Allister Young, CEO of Coastline Housing, looks at how the voices that get listened to most in the planning process for housing are mainly those of older, adequately housed people. Is it right for them to have the power to ‘pull up the drawbridge’ for others?
So, I’ve been talking about the general election a lot recently at Coastline. Saying why I think democracy is important and why I think everyone should register and vote. This time, just to change things up, I’m going to argue for less democracy.
In my induction sessions with new colleagues I talk about the challenges we face in some of our work, particularly when it comes to building new homes. I like to use the two images below to illustrate how people are prepared to get very upset about things like scones, jam and cream, so not surprisingly are able to get very upset when it comes to proposals to build new homes in or near the community they live in.
One of the biggest obstacles we face in trying to deliver new homes is the planning process (the process that decides what gets built and where). It’s a process that is very good at making sure the voices of people who already live in a place are heard, but is not so good at making sure the voices of people who don’t have the home they need get listened to.
Local councillors have a key role to play in the planning process, whether they’re voting on proposals in their own community, or part of a planning ‘committee’ that makes decisions on larger proposals. And local councillors, not surprisingly, listen to the voices they hear loudest in their local community, especially if those voices belong to people that are likely to vote for them. And who are those people that are likely to vote from them? Well, older people are much more likely to vote than younger people.
That result is the voices that get listened to in the planning process are mainly those from older adequately housed people (most probably own their home outright and don’t even have a mortgage). And this isn’t just my pet theory about what goes wrong. There is research that shows councillors who represent areas with more homeowners are more likely to oppose new housing proposals.
So what do we do? After all it seems fair that local people should have a say on what the place they live/love looks like. But it doesn’t seem fair if it’s a first come first served, ‘pull up the drawbridge’ system: people who don’t have the home they need should have their voice heard too. The current system superficially looks like it’s fair, but it’s a system that encourages confrontation and gives a clear advantage to people who are already adequately housed.
I think the answer comes back to having a national long term strategy for housing, one that filters down into local areas so people can influence what’s needed for their areas. But that influence shouldn’t be on every single planning decision. It should be in helping set the rules about things like design, quality, affordability and the environment, and helping decide what places, what towns and villages, should have more housing. And then standing back, getting out of the way, and giving places a chance to grow and prosper.
I’m pretty convinced that sort of system could be one that would help Cornwall, and the rest of the country, have a chance at getting the homes needed so that we can be a more prosperous, inclusive place for future generations. And it’s possible – taking Cornwall as an example, only 3.8% of land is currently built on with housing, and just 1% more could solve our housing crisis.
I’ll end with two pages from a book that’s just been released called ‘Hope for Cornwall’. These two pages from the book set out two futures for Cornwall, one of decline, and one of prosperity. Which one would you chose?
