Your editorial’s conclusion (30 July) that Angela Rayner’s announcement of a new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was a “good start” failed to address the yawning policy gap that makes her announcement horribly flawed and misguided. The catastrophic failure of the housing market to meet current needs is not just economic or political – it is physical and environmental.
Last year, as a newly elected councillor in east Hertfordshire, I inherited plans to build 18,500 new homes in a district where there is simply not the water or sewage treatment infrastructure to supply existing homes, let alone the capacity to supply new ones. Building a house takes a few months, but building a reservoir or sewage treatment plant takes decades. But none of those new houses can be sold until such infrastructure is built and connected. And that infrastructure will cost far more than Thames Water is likely to be able to raise.
A year ago, the Water Resources South East group published a draft plan to complete one new reservoir and start building two more, to build a water-transfer scheme from the Midlands, and for six recycling and five groundwater storage schemes to meet projected needs. The plan called for these to be built by 2035 – way outside the current parliament’s time limits. All of which leaves Labour’s new NPPF in limbo. That is surely not a “good start” to addressing the UK’s utterly dysfunctional housing market.
Cllr David Woollcombe
East Hertfordshire district council, Buntingford ward
Your editorial makes some valid points, but good housing is also necessary for better public health. All the discussion is about supply, but there is a need to recognise that in England we have more than 25m homes, 20% of which were built before 1919 and 55% before 1964. How many of these need attention? We know 10% are in the very lowest energy efficiency bands and 5% are long-term empty.
The Building Research Establishment has estimated that the housing with the very worst hazards costs the NHS £1.4bn per year, and total costs to society could be around £18bn. Local authorities not only need to be on board to provide new housing that is genuinely affordable but also need to be resourced to deal with the poor housing we already have.
Dr Stephen Battersby
Retired environmental health and housing consultant; vice-president, Chartered Institute of Environmental Health
The debate on defining parts of the green belt as grey belt (Report, 30 July) seems to have underplayed the main reason for designating green belts in the first place. These areas were not included in plans necessarily for their countryside location or attractive appearance, but to prevent separate settlements from coalescing and thereby losing their individual identity. That means some open areas can look bland and yet be performing a valuable function.
Environmentally attractive areas can be protected by other designations such as areas of outstanding natural beauty. By all means, designate grey belt areas to achieve housebuilding targets, but bear in mind the need to avoid the coalescence of communities in doing this.
Tony Ingham
Preston, Lancashire
Angela Rayner’s planning revolution for social housing can only be taken seriously when Labour ends the right to buy.
Martin Large
Stroud, Gloucestershire
