HOUSEBUILDING:A LOST ENGLISH ART?

Professor Sir Peter Hall

Happold Memorial Lecture

London

27 November 2007

The Barker Challenge:Build More Homes

• Need for massive increase: 200k/yr > 240k/yr > ?400k/yr?

• Will need brownfield + greenfield

• “Political” attack by shires – “unholy alliance” with cities

• The architects’ crusade: “Barcelonise” our cities

Source: Kate Barker Review 2004

240,000 homes a year: not enough?

• UK population: sharp increase: 60.6m (2006) > 71.1m (2031): +10.5m (+19.1%)

• Huge increase on last projection (+6.1m, +10.2%)

• 5.6m (53.3% total) natural increase

• 4.9m (46.7% total) net migration

• England: +19.1%

Good and Bad Arguments

• Bad: we must save farmland• Good: we should give people choice of access to

public transport, shops, schools• By public transport as well as car• So: concentrate growth around transport

interchanges• And: raise densities there (“pyramids of density”)

UK: A barely developed countryside…

• UK: 14.3% developed; England: 19.1%

• These are overestimates:

• England: 10.6% 1991

• 1996-8: ca 8,000 hectares/year developed (=Runnymede)

Land Lying Idle…

• EU Set-Aside: June 2004, 476,000 hectares, almost 5.0% of England

• Greater SE: 100,270 hectares, 8.6% • Essex 10.7%• Hampshire 9.1%• Oxfordshire 11.4%• Bedfordshire 11.6%• Far in excess of most generous estimates of land

needed for housing!

A Continuing Issue? Brownfield, Greenfield and the Sequential Test

Housing Completions: 1999, 2004

Total Brownfield Greenfield

1999 % 100 56 44

000s 140.0 78.4 61.6

2004 % 100 68 32

000s 152.9 104.0 48.9

1999-2004 % change

+9.2 +32.7 -20.6

A Continuing Issue? Brownfield, Greenfield and the Sequential Test

1999-2004

Region Completions% change

Brownfield % change

Greenfield% change

North -8.3 +37.9 -39.5

North West 0.0 +27.5 -43.1

Yorks Humber +5.9 +52.9 -41.2

East Midlands -6.8 +31.7 -28.4

West Midlands -9.3 +18.3 -42.0

Eastern England +5.4 +8.4 +1.3

London +92.8 +104.5 0.0

South East +10.0 +25.9 -16.1

South West +1.9 +50.0 -28.6

England +9.2 +32.7 -20.6

Housebuilding: Houses v Flats1999, 2004

Dwellings: % of total

1999 2004

Houses Flats Houses Flats

North East 88 12 83 17

North West 85 15 73 27

Yorks Humber 93 7 71 29

East Midlands 93 7 86 14

West Midlands *88 *13 71 29

East of England *91 *10 78 22

London 41 59 20 80

South East 83 17 62 38

South West 90 10 74 26

England 84 16 66 34

Empty Land, Empty Homes

• Land banks: Are volume builders hoarding?• Buy-to-leave: 670,000 empty homes, 300,000

long-term• Joey Gardiner (R&R, 31 August): Central Leeds:

20% empty• Similar stories: Manchester, Salford, Birmingham,

Hull, London• Manchester: up to 40% (Ron Hack, Ecotec)• London: 70% bought off-plan

Future of the typical English town?

House prices/earnings 1999, 2006

What do people want?Earlier survey evidence

• Home Alone (Hooper et al 1998): only 10% want a flat; 33% won’t consider a flat

• CPRE (Champion et al 1998): people want to live in/near country

• Hedges and Clemens (q. Breheny 1997): city dwellers least satisfied

• Conclusion: we hate cities!

What do people want?MORI for CABE, 2005

• Over half the population want to live in a detached house

• 22% prefer a bungalow• 14% a semi-detached house• 7% a terraced house • Detached house most popular choice, regardless

of social status or ethnicity• Period properties (Edwardian, Victorian,

Georgian) most desirable overall: 37%

New Households, New Homes• 80% one-person• But only about one-third “single never married”• Will demand more space per household:

Separate kitchens/bathrooms/loos, Spare rooms, Work spaces

• Land saving reduces as densities increase:• 30 dw/ha yields 60% of all potential gains, 40

dw/ha 70 per cent• So biggest gains from minimising development

below 20 dw/h, not increasing 40 dw/ha+• So: go for 30-40 dw/ha with variations: higher

close to transport services (Stockholm 1952!)• But won’t achieve same person densities as

before!

