CHELMSFORD DIOCESE

THAMES GATEWAY – OCCASIONAL PAPER: 8

3 Million New Houses – do we need them?

(Woe to you O England’s Green and Pleasant Land! Or not as the case may be)

THE BACKGROUND:

The need for more houses in the UK is generally accepted, but not universally. However anyone trying to get on the housing ladder and faced with escalating house prices will certainly agree that we need more houses. The reality of the situation is that the ratio of average house price compared to average income has increase dramatically in recent years. This is coupled with a general decline in social housing due to the right to buy and a ban on local authorities building more houses. In the period up to the 1970s we were building almost 300,000 houses a year, of which 100,000 were council houses. Once council house building stopped, the slack was meant to be taken up by Registered Social Landlords, such as Housing Associations, but they have never succeeded in build above 10-20,000 dwellings annually. Meanwhile private house builders continue to build about the same number of houses year in year out – roughly 150,000. It doesn’t seem to matter what is done by government or the state of the economy, it’s the same number each year. These facts have led to the government initiatives of recent years.

The first major initiative of this government was the designation of 4 growth areas – Thames Gateway, Milton Keynes/South Midlands, the M11 corridor and Ashford. However the continuing spiralling of prices and the clear shortage of homes has lead to a further announcement from Gordon Brown, when he became Prime Minister that he intends to push up the national target for the period to 2020 from 1.8 million across the UK to 3 million. How these will be distributed has not been announced although 3 new eco towns are promised but, again, without any proposed locations or whether any would be in the South East.

WHY DO WE NEED MORE HOMES?

As mentioned above we are building fewer homes, but assuming we build as many as we lose should this matter? In fact there are a number of factors that mean we need more houses:

• Our population is increasing (in the 12 months to July 2006 net immigration was 189,000. Over the next 14 years the population is expected to increase by 4.4M, of which 55% is net immigration and 45% natural growth)
• People are living longer so needing housing and, as a by product, often occupying family houses when they have long since cease to need such a house.
• The increasing number of relationship breakdowns will often mean that two dwellings are needed were only one was previously.
• There are an increasing number of second homes. This is a particular problem in holiday areas where many of these second homes remain empty for much of the year with a consequential devastating effect on the local community.
• In the short term the rapid rise in house prices has led to people buying as an investment and making a good return even if the property is kept empty so that it can later be sold as never having been lived in.

but do so many need to be in the South East?

Many would argue that the South East is already overcrowded, that we should cap economic activity and force it to spread throughout the country. Given that the current government’s strength tends to be outside the South East, I would suggest that they would like to do that. The fact that they are encouraging South East development shows that national governments are not able to control where growth will occur. The economic reality is that if the South East ceases to attract new business they will go abroad, not to the North of England, and if the South East goes into recession so will the rest of the country.

If the South East is to remain vibrant, it needs to accommodate the workers that it requires, including immigrants who will fill the gaps were there are skills shortages and occupy the lower paid jobs that we depend on but which we are no longer willing to do ourselves. The South East needs to be a place where business and employees want to be.

There is, of course, a much wider debate about the benefits and sustainability of continual world wide economic growth. We know that if the whole world was to live as Essex man and woman does we would need almost 3 earths to support us. However this discussion is outside the scope of this paper although it is one that the Christian should certainly take an interest in. (Some of the environmental issues facing South Essex will be addressed in a later paper in this series)

WHAT SORT OF HOMES SHOULD WE BE BUILDING?

One of the biggest questions facing society is the sort of dwellings we should be building. We should not hide from a major dilemma in our society. THE BRITISH LOVE THEIR PRIVACY AND THEIR GARDENS! This tends to be a given and those who live in cities aspire to move out. This is fuelled by the TV makeover programmes but it need not be so. If you visit many parts of the world different lifestyles exist and satisfaction with life is often higher than in Britain! (My experience of working in Madrid was that nobody, from Chief Executive to the most junior, lived in a house. They all lived in apartments)

The human soul is a very restless thing – but are we directing its restlessness in the right direction – the Bible says we are restless until we find God!

We face big issues about the types and the location of new housing. The way we build and the environmental footprint of our new housing will have a significant effect on climate change. However we face the problem that many of the new building techniques that are needed are unproven. Prudence says that we build a few and test them over a period of time before mass production. But this will mean that we will not meet our agreed climate change targets.

The climate effect is wider than the buildings themselves. When we leave home how do we travel and how far? Here the question of housing density becomes crucial. If we build to our preferred density (less than 30 houses per hectare) public transport is not viable and a car is essential. Also we take up more land and issues of Green Belt arise leading to people living a long way from their work with both environmental and social consequences.

A final issue relating to the Thames Gateway is the question of flood risk. As a low lying area this is obviously crucial but there are ways round it which relate to building techniques and flood management measures. But these all need careful consideration, planning and money. Are we willing to make sure that what we build is fit for purpose and sustainable?

Some of these issues will be incompatible and changes in lifestyle will be necessary. Are we all willing to share in these changes or are they just forced on new home owners and future generations?

WHAT SHOULD BE THE CHRISTIAN REACTION?

I am concerned when I meet Christians who show one of two characteristics. a) NIMBY – usually older people who are well settled and materially secure, or b) Those who think there is one straightforward answer, e.g. ”stop all immigration” or “we don’t need any new building”.

The issues we are dealing with are complex and there are few easy answers. I believe that the Christian calling is to be part of the debates that need to go on and, in particular, to bring a wider picture (a God view?) to the discussion. This may be to facilitate discussion between different groups and views. It may be to try to stand up for the weak and those without a voice or to try to balance the issues and seek the solutions that benefit the greatest number. And finally, and the most difficult, to sometimes argue in favour of a wider good that may be to our personal disadvantage and to the disadvantage of our family, friends and community.

Peter Harris (founder of environmental Christian Charity A Roche) says: “As Europe takes leave of God it travels further down the road to social fragmentation and isolation. As our churches take root in this culture, they will have to fight harder for the importance of community.”

POSTSCRIPT - CAN WE LEARN FROM THE CELTIC TRADITION?

The Celtic tradition very much emphasised the holistic approach to life. The human race is not separate from the natural world but a part of it with both other species and nature. Our calling is to live in harmony with the rest of God’s creation and to be his stewards. We were given the dominion but we must rule to God’s own standards. Facing the complex issues of regeneration should we not always use as our touchstone these eternal, God given values, putting God’s interests above our own. (After all we believe that God’s interests, in the long term, will also be in the best interests of the whole of creation)