The Government has promised to fix this by building 1.5m homes over five years – and proposing to rip up protections for nature to make this possible.
But does this “build, baby, build” approach make sense?
When we say “housing crisis” we are first and foremost talking about a crisis of affordability.
Brighton & Hove is one of the least affordable areas for private rent in the country.
Social housing waiting lists in rural Sussex districts are increasing.
The average property price across the county is more than 10 times the average wage.
These are not just numbers. They have real implications for our communities.
A lack of affordable housing risks making large parts of Sussex no-go areas for key workers.
It means young people whose families have lived in our rural villages for generations are being forced out.
The government claims we need private sector housebuilders to build our way out of the crisis and is attempting to bulldoze the planning system to make that happen.
As countryside champions, we are deeply concerned by this approach.
Superficially, building more homes to meet demand seems sensible. If prices are too high, you just increase supply, right?
Firstly, new builds command a premium – costing on average 10 per cent more than existing homes.
Secondly, the price of existing homes is what primarily sets the market price.
To make a major difference to house prices in any given location, you would need to bring large numbers of new homes to the market.
There is no incentive for private developers to do this because it would damage their profit margins.
In fact, developers prefer to drip-feed new, low-quality homes onto the market at a rate that does not push down prices.
Ideally, they want to build these houses on greenfield sites, which do not require cleaning up – and so give them the biggest margins.
There are currently more than 1 million potential new homes across the UK that have been granted planning permission and not yet built.
This calls into question the government’s claim that the planning system is holding back construction and therefore fuelling the affordability crisis.
What has driven house prices increases is not simply a lack of supply, or, indeed, a planning system under which nearly 90 per cent of applications are approved.
It is how much money has been pumped into the market.
Until recently, cheap mortgages, government initiatives and the attractiveness of residential property as an investment have seen cash pile into property – and that has pushed up prices.
The other part of the equation is what has happened with publicly-built-and-owned housing stock.
Greenfield development site. (Image: CPRE Sussex)
The public sector used to build and rent out far more homes than it does now.
The last time we were building at the rate the government says it wants to achieve was between the 1950s and 1970s when 40-50 per cent of supply was from public sector.
Public housing, whether owned by local government or housing associations, has been stripped under the Right to Buy.
And, with too little public money going into social housing and the other challenges facing the construction sector, social housing is stalling.
Brighton & Hove is a rare positive – buying up existing stock to rent out – but we need a new approach.
An over-reliance on the private sector to build homes and rent them out has been central to government policies for the last 40-50 years. This approach has failed.
Blaming it all on the planning system is cheap and politically easy – but it does not deliver change on affordability.
In fact, it is the planning system that creates some, limited, safeguards around affordability.
Private developers are usually subject to planning rules requiring them to build a certain percentage of “affordable” homes for rent or purchase in their developments.
These rules vary widely across different areas and frequently housing associations cannot afford to take on the rental units.
Developers also often wriggle out of their affordable home commitments, claiming developments are not “financially viable” despite rising profit margins.
On top of this, “affordable rent” is defined as 80 per cent of market rates – with no link to local wages – and so is often not that affordable in any case.
However, these challenges highlight the need to strengthen the planning system – not weaken it.
By attacking the planning system, the government is tearing down safeguards for affordability, nature, environment, and local democratic control.
Housing secretary Steve Reed typifies this with his Trump-echoing “Build, baby, build” slogan and social media posts depicting environmental defenders as “traitors”.
The chancellor has adopted similar rhetoric, boasting of unblocking 20,000 homes in Sussex that she said were being stopped by “some snails on the site that are a protected species or something”.
The snails in question were one indicator of the ecological health of the Arun Valley – a conservation area supporting rare birds, invertebrates, and aquatic plants.
Sadly, these misleading comments appear to reflect a wider dismissal of nature.
The government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill is now in its final stages.
This controversial bill rips up longstanding environmental protections and makes it harder for local communities to have a say in shaping the places where they live.
It is designed for the benefit of big private companies – not those struggling to pay their rent.
However, there is a glimmer of hope. When the bill moved to the House of Lords, peers voted for four amendments which would go some way to mitigate the most misguided elements of the bill.
These amendments are critical to safeguard local democratic accountability, create sustainable places for people to live, stop development from destroying legally-protected wild places and wildlife, and protect our globally important chalk stream habitats.
It is vital these changes are not stripped out by the government.
This is the last chance to influence the Planning and Infrastructure Bill before it passes into law and we are calling on MPs to stand up for nature and accept the amendments.
Private development at the cost of nature is not the key to tackling the housing affordability crisis.
It will simply lead to more unaffordable, executive homes built on greenfield land which line developers’ pockets.
