There’s no doubt that the problem of providing homes for people living in our communities is a vexed one — especially those that are affordable. It was recently revealed that first-time buyers have seen the gap between their wages and house prices grow in the vast majority of councils in England and Wales.
Yet, the Carlisle and District Green Party’s recent surveys of residents’ views show that plans to build large estates on the margins of the city are unwelcome. This reflects the Green Party’s view that building on green spaces should be avoided in the interests of maintaining and increasing biodiversity, together with preserving these areas for the general wellbeing of people. Recent protests over the Deer Park development in Belah have highlighted how areas containing a rich mix of wildlife are identified as ‘brownfield’ and therefore fair game for builders such as Gleeson homes.
Further housing is planned on agricultural land west of the city near Orton, not forgetting the massive St. Cuthbert’s Garden Village along the M6 to the south.
What is driving this massive expansion?
Well, it is partly connected with the government’s drive to build 300,000 new homes a year. A pledge that is now highly unlikely to be reached. Michael Gove is currently reviewing this target and questioning the assumptions it is based on. Could this be a way of back peddling on a manifesto commitment?
A recent report by the Government’s Housing Delivery Test Measurements revealed the enormous roll-out of new housing stock across the Carlisle area between 2018 and 2021. The report noted that the City Council is currently over delivering by 346%.
The Green Party is raising the alarm bell that this is moving far beyond what our current infrastructure can cope with. In addition to green spaces being swallowed up, traffic congestion is increasing, and existing services are struggling to cope with demands. There is a distinct lack of joined-up thinking in this whole process
If you want a long (and possibly dull) read, you can study the local plan for housing as laid out for Cumbria in general here.
The St. Cuthbert’s Garden Village project leaders state that ‘New homes are required to meet the immediate and longer-term housing and economic development needs of the District and Borderlands region, making it more sustainable for the future. There is an existing gap in the workforce and the recruitment and retention of workers by local employers is already an issue for businesses across Carlisle. Therefore, the continued growth of the economy is dependent on an increased labour pool, and meeting this existing and increased employment demand means there is a need for new homes.’
In short, it’s about the economy. Notice that phrase, ‘sustainable for the future.’ Loosely translated, we have an ageing population, and not enough young people working, earning wages, and contributing to the tax system to support them. Sustainable in this sense is not related to the environment i.e. reducing carbon footprint, increasing biodiversity and promoting wellbeing. It is driven by the concept of economic growth which, in itself, relies on the national increase of GDP and ever increasing use of finite global resources.
The Strategy also says: “… there is a notable level of under-occupation (37% of all households have at least two spare bedrooms).”
This suggests there is actually not much pressure on housing in Carlisle and that building too many homes, in excess of the requirement, will cause under-occupancy to rise still further. This surely isn’t good for Carlisle or the planet.
What future might the implementation of this plan mean for Carlisle? One has to consider what has happened in cities such as Edinburgh and York, where property prices have soared as new housing has attracts higher-waged populations who don’t necessarily work in the local area. York, for example, becomes a new commuter location. What then are the prospects of affordable housing for local young families? Will these estates attract private landlords and second home owners who contribute to further house price rises, as has happened in Cornwall?
Are private building companies keeping to their end of the bargain?
There’s a very revealing short documentary by Owen Jones you can watch here that highlights the way poorer communities are side-lined when big developments take place. Is there evidence that such attitudes prevail in Carlisle among those who are set to gain from such massive investments?
Often, profits triumph over clearly stated commitments to provide affordable housing. Take the case of the recent Story Homes development at Winchester Place in Brampton. An original commitment to build 31 affordable homes was reduced to 22.
Our recent survey of residents in Belah highlighted time and again how influx of new families puts pressure on local schools, doctors’ surgeries and local services. 106 planning requirements that insist building developers contribute funds to these resources are not always applied appropriately, if at all. If they are, provision lags well behind the population increases that occur.
Surveys carried out by the Green Party in Carlisle and Brampton reveal that many residents are concerned about GP surgeries, school places and other local amenities not keeping pace with influx of populations caused by new housing development.
