Observations generally in accordance with broad bullet points contained within press notice 3 March 2002-02.

The overall scale of house building required

  I would question the need for the scale of house building proposed nationwide

  House building assessments are based upon calculations that utilise to many assumptions, rather than historical facts adjusted for previous and future trends.

  House building figures are also assisted in formulation and establishment by enquiries made of members of the House builders Federation, Chartered Surveyors and other housing construction interested parties, and therefore the probability that vested interests exist to try to maximise figures should not be ignored.

  No allowance is made for the utilisation of existing empty housing stock nationwide. There are at present approximately 900,000 empty residential units that would contribute greatly to the housing needs in the future if they were brought "on line". Owners should be encouraged, or government should put in place policies and regulation that ensure that empty dwellings are refurbished and utilised to provide residential accommodation. The benefits are obvious—

—  Reduction in need for new development.

—  Reduction in need for Greenfield and Brownfield sites and therefore a far better and balanced utilisation of resources.

—  By refurbishment and increased occupancy in particular community areas, it will encourage the improvement in the immediate area by existing occupiers and agencies etc.

—  A far cheaper option than new build.

—  Modern methods of insulation and building improvement make environmentally improved dwellings reasonably easy to achieve.

—  Nearly 350,000 of the 900,000 empty units exist in areas of high demand and according to the DETR select committee some 50,000 affordable homes will be required in this area each year, so there is at least seven years supply of the necessary dwellings without the need to actually build any affordable units. Policies and incentives should be established to ensure that the rest of the units that exist in non high demand areas are made attractive to people to live in therefore encouraging both owners and occupiers to make use of the high level of resource. It will be far cheaper both in environmental terms and building costs terms to utilise the housing stock in this manner rather than to build the consequent number of units if these available dwellings are left vacant.

  There are vast areas of redundant or under utilised MOD and military establishments. Most of these types of establishments have in place elements of necessary infrastructure. Therefore it would be far better to re-develop and these areas where existing infrastructure can be developed and extended to support the new re-development. It would make far more sense to develop these areas for employment and housing rather than develop even more Greenfield land.

Are the proposals likely to significantly reduce house prices?

  No!

  House prices and house construction are based on market driven parameters.

  The developer/builder will always price his dwellings at the price that he perceives the market will stand and will seek to both cover his costs and maximise his profit levels regardless of any social considerations.

  Both currently and in the past developers and house builders have bought up large stocks of land and then sat on them until Planning relaxations make the land available for development and therefore price maximisation.

  EG

  The company, Property Spy, has and is buying up large areas of agricultural land and green belt land with a view that planning rules will be relaxed in the future allowing the land to be developed.

  This land purchase has been targeted within the South East where Property Spy anticipates the most relaxations will come from. It is obvious that the Company regards this as an investment and the land will be sold off for development at the maximum price possible that the market will stand.

  The costs of actual house construction are basically composed of two main factors—materials and labour. A third factor is time related supervision and plant but this only amounts to approximately 8-10% of the construction cost. Whatever a builder does therefore, 90% of the dwelling construction cost is involved in costs that are largely not capable of reduction.

  If factory assembled techniques are utilised then quicker on-site erection times are usually achievable but the builder then sees this as his extra profit and revenue stream and will not normally pass on the cash benefits of his ingenuity to the customer.

  The fact that housing is supplied at the market driven price makes it extremely difficult for development to be encouraged and targeted in deprived areas and areas that would benefit from development and an inward migration of population and employment. In my view it is imperative that the Government make it attractive to develop these areas by the use of incentives or subsidies to encourage such development and top take the pressure off the south and south east. A much longer term view must be taken by the Government to encourage long term re-development within such areas.

The geographical distribution on new housing

  In my view it is imperative that the Government put in place policies and whatever subsidies and incentives are necessary to encourage development both domestic and employment away from the south and south-east of the country. There is a general migration form north to south for employment and accommodation both long term and also on short term weekly or contract basis. It would be far better for this proportion of the working population and families if the employment were within their current locality, therefore obviating the need to migrate.

