Lasr week, Surrey county council made one of the first responses to the DOE’s Green Paper on housing growth. Lawrence Higgins reports on its findings.
Surrey is one of the smallest counties in the UK and, with about 70% of the land designated as green belt and 25% as areas of outstanding natural beauty, there is a severe lack of space for any form of development.
Following the publication last November of the DOE Green Paper Household growth: where shall we live?, Surrey county council has had to rethink its position on housing. The current structure plan already provides for 35,600 homes in the next 10 years, but if the government’s projections were to be met, an extra 14,000 homes would need to be built in that period and a further 32,000 the following decade.
By 2016, some 1,250ha of greenfield land would have been developed. “This would be wholly unacceptable,” says Dr Camilla Inglis, chairman of the council’s planning committee. “The government must accept that there are limits to what Surrey can absorb without paying too high an environmental price.”
Change of use
Peter Shadbolt of the council’s strategic planning department comments: “We estimate that around 7,000 households can be developed on sites in urban areas, but we will have to look at green belt land and change-of-use and infill for the remainder.”
On the one hand, says Shadbolt, the council is under pressure from house-builders and commercial developers to provide sites for development and, on the other, from land lobbyists to retain the green belt land. “Trying to find a happy medium is always difficult and, over time, the problem will exacerbate.”
The council has targeted the Epsom hospital site in Epsom for development of about 2,000 homes, and Horley for a further 2,600. Generally, though, development will have to be piecemeal. Chris Walker, director of Fairview Homes, points out: “There is so little choice in Surrey that it does not really matter whether the site that becomes available is brown- or greenfield – it is snapped up”.
With such demand for sites, the authority can take a healthy bargaining stance on planning gain in terms of providing affordable housing. The stated policy is that affordable housing should be provided on sites of more than 0.16ha (0.4 acres) or 20 homes, but all sites are negotiable. In Tolworth and Villiers Road, Kingston, Fairview worked hand in hand with housing associations to fulfil quotas on affordable housing, as did Barratt at Wrythe Green Lane, Carshalton.
Affordable housing
On the more opulent developments providing houses worth over £250,000, affordable housing quotas are rare. A housing association works on target cash indicators: when these are applied to the higher-priced developments around Surrey, they tend to preclude development. Also, if a high-quality site contains less than 40 houses, government guidelines veer towards no social provision.
Shadbolt says: “In the recession, the developers were happy to provide some affordable houses as it was an extra job for them. Now they are becoming displeased, as they feel they are being increasingly asked to provide local authority infrastructure services such as roads or schools.” Barratt agreed to provide a classroom for a local school and to develop outpatient provision as part of its permission to build 69 homes on the Ottershaw hospital site near Weybridge.
Bill Baxter of planning consultant Robert Shaw & Partners feels that the changes in law giving developers a right of appeal on planning gain clauses has lessened the power of the authorities. But, he adds, ” in Surrey the environmental sensitivity of sites and the eagerness of the developers means that negotiation will still have a role to play”. As one developer comments: “The authorities are in the driving-seat because we need planning permission. We will normally reach an agreement for some sensible provision, so we do not need to appeal and we can proceed quickly.”
The county’s demographic profile is also changing, and thereby affecting housing provision. Figures released before the DOE re-estimations state that between now and 2006, the total number of people older than 45 will increase by 27,000, and those below this age will fall by 20,000. Households with married couples will fall by 15,000, while single-occupancy households will rise by 27,000. Thus housing need will be for smaller, one- or two-bedroom units as retirement or single-occupancy homes.
Between 1991 and 1995, 65% of applications granted planning permission were for houses, 30% for flats and the remainder for sheltered accommodation. More than 56% of the housing was in one- or two-bedroom units, thereby catering for the first-time-buyer market. Flats and smaller houses were mainly located around urban centres such as Guildford and Woking. However, price-wise, first-time buyers still have problems thanks to the relatively high cost of houses in the county. Black Horse Agencies puts the average price of a new home in the county at £125,000 – £13,000 more than neighbouring south London and £18,000 more than Hampshire.
Much demand is for the traditional country house that remains ever-popular in Surrey. Richard Donnell of Savills estimates that prices for mansion-type homes rose by 24% in 1996. He puts current figures 9% above the 1989 high. Tommy de Mallet-Morgan of Savills says: “The increases reflect the bonuses being given in the City. [City staff] are now confident enough to purchase homes as an investment.” With prices predicted to rise even further during the next few years, he feels that the investment market will continue to expand.
Land price hike
Land prices reflect demand, and Piers Banfield of Banner Homes estimates a 20% hike in 1996. David Marsh, regional new homes and land director for Black Horse, says: “Developers are frequently buying old properties purely to demolish them to make space for new development.”
One such property is the St Helier Tavern in Wrythe Green Lane, Carshalton. For many years the inn was the bane of local people when it was operated by entertainment manager Mr Kray – a brother of the notorious twins – during which time one of the inn’s frequent brawls ended in murder. Both the local authority and neighbouring inhabitants were more than happy to allow Barratt Homes to demolish the site in order to provide 40 starter homes in an area facing a shortage.
