to take a far more strategic role in co-ordinating development across our major cities. But the public sector should broaden its horizons too.
Much has been made of moves by the Greater London Authority and Transport for London to dispose of public land. While commendable, both need to vary the types of partners they work with. Partnership grids announced by both organisations through the OJEU procurement process are a predictable who’s who of the same old faces, reducing diversity and innovation.
Despite a third of Londoners renting, there is not a single specialist build-to-rent developer listed with either public body. At the same time, affordable housing remains a bigger challenge than ever.
In spite of the fanfare, starter homes won’t help, especially as such properties would have previously gone to renters who needed a subsidy.
Private rented homes are one solution. We have focused heavily on creating a new discounted market rent offer in our schemes to “pepper pot” affordable housing within our standard homes at rents of 55% and 75% of the market rate.
Having a mix of rented and for sale homes allows more homes to be filled early. By releasing finance against income-producing assets, more homes can also be built in a shorter space of time.
As build to rent matures, having firm rules enabling people to “staircase up” in rents will be key to driving people’s ambitions and ensuring we have genuinely mixed communities.
Land costs have soared in central locations. To make schemes and sites viable we need joined up thinking to help make difficult political decisions.
Charlie Hustler is land director at Essential Living
