Yesterday the Labour leader Ed Miliband launched the report of the Lyons Housing Review (here), which sets out how a future Labour Government could deliver 200,000 homes a year by the end of the next Parliament.
It's good to see this report. There’s no doubt that there is a significant housing need in England, and whoever is in power after next year's election will have to try and address this issue. We want to work with housebuilders and local communities to build places that are great for both people and nature. That's why we’re working with Barratt on a major housing development in southern England with the aim of setting a new benchmark for nature friendly sustainable housing. Expect to hear more about this in the coming months.
My colleague Simon Marsh was one of a group of twelve commissioners who worked with Sir Michael Lyons in producing his report. Simon, you may recall, had previously been involved in developing the National Planning Policy Framework (here) and was again doing this in a personal capacity but with the support of the RSPB: a housing programme of this scale has potentially huge impacts on nature, so it’s important to get it right.
Radipole Lake RSPB reserve, Weymouth, Dorset (Dave Wootton rspb-images.com)
There’s plenty of detail in the report and 39 separate recommendations.
The report’s conclusion that fundamental upheaval in the planning system should be avoided is very welcome - the planning system seems to be subject to perpetual reform - but it doesn’t duck the challenge of proposing changes where necessary.
Any proposals aimed at strengthening strategic planning must be welcomed, because this is critical to ensuring that new homes are built in the right places, respecting places which are special for wildlife – whether greenfield or brownfield.
The stronger emphasis on brownfield land needs to be coupled with a recognition that some brownfield land is valuable for wildlife and is not suitable for development. Some ‘brownfield’ land may also be more green than brown.
Lodge Hill in Kent is a case in point. You will know that we are strongly objecting to a planning application for 5,000 homes on this former MoD site. Development here would destroy most of a SSSI designated for nightingales and grassland. The proponents claim that the site is more than 50% brownfield; our assessment is that it’s more like 15%. Whether it’s greenfield or brownfield, however, policies in the National Planning Policy Framework protect SSSIs, and we ask that the shadow DCLG ministers commit to maintaining this protection. In the meantime, we and c11,000 people that have campaigned on this issue wait to hear from the current DCLG minister whether he will ‘call-in’ the application to make the decision himself and save the nightingales.
As I have said before - building 5,000 houses on a SSSI would set a terrible precedent for how to meet our housing need. If, under a worse case scenario, every block of 5,000 houses were built on a SSSI, that would mean 40 SSSIs a year could be lost to housing development every year.
Our experience at Lodge Hill also makes us nervous about proposals to scale up the release of public land for housing. While the planning system in theory should sort out what’s suitable land for development and what isn’t, it would be much better to have a process that screens sites for environmental sensitivities at an early stage, so that public money isn’t wasted pursuing planning permission which should never be granted.
On a more positive note, we particularly welcome the recommendations on good quality, design and sustainability, which are essential to ensuring that new homes are good to live in, good for the planet and good for local wildlife.
As the report notes, “Green infrastructure provision is an essential part of major new housing development, which provides an opportunity to enhance biodiversity on land of low environmental value, as well as helping to minimise flood risk. Quality can be added from the scale of the individual home (through low-cost measures such as nest bricks and wildlife-friendly garden planting) right up to large-scale habitat creation in country parks.”
What do you think of the Lyons review and how do you think we should meet our housing needs without damaging wildlife?
It would be great to hear your views.
I think you have summed it up very well Martin, especially your comment that it would be much better to have a process that screens sites for environmental sensitivities at an early stage well before any planning application is submitted. Such a system would help considerably in providing information very early on so, hopefully, avoiding situations like Lodge Hill and therefore helping to meet the housing needs without damaging our wildlife. This should especially include "brown field site", which, because of their neglect can often be very valuable wild life sites