Why Gove’s push for beautiful housing is another red herring

There are some easy fixes regarding aesthetics, such as making house builders use the same local stone as neighbouring homes rather than creating cookie cutter estates that could be seen anywhere.

Whether building beautiful will be enough to quell Britain’s NIMBY tendencies is something of a red herring, however, given that Mr Gove’s plan is to dodge the issue altogether by building on urban brownfield land instead. Quite frankly, it’s a distraction tactic.

The rhetoric on beautiful rather misses the point about what is really behind a lack of new homes: that the housing target remains an optional aspiration for local authorities; and the absence of enough well-funded, well-staffed planning departments.

“The government is burying its head in the sand by putting off these much-needed reforms”

We recently found ourselves in a situation where we had 20 sites held up in an advanced planning stage – representing just over 1,200 homes for the housing associations we build for. Despite this, I have sympathy for planning officers, especially after learning anecdotally that some are dealing with 100 cases at any one time, creating such an overwhelming workload that nothing gets done.

Planning officers are also only the first hurdle since our current system will see rejections at committee stage that, often, fly in the face of local framework criteria. This stagnation leads to endless cycles of empty, cordoned-off plots that show no sign of work commencing. This does little to restore confidence and trust within local communities.

One thing I can agree with Mr Gove on is the fact that communities need to see investments in their local facilities delivered alongside the new homes. Too often, they are left waiting for their new schools and shops until long after the development has finished, which, again, sees them lose faith in the system, feeding the nimbyism that holds us all back.

Rather than avoiding the issue of semi-rural development altogether, by pretending it isn’t needed, we need to see a revision to the timings surrounding infrastructure investment within the new Infrastructure Levy. In addition, an increase in local planning officers on the ground who can get through the backlogs and encourage their long-suffering colleagues to stay in the job will help enormously.

“The rhetoric on beautiful rather misses the point about what is really behind a lack of new homes”

As it stands, however, the government is burying its head in the sand by putting off these much-needed reforms. While it may feel the need to keep the loud, anti-housing voices at bay in the run-up to a general election, I would urge them to think again and consider the long-term damage their inaction is causing. Our sector and country will find it difficult to forgive such a sacrifice for short-term political aspirations.

Yes, we do need more urban development. But the acute need for affordable housing in rural and semi-rural locations shows it’s not an either-or option.

Thoughtful development and beauty can and should co-exist. But without true reform, I fear we risk destroying the beautiful towns and villages that Mr Gove claims to want to protect, by draining them of talent, investment and life.

Paul Breen, managing director, Living Space