For example, in Brampton, Secondary School places are just 100 short of their maximum before oversubscription occurs. Brampton Primary School is just 40 short. Current influxes of population could easily see class sizes bursting through their maximum. Figures for Brampton Medical Practice show that between 2021 and 2022, the registered number of patients rose from 16200 to 16600. That’s an increase of 400. GP’s safe limit of appointments per day should be 30 per day, but a recent article in the Guardian showed that nationally, many are seeing up to 60 per day. This is not sustainable, and is one reason why GPs are leaving in their droves.
Building environmentally sustainable housing for the future
There is anecdotal evidence from builds in the north of the city that house building companies are downgrading the sustainability features of new builds as their profit margins are threatened by rising costs of materials and shortage of labour.
As the Green Party, we would respond with the following plan of action:
– All new houses should be built to the highest insulation standards.
– Solar panels linked to feed-in tariffs or storage cells should be included in all cases.
– Sustainable heating sources should be built in as a default. These should include either air-source or ground-source heat pumps. No new home should have a gas boiler fitted after 2025 anyway, as ruled by the government.
– EV charging points should be standard.
– Measures that encourage nesting should be included, such as those suggested by the NHBS
– Once again, binding agreements should apply so housing developers don’t renege on these agreements.
Pie in the sky? We only have to look at examples in Scandinavia and other parts of Europe to show it’s achievable. But it requires innovation, joined up thinking and funding. The Green Party has recently achieved a collaboration across authorities to pool resources. It has been called The Lewes Model, and you can read about it here.
How do we address the problem of balancing affordable housing with conservation of the countryside?
Deer Park – Before
Deer Park – After
It’s one thing to protest against development — and be accused of NIMBYism — but what alternatives exist? (This acronym is often bandied about with little thought, by the way. Perhaps we ought to recognise our protest about building on green spaces with a newer, more accurate term. How about NIWFG – ‘Not In Wildlife’s Front Garden? )
Thankfully, there are approaches available to achieve this balance, as long as residents, planners, businesses and the council accept that a paradigm shift is required. So, here are some approaches for consideration. They require moving away from mass, minimum quality builds, and a re-setting of priorities that places the environment at the top.
- Identify true ‘brownfield sites’, including those that were previously earmarked for business or retail development. (Debenhams, Central Plaza Hotel site, Hardwicke Circus filling station, etc.)The Council should work harder to finance the clearing and decontamination of these sites. The local plan should be reassessed to exclude areas such as Deer Park which are not true brownfield. Construction in the centre of the city should be built to the highest of standards to make dwellings that are safe, secure, sustainable and promote wellbeing. For example, view the innovative Forest City designs in Hong Kong here.
Possible brownfield/infill sites in Brampton which have remained derelict for years
- Encourage the selling and development of empty properties within the city (Recent estimates put this at 1000.) Could the council actually buy some of these up and offer them at affordable rents? There’s a toolkit that offers suggestions here.
- Encourage Co-op builds
- Promote opportunities for Community Land Trusts
- Wildlife/biodiversity surveys and recommendations should be carried out by independent ecological experts and not consultants commissioned by the housing company. The planning process should allow second opinions from other trusted sources to feed into the decision.
- New homes should be sustainably built to help meet carbon reduction targets by 2037 (see above.)
- Where houses are built, make it a priority to provide decent social housing and affordable homes. (It is quite ironic that redevelopment at Portland Square (central Carlisle) is being advertised as ‘Exclusive properties for everyone’. The question has to be asked: How can a property be both ‘exclusive’ AND ‘for everyone’?
A Final Word
There is much we have not commented on here: regeneration of inner city neighbourhoods, transformation of public transport and reduction of congestion. We have not touched on housing associations either. Each of these perhaps merit an article devoted to them alone.
Our hope is that this document fleshes out some of the statements the Carlisle and District Green Party have made in the press recently. We aim to work towards decent homes and living environments for all. Together, we can counter some of the current narratives and move toward a fresh vision for Carlisle and its surrounding towns and villages.
Appendix
The Greens continue to speak out about housing in the local press:
Carlisle Green Party Chair sheds light on empty homes frustration in Carlisle – link here
Carlisle Greens critical after council ‘over-delivers’ on housing by 346 per cent – link here