“Set aside land for specialised housing” – Coral responds to the Government’s plans
By Rory Coonan
To: Rt Hon. Robert Jenrick MP
Secretary of state for housing, communities and local government
Housing and planning – the need to allocate land for supported living If house building was akin to car making, we should surely hear more about different types of homes, just as we all know that cars are different.
We are familiar with 4x4s, ‘family’ saloons, hatchbacks and sports utility vehicles – all of them cars – and about the investments and factories required to make them.
Unfortunately, planning and land use policies are largely silent on different kinds of homes. Instead, the white paper focusses on an unsegmented, non-disaggregated category called ‘homes’. This is sometimes referred to – interchangeably – as ‘housing’. The people who deliver this are ‘housebuilders’.
Regrettably, housebuilders generally build only one type of ‘family’ home because this is where they have historically found their markets. (By analogy, it is as if car makers only produced family saloon cars.)
But we overlook a wide range of human needs if we only focus on one type of ‘family’ home and if we promote land use and planning policies that tend to favour it to the detriment of others.
In a properly functioning planning system, the allocation of land for specific purposes to meet proven needs should help markets to develop and allow innovation to flourish, thereby creating competition, which is in the interests of consumers. Coral Living is in favour of this approach. “You could strike a blow for inclusiveness and the stimulation of markets if you insisted in statute upon appropriately assessed land use allocations for ‘supported living’ in local plans.” Unfortunately, there is no requirement for local authorities to designate land for ‘supported living’ or ‘supported housing’ when they allocate land for ‘housing’. It cannot be insisted upon. Much as we might all prefer specialist supported housing to be included in the street layouts of ‘general needs housing’ sites (the ‘family saloon car’ of housing), market forces and current practice militate against it.
This is because specialist housing is inevitably more expensive, owing to the distinct needs of tenants. The volume ‘housebuilders’ are reluctant to meet the additional costs of these. Nor are they (so far at least) interested in including special needs housing in their market-led products.
One answer lies in policies that might flow from your white paper. You could strike a blow for inclusiveness and the stimulation of markets if you insisted in statute upon appropriately assessed land use allocations for ‘supported living’ in local plans.
This could be based on hard data, not belief: you might require local councils to assess need and make projections of local demand, after first consulting commissioners of adult social care and other relevant bodies (such as NHS) in unitary authorities and district councils.
The introduction of such a policy would serve a real and pressing need. For example, how are the housing needs of young persons with autism and learning disability, growing to be adults, to be met when they leave the care system? Where are they to live?
A proactive, intelligent land use planning system would anticipate such ‘transitions’ but at present it does not. This is regrettable. It causes needless distress to individuals and families who, for want of planning, cannot find appropriate homes when they are needed.
The Equalities Act would support this change. The Autism Act would support it. The Care Act would support it. In fact, every right-thinking person would support it. “The total land allocated, reserved or safeguarded in England for supported housing…would be minuscule, while the signal it sent out about society’s concern for those with learning disabilities would be tremendous.” Such a wise policy, aimed at changing the lives of the most disadvantaged groups in our society (those with autism and learning disability, amongst whom employment is a mere 5%), would enable planning authorities to project a supply of land in the future for supported living.
This could be based on local or county-wide trends in diagnoses, assuming care needs; on the need to re-house those in poor accommodation (and the many young persons referred to above), taking account of appropriate locations.
The total land allocated, reserved or safeguarded in England in this way (ensuring land is available when it is needed) would be minuscule, while the signal it sent out about society’s concern for those with learning disabilities would be tremendous.
By introducing such a policy you would thereby stimulate the development of a market for this form of affordable housing (affordable, because rents are constrained by government policy), so that innovative and dynamic companies such as ours can innovate and set new standards of design and repeatability, the better to drive down costs. We are not afraid of competition – rather the reverse.
