Andrew George

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing this important debate. It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). His constituency is a different environment, with a different set of conditions. It is interesting that he presented this as a question of fairness, in the sense that house building is an imposition rather than an opportunity for local communities. I will explain why I say that later. Planning should fundamentally be about meeting need, not greed, but it is too often driven by greed rather than need. That underlies the wrong dynamic, which is creating a lot of the ill feeling towards the kind of development that the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire and others have described. The Prime Minister has created a false dichotomy by saying that he is backing “the builders, not the blockers.” My fear is that it is putting greed before need, but by proxy, if it is handled wrongly. The fundamental failing of decades of setting housing targets in the ways that successive Governments have is that they are both wrongly conceived and based on the naive delusion that private developers would be willing to collude with the Government in driving down the price of their completed product. That is a naive delusion that, I am afraid, has adherents in all political parties. They have adopted the view for decades that if we build enough, the price will come down and the developers will co-operate with us in doing that. That has simply not happened. The fundamental problem with setting house building targets is that house building is a means to an end. The end is meeting housing need. The targets could be to reduce housing need and planning applicants would have to demonstrate how their developments would address that need and reduce the need on an annual basis, rather than simply building to their commercial advantage. In places such as Cornwall, they build to meet the requirements of property investors, second home owners and holiday lets. We do not get the kind of developments that are there to meet local housing need. That is why house building targets are a means to an end, not the end. We see them as a proxy for what we are trying to fundamentally achieve. That is why they are both ill conceived and a naive delusion. Cornwall is one of the best examples of where that policy has fundamentally failed because it has almost trebled in size. Like Buckinghamshire, it is proportionately one of the fastest-growing places in the United Kingdom. It has almost trebled its housing stock in the last 60 years, yet the housing problems of local people have got worse. I am not saying that we should not build houses and therefore will meet need; I am simply saying that setting house building targets has created an environment in which the wrong type of housing has been developed. I have to declare an interest: during my nine-year sabbatical away from this place, I was a chief executive of a registered provider, a housing association. I therefore worked in the sector and know how the dynamics of the system work. I know how one battles with landowners, who have massive hope value—expecting that they can get 100 times the agricultural land value on the edge of their town and village if they can get away with it. That is just human nature; it would apply to any of us. Nicholas Ridley, who was the Environment Secretary back in the early ’90s, introduced the rural exceptions policy, which was the first break from a planning policy that was based purely on use rather than the user. The policy meant that if a development met a local housing need in perpetuity, it would be allowed as an exception. The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) mentioned that the policy needs to be expanded, and indeed it should. In Cornwall, where the policy is well founded, much affordable housing development is delivered through rural exception sites. It is quite a powerful policy.