With new deals signed with the United States and India and the timetabled review of our Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the EU, trade deals have been much in the news recently. We very rarely give any thought to how we trade: we just have an expectation that what we want will somehow be available either in store or online. President Trump’s spate of tariff madness has, if nothing else, shown the importance of trade policy to all of our lives and livelihoods. The disruption to supply chains occasioned by COVID and then Houthi attacks on merchant shipping in the Red Sea have played their part in highlighting the fragility of our supply chains, and how dependent we have become upon them. Free trade is always to be championed, providing, as it does, open access to customers and markets – lifting people out of poverty and improving the lot of our fellow man. ‘Free trade’ does not mean ‘laissez faire trade’. Any relationship needs to be buttressed by checks and balances – whether that is quota or regulatory alignment on issues such as animal welfare or use of slave labour. Free trade is not free trade when the playing field is uneven.
Where are our housebuilders
Development – and developers – have got themselves a bad name. Communities are suspicious as to motive and outcome. Many feel disenfranchised within a process that is detailed, legal and technical. The large volume housebuilders have dominated the market in recent years, and not always to the good. Design and layout of schemes lacks any local vernacular character. Too many estates look as if they could be in ‘anytown’. Providing a roof over a person’s head is of course important per se, but it can do, and should be, so much more. Developments should shape place, add amenity, create community and assist social mobility. They can and should be places of quality and beauty.
I have become even more convinced about the need for the volume builders to improve as I am now dealing with three developments across North Dorset where the developer simply has not done what they said they would do, causing anxiety and irritation to those who have spent considerable sums to purchase their homes. One of the problems in delivering this has been the near absence of the small to medium sized housebuilder – the companies that delivered small schemes amounting to probably no more than 60 units a year. They employed local people. They forged a mutually beneficial relationship with councils. They understood what the local market needed. Moreover, they understood local design, history and materials. They delivered developments that often melded into the existing landscape rather than standing out like a sore thumb. They took pride in their work because they lived within the areas in which they were building. They wanted to leave a legacy.
The biggest source of their demise was the great Crash of 2008, when banking nearly fell over and the appetite to lend to the small scale, often highly leveraged developer went the way of the dinosaurs.
Well! Good news appears to be on the way. A recent government announcement has recognised the importance of this sector as a pivotal way of delivering new homes at pace. Because they are smaller developments, they can be fitted into infill or small sites, rather than requiring field after field, thereby making them far more agile in meeting the needs of Neighbourhood Plans. Big policy changes are proposed in order to make securing planning permission easier and more streamlined.
I am confident that, if we get this initiative right, we could see a renaissance in local housebuilding across the UK. I believe that this will be welcomed in many, if not all, rural communities, where the need for organic but smaller scale development is evident. With additional competition, it may also force the volume housebuilders to sharpen their pencils when it comes to design, layout and materials etc.
Is a golden age of sensitive, quality residential development within touching distance?
I certainly hope so.