The chancellor (has) reminded us of “the might of the British state”. But it does not always require might, to do what is right. | “Set aside land for specialised housing” – Coral responds to the Government’s plans
By Rory Coonan
To: Rt Hon. Robert Jenrick MP
Secretary of state for housing, communities and local government
Housing and planning – the need to allocate land for supported living If house building was akin to car making, we should surely hear more about different types of homes, just as we all know that cars are different.
We are familiar with 4x4s, ‘family’ saloons, hatchbacks and sports utility vehicles – all of them cars – and about the investments and factories required to make them.
Unfortunately, planning and land use policies are largely silent on different kinds of homes. Instead, the white paper focusses on an unsegmented, non-disaggregated category called ‘homes’. This is sometimes referred to – interchangeably – as ‘housing’. The people who deliver this are ‘housebuilders’.
Regrettably, housebuilders generally build only one type of ‘family’ home because this is where they have historically found their markets. (By analogy, it is as if car makers only produced family saloon cars.)
But we overlook a wide range of human needs if we only focus on one type of ‘family’ home and if we promote land use and planning policies that tend to favour it to the detriment of others.
In a properly functioning planning system, the allocation of land for specific purposes to meet proven needs should help markets to develop and allow innovation to flourish, thereby creating competition, which is in the interests of consumers. Coral Living is in favour of this approach. “You could strike a blow for inclusiveness and the stimulation of markets if you insisted in statute upon appropriately assessed land use allocations for ‘supported living’ in local plans.” Unfortunately, there is no requirement for local authorities to designate land for ‘supported living’ or ‘supported housing’ when they allocate land for ‘housing’. It cannot be insisted upon. Much as we might all prefer specialist supported housing to be included in the street layouts of ‘general needs housing’ sites (the ‘family saloon car’ of housing), market forces and current practice militate against it.
This is because specialist housing is inevitably more expensive, owing to the distinct needs of tenants. The volume ‘housebuilders’ are reluctant to meet the additional costs of these. Nor are they (so far at least) interested in including special needs housing in their market-led products.
One answer lies in policies that might flow from your white paper. You could strike a blow for inclusiveness and the stimulation of markets if you insisted in statute upon appropriately assessed land use allocations for ‘supported living’ in local plans.
This could be based on hard data, not belief: you might require local councils to assess need and make projections of local demand, after first consulting commissioners of adult social care and other relevant bodies (such as NHS) in unitary authorities and district councils.
The introduction of such a policy would serve a real and pressing need. For example, how are the housing needs of young persons with autism and learning disability, growing to be adults, to be met when they leave the care system? Where are they to live?
A proactive, intelligent land use planning system would anticipate such ‘transitions’ but at present it does not. This is regrettable. It causes needless distress to individuals and families who, for want of planning, cannot find appropriate homes when they are needed.
The Equalities Act would support this change. The Autism Act would support it. The Care Act would support it. In fact, every right-thinking person would support it. “The total land allocated, reserved or safeguarded in England for supported housing…would be minuscule, while the signal it sent out about society’s concern for those with learning disabilities would be tremendous.” Such a wise policy, aimed at changing the lives of the most disadvantaged groups in our society (those with autism and learning disability, amongst whom employment is a mere 5%), would enable planning authorities to project a supply of land in the future for supported living.
This could be based on local or county-wide trends in diagnoses, assuming care needs; on the need to re-house those in poor accommodation (and the many young persons referred to above), taking account of appropriate locations.
The total land allocated, reserved or safeguarded in England in this way (ensuring land is available when it is needed) would be minuscule, while the signal it sent out about society’s concern for those with learning disabilities would be tremendous.
By introducing such a policy you would thereby stimulate the development of a market for this form of affordable housing (affordable, because rents are constrained by government policy), so that innovative and dynamic companies such as ours can innovate and set new standards of design and repeatability, the better to drive down costs. We are not afraid of competition – rather the reverse.
