The Longparish Housing Group claims insufficient affordable housing exists to meet the needs of the village. They propose the construction of a new estate comprising 6 new homes, to be sold into the general market, to subsidise 12 smaller cheaper homes for people who have a ‘strong connection’ with Longparish but who are unable to afford a home in the village.
Most people agree that a compassionate community should help those with inadequate accommodation to live in affordable housing. However the Housing Group's proposal, which is based on flawed data, aims to satisfy a preference and not a need. Even if a need exists, to the extent claimed, the proposal does not explore all the effective remedies but advocates only the building of a new estate. The purpose of this article is to present another view so there can be a balanced debate.
In the Housing Needs Survey only 23% of potential respondents agreed with the proposal to build affordable housing. 77% of households were indifferent or disagreed. Few people believe that housing should be less affordable and, as the survey question offers build as the only remedy, it is impossible to agree with the notion of affordable housing but disagree with the new build solution. Phrasing the question in this way distorts the answer which cannot then be offered as objective support for a new estate. It appears that there is an attempt to justify new house building.
The claimed demand for 24 units is not evidence of a need but of a preference. A need is an urgent requirement that cannot be satisfied and, as affordable housing is available within a 6 mile radius, the survey exposes only some people's unaffordable preference to live in the village and the Housing Group is not charged with the realisation of people's preferences.
As 43 affordable homes are already available mostly for rent the problem is clearly not a deficiency in the supply of properties but a flaw in the provision of preferential access to people with residential qualifications. The key problems are high demand from those with only weak local connections and housing associations that give insufficient weight to applications from people with strong residential qualifications. Real ‘need’ can probably be addressed by changing the allocation rules for the existing housing. If housing associations are unwilling to modify their allocation criteria then the Housing Group would be better employed arranging for the transfer of some of the existing affordable housing to a more sympathetic housing association.
Advocating new development, that otherwise would be rejected, as the solution to a problem in the rules of allocation is misconceived. New building should be considered only when all other initiatives leave a residual need unresolved.
Affordable housing means just affordable with occupation costs consuming most of people's low incomes and hence their occupancy is vulnerable to increases in interest rates, taxes and energy costs. There is little security of tenure and the mortgagee in possession exemption in section 106 agreements allows lenders to recover debt in default by selling on the open market thereby removing the property as affordable housing available to those with residential qualifications.
High land prices means small ‘affordable’ houses must be densely built. The scheme rules prohibit enlargement and therefore many young families will be obliged eventually to enter the general market or leave the village in order to gain more space.
To retain its market value their investment must be sold to the highest bidder, who is likely to be someone prepared to pay a premium to live in Longparish, but a restrictive covenant obliges an owner to sell to others with a low income and residential qualification. To pay a mortgage and have to accept less than the market price is unacceptable. Either the houses will be a poor investment or owners will sell to the general market and a new estate will have been imposed on the village and the benefit to those with local connections who are unable to afford market prices will evaporate.
The government imposes no obligation on Longparish to erect a quota of new houses irrespective of the consequences and a scheme, to erect 6 houses that would not be approved to build 12 small houses in a manner that is economically risky and provides temporary relief of a preference, is dubious. The largest beneficiaries will be property developers and lenders.
Moreover to erect high density housing that will advertise that the people who live there are economically disadvantaged is discriminatory and stigmatising.
Conduct a survey that eliminates expressions of preference and determines the real need that cannot be satisfied nearby.
Subordinate the preference for a new housing estate in favour of improved access to existing houses.
Permit the entire village to decide democratically and after full exposure of all options both positive and negative and resist the debate being dominated by an unrepresentative group that has already declared its preference for new building.
If you believe this is a better way to proceed please email ‘I AGREE’ to contact@thevillagealliance.org.uk or have someone do so on your behalf.
Article written by Anthony Holmes, in association with The Village Alliance, a group of residents who oppose the proposals presented by The Longparish Housing Group . The Village Alliance may be contacted at the email address given. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and all opinions & inaccuracies are their responsibility.