Waste of space; how new estates alone will not solve the housing crisis.

It is no secret that there are new housing developments springing up everywhere. In the last year alone there were 217,000 houses built in England with the government promising 250,000 more every year until 2020. A fifth of these properties are classed as, “affordable” by the local councils. However, deeper research suggests that the actual number of social housing is dropping by 213,501 homes per year. This discrepancy shows a deep divide between the authorities’ perception of affordable and what lower income families can afford. This could go some way towards explaining the fifteen percent increase in people sleeping rough over the past year. Estimates suggest that there were around 8,108 people on the streets last year. Suburban estates are being built on previously rural land, but it does not seem to help the housing problems in the UK.

Although fifteen percent fewer homes are built compared to a decade ago, twice as much greenfield land is being used. Usage of greenfield land is at a twenty-five-year high leading to an increased level of urban sprawl; the expansion of populations away from central urban areas. Currently, almost 13% of the UK’s land is urbanised or developed on and 170 square kilometres of greenfield land is being covered every year. Most land surrounding towns provides either food or leisure for residents. This never-ending construction of mid-range properties affects the local ecosystem, through deforestation, disturbing habitats and drawing in more traffic. To make matters worse, the estates will affect drainage and cumulatively, further water systems. However, planners hide behind a façade of necessity but, in reality, there is enough brownfield land to build over a million new homes. In addition to this, 80% of new build homes are houses rather than flats which would house far more people in a reduced area.

Current flat blocks in the country are not suitable for purpose with many at risk of collapse, leaving 100,000 people vulnerable to homelessness. With Grenfell still in mind, Tower Blocks UK have urged ministers to investigate all towers built using the same LPS system. These housing systems are in place in every city in the UK, spreading fears of council negligence. As these issues are widespread, it seems sensible to deal with the imperative problem of thousands of people at risk of injury or displacement. In 2015, it was calculated that there were 610,123 empty properties in England with 19,845 off those being in London alone. The London properties were collectively worth £9.4billion if sold at current market value. It appears that the absent owners may be stockpiling properties in order to drive house prices skyward. Although councils have been given new powers this May, it is year whereby council tax can be doubled for homes left empty for more than two years, only 1/13 have chosen to utilise this. In addition, this legislation does not cover disused industrial land, of which there is enough to build 420,000 homes in London alone.

However, in London, there are an estimates 1,137 people sleeping rough on any given night. Since 2010, there has been a growth of 169% in the number of people recognised as homeless by charities and local counties, suggestive of a figure of 4,751 in 2017. However, this number is based on a one-night count during the year, charity CHAIN advise that the real figure could be 8,108 not including those at risk of homelessness. For those unfortunate enough to sleep rough, it could be a death sentence, with 230 people dying in just 5 years. It does not have to be this way. There is enough brownfield land in the UK to house over one million people and 11,000 homes that have been empty for a decade. It is unfathomable to me that these homes are left to rot when there are people who desperately need them. Under the Housing Act, 1985, councils have the ability to take over land in order to increase the number or quality of houses available. So why is this?

Brownfield land, which is left empty for a long period of time can be costly to regenerate; there are often buildings (or the shell of buildings) or polluted soil on the plot, which must be taken care of beforehand. Real Estate crowd funder, Intro Crowd, has stated that they only use greenfield land, owing to apparent time and cost savings. According to their website, it is more appealing for designers to have a ‘blank canvas’, allowing more freedom. In addition, it is assumed that most brownfield sites are in undesirable locations which will in turn create an adverse perception of the new development. However, while greenfield land does allow for creative freedom, I feel that turning a disused plot of land into something useful and attractive holds a greater level of achievement. In the current global climate, it is important to preserve greenfield sites for wildlife to live and thrive in. Additionally, it is vital to leave some permeable land with the increase in extreme weather afoot.

In recent times, where austerity has risen extensively, the average salary (from Office of National Statistics) is around £27,000 with the average house prices almost 10 times this amount. Moreover, there are now 8.7% less rental properties available in the UK than this time last year, escalating prices to over £800pcm (outside of Greater London) for the first time. However, this does not mean that properties need to be built on greenfield sites; disused properties are neglected in society, but they provide a plethora of opportunities to developers and social renters alike. Properties in a good condition can be easily turned into low cost homes for those struggling to afford to live. Increasing the availability of rental homes on the market would help to deflate the runaway prices.

With the current homelessness crisis, it should be the councils’ utmost priority to house as many people as they can, so why is this not happening? Whilst some are left due to personal circumstances, such as a death in the family, others may be left for monetary gain. Building new a property incurs a zero percent tax, whereas renovating an existing property only attracts a reduced rate. Buying a property to leave it, helps to increase the value of other properties that they may own by diminishing the availability of properties. Although mainly left for gain, some are left to reduce loss, new property developers can take on a project that they are unprepared for and desert the venture when available funds run low. Charity, Action on Empty Homes, suggests that communities and councils should work together to regenerate empty houses alongside building new properties to alleviate the housing crisis.

Utilising empty properties may not completely resolve the housing crisis, it will help mitigate the problem. Instead of destroying more wild habitats building unaffordable housing, perhaps councils could work with housing charities to collate ideas surrounding this issue. It is important to consider ecological and economic matters when planning any housing. Those estates with renovation or regeneration potential must be a priority.