The chancellor (has) reminded us of “the might of the British state”. But it does not always require might, to do what is right. | “Set aside land for specialised housing” – Coral responds to the Government’s plans
By Rory Coonan
To: Rt Hon. Robert Jenrick MP
Secretary of state for housing, communities and local government
Housing and planning – the need to allocate land for supported living If house building was akin to car making, we should surely hear more about different types of homes, just as we all know that cars are different.
We are familiar with 4x4s, ‘family’ saloons, hatchbacks and sports utility vehicles – all of them cars – and about the investments and factories required to make them.
Unfortunately, planning and land use policies are largely silent on different kinds of homes. Instead, the white paper focusses on an unsegmented, non-disaggregated category called ‘homes’. This is sometimes referred to – interchangeably – as ‘housing’. The people who deliver this are ‘housebuilders’.
Regrettably, housebuilders generally build only one type of ‘family’ home because this is where they have historically found their markets. (By analogy, it is as if car makers only produced family saloon cars.)
But we overlook a wide range of human needs if we only focus on one type of ‘family’ home and if we promote land use and planning policies that tend to favour it to the detriment of others.
In a properly functioning planning system, the allocation of land for specific purposes to meet proven needs should help markets to develop and allow innovation to flourish, thereby creating competition, which is in the interests of consumers. Coral Living is in favour of this approach. “You could strike a blow for inclusiveness and the stimulation of markets if you insisted in statute upon appropriately assessed land use allocations for ‘supported living’ in local plans.” Unfortunately, there is no requirement for local authorities to designate land for ‘supported living’ or ‘supported housing’ when they allocate land for ‘housing’. It cannot be insisted upon. Much as we might all prefer specialist supported housing to be included in the street layouts of ‘general needs housing’ sites (the ‘family saloon car’ of housing), market forces and current practice militate against it.
This is because specialist housing is inevitably more expensive, owing to the distinct needs of tenants. The volume ‘housebuilders’ are reluctant to meet the additional costs of these. Nor are they (so far at least) interested in including special needs housing in their market-led products.
One answer lies in policies that might flow from your white paper. You could strike a blow for inclusiveness and the stimulation of markets if you insisted in statute upon appropriately assessed land use allocations for ‘supported living’ in local plans.
This could be based on hard data, not belief: you might require local councils to assess need and make projections of local demand, after first consulting commissioners of adult social care and other relevant bodies (such as NHS) in unitary authorities and district councils.
The introduction of such a policy would serve a real and pressing need. For example, how are the housing needs of young persons with autism and learning disability, growing to be adults, to be met when they leave the care system? Where are they to live?
A proactive, intelligent land use planning system would anticipate such ‘transitions’ but at present it does not. This is regrettable. It causes needless distress to individuals and families who, for want of planning, cannot find appropriate homes when they are needed.
The Equalities Act would support this change. The Autism Act would support it. The Care Act would support it. In fact, every right-thinking person would support it. “The total land allocated, reserved or safeguarded in England for supported housing…would be minuscule, while the signal it sent out about society’s concern for those with learning disabilities would be tremendous.” Such a wise policy, aimed at changing the lives of the most disadvantaged groups in our society (those with autism and learning disability, amongst whom employment is a mere 5%), would enable planning authorities to project a supply of land in the future for supported living.
This could be based on local or county-wide trends in diagnoses, assuming care needs; on the need to re-house those in poor accommodation (and the many young persons referred to above), taking account of appropriate locations.
The total land allocated, reserved or safeguarded in England in this way (ensuring land is available when it is needed) would be minuscule, while the signal it sent out about society’s concern for those with learning disabilities would be tremendous.
By introducing such a policy you would thereby stimulate the development of a market for this form of affordable housing (affordable, because rents are constrained by government policy), so that innovative and dynamic companies such as ours can innovate and set new standards of design and repeatability, the better to drive down costs. We are not afraid of competition – rather the reverse.
The chancellor (has) reminded us of “the might of the British state”. But it does not always require might, to do what is right. |
|
|