Densification: Effects

Land needed to accommodate 400 dwellingsDensity

Area required, ha.Dws./ha.

Net

Gross

(with local facilities)

Land Saved

%

%

Land Saved

%

%

Total

Cumu-

Total

Cumu-

Saving

lative

Saving

lative 10

40.0

46.3 20

20.0

20.0

50.0

50.0

25.3

21.0

45.4

45.4 30

13.3

6.7

16.7

66.7

17.9

7.4

15.9

61.3 40

10.0

3.3

8.3

75.0

14.3

3.6

7.8

69.1 50

8.0

2.0

5.0

80.0

12.1

2.2

4.8

73.9 60

6.6

1.4

3.5

83.5

10.6

1.5

3.2

77.1 

Density Gradient (Rudlin+Falk)

Lessons from Land Use• Public Transport needs

minimum density:• Bus: 25 dw/ha• LRT: 60 dw/ha• Exceed recent densities• Big gain from 30-35 dw/ha• Plus “pyramids” up to 60

dw/ha round rail stations• Urban Task Force• Traditional – Stockholm,

1952!• Or Edwardian suburbs!

Planning in Britain:A Verdict (1)

• Andrew Gilg: Planning in Britain: Understanding and Evaluating the Post-War System (London: Sage 2005)

Where Are We Now?Gilg’s Verdict

• Middle-class bias• Not always democratic• Balances economic growth, conservation: a

dilemma• Increasingly market-driven• No obvious alternative

Where Are We Now?Gilg’s Verdict

• Big Achievement: urban containment; preservation of countryside

• Big Failure: development not sustainable: work, homes separate

• Another Failure: transport not integrated; transport system overloaded

• Need: integrated development; New Towns• Compare: Containment of Urban England (1973)!

Making it happen:The 2004/2008 Acts

• Radical change – biggest for 35 years• Working through at regional strategic level• Planning Gain Supplement > Tariffs• Can it solve the “infrastructure deficit”?• The major issue in solving the housing crisis!• But also: the NIMBY factor – will get worse?• 2008: RSSs to RDAs

Where Are We Now?A 3-Pronged National Spatial Strategy

• 3 key needs:• “Grow SEE”: Better connections on

Sustainable Community Growth Corridors• “Shrinking the N-S Gap”: Bring North,

Midland Core Cities/City Regions closer to London

• “Grow City Regions” around Core Cities

South East England:Global Mega-City-Region

Urban Clusters (Hall+Ward 1998)

Sustainable Communities Corridors:Growing the SE into the Midlands…

Green Belt – or Green Blanket?

The Infrastructure Gap:Roger Tym Report

Planning Gain Supplement v. Tariffs

• Planning Gain Supplement: a national development land tax) on development gains

• Tariffs: similar, but levied by LPAs/vary LPA/LPA• Related to infrastructure costs of Local Development

Plan• “Section 106” retained: MK, Bedford…• Local versus regional investment: ‘local gain’ for ‘local

pain’ • But problem of regional infrastructure: New rail

connections; national motorway junctions (Article 14: A2, £92 million)

The North: Managed Decline?• The great Pathfinder row• How much to keep? How

much to demolish?• Are incentives perverse?• YES: SAVE Britain’s

Heritage• NO: ODPM• Family-Friendly Housing in

Cities• How much Greenfield?• Issues: VAT, Infrastructure

(Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool)

The Challenge

• Deliver the houses• Defend a “balanced portfolio”: Brown/Greenfield• Build sustainable suburbs• But: can be “New Towns” too (seldom just that)• Sustainable urban places – linked along transport

corridors• Fund the infrastructure/ Coordinate development,

transport• Countryside – for people!• A big challenge: equal to 1950s, 1960s• They did it – so can we!