Is Right to Buy a state sponsored gentrification programme?

It’s probably a bit late to ask this question, given that this scheme has been in place for 30 years now.

That said, the proof must already be there, especially in London where working class areas, that were a foreign land for those with means, are now fashionable and sort after locations for the young professionals, earning big money.

Exposing social housing to the open market , in high demand areas, where demand is the through roof and prices constantly rising, inevitably means the original tenant, very soon becomes the ex-owner.

It might seem like a a very worthy ambition, giving everybody currently sitting at the bottom of the pile and trapped in social housing – as certain people view it – a chance to own their own home.  However, assuming that hat  was even the original intention and it wasn’t just about killing off the bulk of social housing as we knew it, it’s also had the effect of depopulating our city centre of those of modest means, otherwise known as the working classes.

So all those people who used to empty the bins, sweep the streets, dig up the roads, drive the delivery van, serve in the local shops and do the thousand and one other menial, but vital jobs that keep a city running, now live a journey away from their workplace.

in some cases that journey may mean up to an hour spent on a bus, or train, travelling in from a remote housing estate where everybody else is doing exactly the same thing.  The effect of this, is that nobody actually knows who their neighbours are anymore and therefore certainly little, or no sense of community, because there’s so little actual time spent in the company of those who live near us.

Back in what used to be the social housing areas that haven’t been flattened and turned into expensive apartment blocks for the upwardly mobile, the housing has been gutted, extended and beautified, to make it desirable and more importantly, significantly more expensive than it was.  Again, just like the workers they displaced, the lack of community will be clear, but this will be by choice in most cases, because their social lives take them elsewhere and opportunities more diverse.

Job done.  All those rundown, poorly maintained sink estates cleared out from our city centres And that ‘unpleasant’ working class riff raff removed to where it belongs, when it not actually doing the work that needs doing.

The added bonus is, those who grabbed the social housing as soon as the first tenants where starting to sell, can now maximise their returns, over and over again, by renting to the high earners who need to live close to the city centres.

If Right to Buy was really about getting those of modest means on to the housing ladder, it was a fatally flawed concept.  It depopulated our cities of the ordinary working class people, by selling off the only type of housing they could ever have afforded to live in.  If that was always the intention, shame on you Margret Thatcher.

The Housing should have been retained and those who wanted to buy their own property should have offered equivalent grant funding to purchase their own home elsewhere.  This could have been in a privately built, or publically funding housing developement, such as in the new towns.

It was claimed that this would have forced people to move out of houses, or places they’d been in for many years and possibly spent money on.  This is complete nonsense and just a smoke screen used by government to justify to the orignal scheme.

Why should social housing tenants have been given that benefit on top of the massive discounts they received for the ‘equity’ they’d supposedly built up?  How was they were any more entitle than somebody forced to rent a property in the private sector, where the end of lease meant the most you were likely to get back was your deposit if you were lucky?

 

 

 

Is design now really an issue planning committees can use to fend off poor development?

Private drives used to be viewed as a positive by many of those seeking property.  Not only did they avoid passing traffic, they also eliminated your street as an option for others to park in, when there’s was full.
Unfortunately, this type of drive is used as a way to cut costs and brings issues with refuse collections and potential problems with future maintenance, given the types of housing served by them.  Worse still, because they are built to minimum standards, parking is still an issue, because insufficient off street parking is provided, so pavement parking is the standard.
Then there’s the developer’s love of the remote parking court, especially to serve lower priced and affordable housing areas.  Often stuck at the end of a narrow approach and surrounded by poorly maintained planting, these courts soon become weed ridden, litter strewn and frankly nasty places to live near.  Worse still, when residents stop using them for fear of vanadalism, they turn into convenient dumping grounds for the bulky waste items people no long want.
There’s also the lack of anywhere to keep the wheelie bin in between collections in new properties.  Many properties are now built in terraces and without direct access to the pocket handkerchief garden provided, making rear storage a non-starter.  This of course only matters, as long as you don’t live on a private drive, in an area where the local council refuses to enter it with its refuse trucks, because it’s not built to public highway standandards.
Excessive use of lengthy private drives, can therefore require a long walk on a wet and windy night, or early morning, to catch your fortnightly collection round.
Will the NPPF give us the power to eliminate the auwful, rabbit hutches, on streets and roads that are too narrow, have too little off street parking and insufficient storage either external and internal – smallest room sizes in Europe – or is it just a false dawn and business as usual for the developers?
My hope is, that the production of a local design guide will help to address some of these issues.  However, gathering robust evidence for such a document is an expensive and time consuming process and always has the potential to end up telling you that you haven’t got a strong enough case to get real change.
09/10/2018

NPPF: Designs on success?

