The Elephant in the Room
I attended a packed St Lukes Church in Thurnby on 8th November to discuss plans to build new homes in Harborough District. Local Conservative MPs Alicia Kearns and Neil O’Brien called the public meeting to hear community views on the Government’s plans to build a new town. As stated by Ms Kearns in her letter to residents: –
“The Government has announced plans to build thousands of new homes across the Harborough District, including developments at Stoughton, Houghton-on-the-Hill, Thurnby and Scraptoft. As part of the Council’s new Local Plan, which will be voted on in January 2025, Government Ministers want planning permission from Harborough District Council.”
In addition, Harborough District Council lists sites where planning permission has been sought. In areas around Great Glen, Houghton, Stoughton, and Thurnby, the Council says there is the potential for up to 16,500 homes. Not all these sites will necessarily be approved. The magnitude of development in the area is still likely to be very large however.
During the meeting, plans for Oadby were also discussed as both proposed developments will abut one another. This will of course impact on Evington, as these developments will adjoin Evington boundaries, and the increased traffic will affect all the surrounding roads as well as infill existing rural land.
During the meeting it became clear most of us are ignorant of these plans and that consultation on the proposals had been, and still is, inadequate. Also, there are mechanisms at local council level and at Government level that seem able to bulldoze through any concerns raised by our representatives and ourselves as potentially affected residents.
Many views of opposition were put forward including the impact on the environment, flooding being one, and failure to utilise many available brownfield sites, this was emphasised by a resident who works for a housing development company which is currently utilising ‘previously developed land that’s no longer being used’ and wish to expand.
As I listened to the arguments, I began to feel particularly uncomfortable and concerned that not only were many of us perhaps in danger if being NIMBYs but that we might be missing a vital point.
Post war my parents were contented with having a council house roof over their heads and my father in work and providing for us as a family. Many people grew up in the same house and indeed some were able to either take over a tenancy or live nearby. Those with the resources to do so moved out to the suburbs. Country living was by and large for farmers and the landed gentry with little rural housing development. Economic growth sprang from manufacturing which has steadily declined over the decades thus since then the housing market has become a more important part of UK economic growth.
As the Bank of England states: –
“Housing investment is a small but unpredictable part of how we measure the total output of the economy. If you buy a newly built home, it directly contributes to total output (GDP), for example through investment in land and building materials as well as creating jobs. The local area also profits when new houses are built as newcomers will start using local shops and services.
Buying and selling existing homes does not affect GDP in the same way. The accompanying costs of a house transaction still benefit the economy, however. These can include anything from estate agent, legal or surveyor fees to buying a new sofa or paint.”
Most of us fear the continued spread of housing, even if we aspire to live in those houses. Most of us agree that brownfield sites should be part of the solution to any perceived housing crisis. As the Council for the Protection of Rural England states: –
“Brownfield matters because it holds potential space for a huge amount of housing. Building on brownfield land directly reduces the amount of countryside that’s lost to development, meaning more green spaces and more space for nature to thrive.” (www.cpre.org.uk).”
Unfortunately, Brownfield sites do not generate enough economic growth or profit and therefore are largely sidelined in favour of expanding into urban and rural green space.
So, what is the elephant in the room? The elephant in the room is an economy driven for profit and economic growth with little regard, other than tokenistic, to ecology, sustainability and wellbeing factors. Without doubt, growth is something we cannot escape, but at present it drives the machine to an extent that planning law allows the needs and wishes of local people to be ignored and runs roughshod over any attempt to lobby for utilisation of brownfield development as an alternative (other than in a tokenistic fashion). It massages the myth that growth is the overriding need for the economy and society and feeds the greed of the few who reap the financial profits from such transactions. If that was reversed and those three factors were enshrined in planning law, with new development on greenfield sites contingent on a weighted development of brownfield sites, we might see an emphasis on brownfield usage first and foremost.
For this to work and for people to choose brownfield sites over leafy, green space, rural growth, brownfield development needs to be smart. It needs to cater for multiple market segments and build in the factors that make it compelling to those who might otherwise migrate towards rural living. Into the bargain infrastructure needs to be adapted to support this.
Of course, we must also consider moderating our own demand for bigger and better homes, especially in the countryside.
John Alexander McFadyen
