Compassion, a wise man once said, is the natural homeland of the rich but is largely inhabited by the poor. Those of us who run charities know the truth of that observation: relative to their incomes, the poor are far more generous than their richer peers.
The saying sprang to my mind when I was reading Housing Today’s article about asylum seekers sleeping rough (5 November, page 7). Here we are, the world’s fourth richest economy, seemingly happy to tolerate the spectacle of people who came to this country to claim refuge from oppression lying destitute on our streets. The problem seems to have arisen because of contradictions in Home Office policies: people refused refugee status but their home country deemed too dangerous so they end up on the street.
This is not just tragic for the individuals concerned but creates a wider problem. There are already indications that the housing of asylum seekers is driving the rise of the far right. Years ago, the fear was that incomers would deprive us of our jobs.
Now, it is that they deprive us of our houses.
This myth is fuelled by a lack of housing and, of course, asylum seekers are not the only group whose lives are wrecked by the failure of successive governments to invest in housing. The record number of families in emergency accommodation and the hundreds of thousands in overcrowded or unacceptable conditions can testify to that. The cost in human and financial terms – Shelter has quantified the cost of emergency accommodation at £500m a year – is huge.
But there are at last some signs of a change in political thinking. All parties have acknowledged that more housebuilding, particularly social housebuilding, is necessary. There’s even money for it. Although the spending review will fund only half of the new social homes demanded by Kate Barker’s report (and a sixth of those recommended by the Cambridge University analysis done for Shelter), this is significant.
However, it is not just about money.
It is not enough to argue for more investment in housebuilding; we need to engage in debates about what sort of housing, for whom and where
There are real obstacles to delivery. As the recent furore over housing plans in the east of England has shown, opposition on the ground is huge. Winning the battle in Westminster is important; winning the battle across the country is vital.
The first thing to do is to understand the opposition. It is easy to characterise it as mere Nimbyism. In many cases it is: a natural resistance to seeing one’s neighbourhood disrupted. But even with what we broadly term as Nimbyism, there may be some force to the arguments. All too often, investment in housing has not been matched by investment in infrastructure – transport, schools, healthcare. Thoughtless planning and design have turned picture-book villages into characterless suburbs.
There is, of course, a more progressive strain. Opponents of building also raise questions about environmental sustainability and the concreting over of the countryside.
These are compelling arguments. It is not enough to call for more investment in housebuilding; we need to engage in debates about what sort of housing, for whom and where. We need to work with builders and environmentalists to ensure that the new houses use eco-friendly construction methods. We need to work with planners to ensure that as much housing as possible is delivered on brownfield sites, pushing up building densities towards the European average and restricting urban sprawl.
All of this requires the creation of an alliance between those with an interest in the homes: builders, councils, planners, environmentalists, architects and housing organisations. Above all, it requires a focus on the people who matter most: those who are going to live in the new homes. They are the ones who are suffering – in condemned, overcrowded or temporary accommodation, or living on the streets. Whether it is asylum seekers or some other group of desperate individuals, we must try to deliver housing that meets their needs. Compassion is not an option – it is a duty.
Source
Housing Today
Postscript
Adam Sampson is director of charity Shelter
No comments yet