The fact that the government can deliver this message so effortlessly, when it and many preceding governments have struggled unsuccessfully with the country's housing crisis, reveals one of two things: either that it is content to continue putting out crowd-pleasing comments that are devoid of actual substance, or that it still has no idea of the complexity and cost of brownfield development.
The quantity of derelict land available has never been in question. What matters is whether this land happens to be where housing is needed and whether it makes commercial sense to develop it.
Nowhere are the opportunities and problems of brownfield development better demonstrated than in the Thames Gateway. It is key to the government's hopes of increasing housing supply close to London while tackling urban decay and reducing greenfield use. Questions are being asked as to why, after more than 10 years of talk, development in much of this area has simply not been forthcoming.
Closer examination shows that development has in fact taken place, wherever the Docklands Light Railway provides access. This indicates that where public investment has been forthcoming, so too has residential development.
London mayor Ken Livingstone's enthusiasm for the Thames Gateway appears to be equalled by his lack of understanding – or unwillingness to admit – that private industry is simply not interested in taking on loss-making projects. Indeed, as far as the mayor is concerned, developers are the answer to his lack of cash for more affordable housing.
The problem is that Livingstone is effectively going shopping without knowing how much is in his wallet. The massively increased demands for social housing, public transport infrastructure, contaminated land clean-up, community centres, libraries and so on are all made without reference to the eventual cost. Instead, it is conveniently assumed that developers will pick up the tab under planning gain agreements.
Ken Livingstone is effectively going shopping without knowing how much is in his wallet
Rather than accept that developers do not have a bottomless pit of funds for planning gain, Livingstone's London plan is aiming for a massive increase in so-called "affordable" housing. It might be affordable for London planners to demand it, but not for the developers to provide it.
Livingstone has been repeatedly warned about the dangers of killing off the goose that lays the golden eggs and rightly told that 20% of something is better than 50% of nothing.
To reiterate: no private industry will take on a loss-making project and to suggest otherwise is simply sweeping this country's housing crisis under the carpet.
It's rare that the government and Livingstone have a common agenda and regenerating the Thames Gateway is perhaps their greatest shared goal. Housebuilders would genuinely like to help, as building homes is their business. A good starting point for the realisation of this dream would be some openness and honesty about how to achieve it.
Although it is quite unrealistic to expect virtually all new development to be built on brownfield, as the housing crisis is as acute in many rural areas with little or no brownfield, the extent of regeneration lies directly in the government's hands. As I mentioned earlier, it has been demonstrated that where public investment has been forthcoming so too has subsequent regeneration.
In the case of the Thames Gateway, which, in addition to the usual costs associated with brownfield, also needs considerable investment in flood protection, the costs are going to be massive.
Source
Housing Today
Postscript
Pierre Williams is spokesman for the House Builders Federation
No comments yet