  The proposed major development areas outlined.

—  Milton Keynes—This area has already developed at a fast rate and now the proposal is to increase the amount of development. The area is generally constrained by Greenfield land and on this fact alone is probably not desirable and against current government brownfield policies. There are major concerns that eventually Milton Keyes will swallow the surrounding small village and towns and destroy forever the rural nature of the surrounding environment.

—  Cambridge/Stanstead—This area is a predominantly rural environment with a few larger towns and Cambridge. This proposal and the proposed expansion of Stansted will destroy this environment to the detriment of the area, the existing population and the country as a whole.

—  Ashford—the area around Ashford has very little land that is not currently under some sort of planning restraint. Therefore this proposal will force the development of surrounding villages and urban areas and cause a vast conglomerate to the detriment of the immediate environment.

—  Thames Gateway—of all the proposals this is probably the most workable. The area would benefit from development and has large amounts of brownfield sites available in the right locations. However any re-development should be planned and structured so that the right levels of infrastructure are in place prior to large residential development together with the necessary employment. If these measures are not in place then the new population will simply migrate to London on a daily basis exacerbating travel and car movement problems.

Sustainable development or urban sprawl

  The very nature of the above proposals will tend to encourage unplanned urban sprawl as they are all based upon existing major centres. Due to the availability of land and infrastructure, urbanisation of the perimeters and local villages will naturally occur unless the development is planning led by accountable local Planning representatives and not by developers acting in an ad hoc way under licence from government agencies or quangos.

  The same comment applies to development generally on a nationwide basis outside these areas.

  See previous comments regarding use of existing empty housing stock.

Millennium Villages

  Whilst the idea is laudable, I think that given government requirements on density and affordability, then in all probability they are not justifiable. The costs to build incorporating high levels of environmentally desirable features and the land costs based on the fact that the individual dwellings require more footprint and associated land than traditional dwellings will make them prohibitive to the general members of the population. Those people who would normally be associated with large executive type dwellings will probably be the only ones that can afford them.

Social housing balance

  Without high levels of government subsidy either in monetary or construction land terms, high levels of social housing incorporation within housing for sale is not achievable. Prospective purchasers of houses will not be prepared to subsidise social housing construction costs within their purchase price. It is not credible to consider that builders will subsidise social housing mixed development from within their profit margins—they will look to maximise profits and therefore, without subsidy, will try to pass costs on to purchasers. This very fact will tend to reduce the quantity of social housing provision within a development. Therefore to maximise social housing within developments it must be properly and adequately funded by government.

  The remaining problem is that of purchasers not willing to purchase new property if the extent and location of social housing adjacent to their prospective dwelling is not identified by both location and type. Domestic purchasers of property have to have a view as to eventual value and saleability; as in the main nowadays property is regarded firstly as an investment and secondly as a home.

Housing decisions

  In my view the only way to achieve the correct levels of development that are environmentally sustainable is to remove central government from the assessment process completely and leave planning matters to the accountable local planning officers and representatives.

  Accountable Local planning officers and local representatives should asses development requirements from the ability of the area to sustain it and therefore accurate assessments based on sustainability can be made.

  These would then be fed upwards on a regional basis and then on a national basis so that following establishments a nationwide sustainable development basis could be established.

  Government would then provide demographic and population migration figures to be incorporated within the development proposals for the whole country. These figures would have to be open to scrutiny and verification if necessary. The resulting development planning would then be fed back to the regions for interpretation into local development plans.

  Where areas of conflict between sustainable identified development and the need for higher levels exist then an independent local accountable body would be established to investigate and recommend.

  This type of procedure would ensure that development is capable of being sustained within identified areas at local, regional and national levels.

  It would also ensure that government put in place policies regarding employment, housing, migration and immigration etc that ensured that overcapacity and overheating would not occur.