Some useful light was thrown on Conservative and Labour housing supply policies during a debate last Thursday in Westminster Hall. Labour’s shadow housing minister said there are not enough sites on brownfield registers to deliver the volume of homes that the country needs every year, let alone that are viable. Matthew Pennycock MP added “Even if the government manage to boost rates of development on identified brownfield sites significantly ……… the fact remains that brownfield development alone will almost certainly never be enough to meet the country’s housing need”. This is true.
On the other hand the newly appointed housing and planning minister, Rachel MacLean said the government is pursuing an unambiguous policy of putting brownfield land first. She went further, saying everything must be done ‘to protect our precious green belt, greenfield, open-space and countryside land’. No distinction here identifying white land, which used to enjoy a presumption in favour of development but, it seems, not anymore. What happened to this presumption?
Worth remembering that over 90% of our country is also subject to the law of trespass, meaning the public is also excluded from over 90% of open countryside by law. The massive increase in the demand for walking seen during the pandemic is worth keeping in mind. Regular users of Richmond Park footpaths, for example, saw this impact on the ground. Wild animal tracks inches wide became one yard wide tracks. And visitor numbers seem to increase tenfold.
So I am becoming more confused. Great looking at open space and open countryside from a bicycle on the road, or from the car seat, or even confined to the footpath, but what is the point of this planning protection? If we can’t go there. And where is the gain if it strangulates new homes supply, thus boosting house price inflation even more, and stops economic growth? It is difficult to avoid concluding someone has lost the plot!
Ian Campbell
14 February 2023
