If society wants to maintain balanced rural communities, the Government must see that the demand — and need — for low-cost homes is met, says the Rural Development Commission in a memorandum(*). To provide affordable housing, a way must be found to bring down the cost of land. Making more land available is unlikely to improve significantly the provision of low-cost housing unless land is released to an unacceptable level.
The commission believes that local authorities must be allowed to give conditional planning permission or to enter into agreements on land which would not otherwise have received planning permission in order to reduce the price of land specifically to provide for low-cost housing.
Local authorities must have the powers to enable low-cost housing to be provided within villages, particularly to meet the needs of those living and working locally who wish to remain, the commission says. Part of the problem rests with whether the planning system should be restricted to purely land use and, if some form of “local needs” statement is to be allowed, the scope of the term “local”. The commission supports some form of planning statement which provides for housing, first, to meet the continuing social and economic needs of the community and, second, expressly for lower income groups. “What is clear is that, not only is it essential that the Government allows such measures but that it clarifies the position as a matter of some urgency and then shows its support through the appeals procedure to remove any ‘hope’ value on land which has only received conditional planning permission for low-cost housing.”
The Government’s discussion paper on housing in rural areas puts forward the idea of new villages or country towns. The Rural Development Commission supports this idea. In some areas, particularly the South East where the pressure for development is such that existing villages could be swamped or change their essential character, new villages may well be the answer. The commission’s overriding concern, however, is the need for balance. Some 10% to 20% of such developments should be for low-cost housing either for rent, sale or shared equity purchase. There is a need to safeguard the long-term use of such housing which would apply equally for new villages. There is also a growing need for starter homes. In new villages the provision of affordable housing is likely to take place only if local planning authorities are able to approve it as part of the overall development.
The risk for small new villages on the scale envisaged is that they would not be large enough to support a range of services or provide sufficient incentive to private-sector developers. In order to support a wide range of services, including commercial, leisure and welfare facilities, some 3,000 dwellings are thought to be the minimum number required.
A realistic return to developers, who argue that smaller developments run the risk of becoming commuter or dormitory villages only, would also be provided from this number of units.
Much of the debate has centred on the need to protect the beauty and ecology of our countryside and people’s understandable and proper concern not to spoil it by over-development, the commission concludes.
“But in this concern it is important to remember that the countryside was largely fashioned by man, and needs people and communities to sustain it. These people need jobs and homes, and we should not lose sight of that. Even in our most attractive areas there is often a need for some small-scale development — a workshop and perhaps four to six houses for those on low incomes. What is required is a means of providing those, and a planning framework which can enable small developments in existing villages and safeguard their future as socially balanced communities.”
(*) Rural Development Commission, 11 Cowley Street, London SW1P 3NA.
