Why Every New House Looks the Same

Another insightful read. I look forward to your next paper.

I suggest you also look at how, structurally, the planning system is housing-led, not infrastructure-led. That compounds the problem of lack of local community support (read opposition to new development) when the system locks communities into car-dependency, rat-runs, unviable flood defences, no defined budgets for services, aspirational “vision” statements (read: low-to-zero probability of being delivered in one’s lifetime) about new health services and schools to serve the new development when no funds are defined or locked down early.

Often, local opposition groups are portrayed as NIMBYs or BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Never at All). Some are. Yet, what most are offered is hardly appetising, whether for them, their children or newcomers, with standardised housing estates looking like car parks, unplanned infrastructure and unviable services. S106 and CIL do not, by some margin, scratch the surface of this deep structural problem. For instance, the split of county council vs district council when it comes to delivery of services (highways vs collecting bins for instance) also leads councils to lock county councils into unfunded road commitments even when their models show the roads are unable to cope.

In addition to lack of infrastructure-led planning, the current planning system is also putting local councils into structurally weak positions when it comes to negotiations with developers. That leads district councils to “easy(er)” choices: building on farmland instead of tackling brownfield with Dockland Corporation-style inner city re-developments or tackling existing (but empty) commercial and housing stock (Yorkshire Bank did a recent study which indicates this can be a source of some 2.5m addition to housing supply).

This analysis should be used in Universities. 👏 Of course, we know it won’t 😢