Embedded Files
This is a statement made to WECA by @SageAndOnion on 30th October 2017. WECA are the West of England Combined Authority, set up in 2017 to look at transport, housing, skills and business within the region comprising Bristol, Bath and South Gloucestershire.
Dear WECA,
Bristol Council used to have a housing problem, but now that WECA exists, you have Bristol’s housing problem – and good luck to you!
And the scale of your challenge: Bristol covers 11,000 hectares, so if you take away land needed for highways (about 10%), industry (10%), downs, parks, shopping centres, rail infrastructure, university buildings, hospitals….and let’s not forget the floating harbour leaves maybe 7,000 hectares. A housing density of 50 households per hectare allows for 350,000 households easily enough for everyone in Bristol and perhaps all the WECA region if the city was built to such a density. But it’s not and it’s not going to be because of the national policy presumption “in favour of development” reintroduced in 2012. That means that market forces take precedence over the plan as can be seen by the increase in appeals and success rates nationally*
*Town and Country Planning Association - report 2017
Don’t get me wrong, markets are great when appropriate and run to good rules set by Government. Adam Smith taught us that a market place properly managed leads to win-win outcomes for both buyer and seller, but back in 1776 he left out the impact on third parties (externalities).
So back to your problem of Bristol, land is getting tight, much development is on brownfield sites and there is plenty of wealth in the city. In many areas the market will prefer to build 5 x £600k homes nicely spaced out on a hectare rather than 20 x £150k flats on a brownfield site, simply for reason of profit and who can blame them. So another hectare gets used up and its death by 1,000 cuts, each time it becomes a little less easy to house those who can’t afford £600k homes. Since land is the scarce resource, the market will do what it always does and bid up the price of the scarce resource so people with less money have to go elsewhere, that’s how markets work. The fact that the poorer would have to move out is a mere externality to markets but will have huge effects on the economy of Bristol, peoples’ lives and the whole region in the long term.
The WECA Joint Spatial Plan has identified the need to build 18,800 affordable homes in Bristol, that is 56% of the total build plan in the next 20 years. Currently Bristol achieves less than 20% affordable homes and as land prices increase so viability reports* will mean even less affordable homes will be built (certainly on brownfield sites). That’s the market at work. Building high in the centre might help but build costs go up per sqft as the number of floors increases and land prices rise once its known that you can build high, that wretched market again!
*viability reports are submitted by developers to prove that can’t make enough profit building affordable homes
So do you want to allow markets to reign free and continue to bid up the price of land with the consequent externalities? If not then you might consider the following:
1) Convince the Government that in some parts of the UK a presumption in favour of development has harmful consequences.
And
2) Make much more land available to be built upon and put in infrastructure so residents can access Bristol and Bath quickly and inexpensively. I don’t mean concrete over the floating harbour or build on the Downs, but I mean land to build affordable and low priced homes dense enough for the occupants to have local amenities and can also access the jobs of Bristol and Bath quickly and cheaply. The cheapest transport* is cycling, the second cheapest (assuming the distance is more than a walk) is public transport. To solve your problem of Bristol’s homes, I would imagine you would need to free up some 5,000 hectares of land (to “flood the market”) and insist that the build densities are high enough to support the infrastructure and cheap bus, tram and/or rail routes and free cycle routes.
* In and around a city, society’s most expensive transport option is one that brings its own high externalities; the car, which needs space to park it (outside the house, at the shopping centre and at work), space to drive it and also brings the pollution externality killing those in the centre of Bristol and Bath and adding CO2. A simple analysis shows each car needs as much space as each person. With land scarce which is more important?
An example stock image of a typical estate built to a density which is too low according to @SageAndOnion even in the suburbs, as there isn't enough population to sustain local facilities not even a bus stop. To live here, a car is essential and that doesn't mix with sustainable cities....sorry.
And
3). You may have noticed from section 2 above, that as well as being the cheapest transport infrastructure for new residents, these choices are the lowest in carbon footprint too; so gentlemen it's down to you. Focus on cycle routes, low cost bus and other public transport but first put in strong planning policies while the land is relatively cheap to keep it cheap and that way you can ensure developers schedule quality, affordable homes and associated facilities. Robust defendable planning policy, then built infrastructure to ensure you don’t increase congestion and pollution and then comes the house building. You have to break the scarcity value of land.
These actions need to be your top priority. Thank you.
Article by Clive Stevens 29 October 2017 Back to the Apps Page
Google Sites
Report abuse