Well designed houses

Variety of design and quality of construction should not be sacrificed in the drive to build homes at volume. The new NPPF supports a more ‘holistic’ approach to both, argues Sam Dewar

The new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides a comprehensive approach to building more homes, quicker than ever before, in the locations where people want to live and raise a family. But it unquestionably also places extra emphasis on good quality design across the housing spectrum, with implications for applicants and planning authorities.A closer examination of the revised framework reveals a stronger emphasis on a culture of design than existed in its predecessor – that’s for sure. And those involved in the planning process must understand this.

However, the cynics will say that central government is seemingly obsessed with increasing housing densities at the expense of interesting, game-changing design. I find it hard to believe that you can reconcile both – it’s impossible to have both sides of the coin.

Unfortunately, the volume house builders are only helping the housing minister limp towards the delivery of any sort of respectable housing vision at a severe cost to the quality and design of the final product.

Alternatively, small to medium-sized sites can invariably bring a more individual, bespoke and genuinely mixed approach to housing development. This has to be seen in contrast to the volume-driven national house builders, who develop large scale, 1,000-plus unit schemes often incorporating as little as four or five design styles. Many will opine that such ‘brick monstrosities’ will never add up to more than the sum of their constituent parts: bland, featureless, vacuous behemoths, bestriding increasingly depressing urban landscapes. Yet, it’s the former smaller sites, which are the ones often left vacant and unincentivised.

“Effective design in planning generates added value throughout the property development chain, differentiating the ordinary from the extraordinary”

Effective design in planning generates added value throughout the property development chain, differentiating the ordinary from the extraordinary. Simply put, it contributes to delivering more value and return on investment for developers and builders struggling in an extremely competitive sector. It doesn’t have to cost more, as ‘affordable quality’ can be secured through simply thinking differently, or eschewing the traditional for the new.

Developers can not only drive design improvements within a new-look framework through improved engagement with the customer and wider communities, but by also working collaboratively to bring forward new technologies and techniques that build quality. Finding different ways of working, that involves a wider range of stakeholders and brings new skills early on, also plays a part.

Contained within the newly revised NPPF is a shift away from a concentrated focus on the aesthetic towards holistic schemes, which better facilitate the creation of community-focused developments around which local people can enhance and enrich their lives.

That said, local planning authorities might now be more likely to insist on use of design codes and obligations to retain particular architects in planning agreements to secure the final quality of the built environment.

Moves that demonstrate a meaningful approach to engagement, which offer a genuine opportunity to help in bringing to fruition positive planning decisions, have to be welcomed. The weight to be given to these matters in determining applications lies clearly with the decision-maker. However, with competing challenges around housing quotas and the new housing delivery test, it will be interesting to see if more emphasis on design will facilitate how local planning authorities consider the concept.

Government and by implication, local planning, must endeavour to raise construction standards as they look to balance quality and long-term sustainability with expediency of delivering housing. We also need a robust pursuance of housing diversity through encouraging small builders and those involved in community and custom build projects to deliver alternative developments.

“It’s clear that all involved in planning and development need to think long and hard about the long-term legacy for those who live in the houses we build if we are to produce better homes”

It’s clear that all involved in planning and development need to think long and hard about the long-term legacy for those who live in the houses we build if we are to produce better homes. Improved engagement with the customer, whether the homes are for sale or rent, will help. Also too, will greater collaboration across the industry’s professional sectors and trade bodies.

However, in the clamour to deliver the quantity and quality of new homes this country desperately needs – 300,000 units per year – it as important as ever to repeatedly strive to consider new opportunity for design innovation, and think beyond today’s norm. I think the revised NPPF will come to be seen in the long run as a fortuitous driver of real change in the way we build houses in this country.

Sam Dewar is planning manager and director for DPA Planning