The Adam Smith Institute's 'Green Belt' proposals are both wrong and silly

Not Green Belt but very protected

There's quite a gulf between the two extremes in the debate about housing supply - from those who say it's all down to planning through to those who tell us that the deliberate constraint of land supply has nothing to do with that lack of housing supply.

However, it is important when we engage in this debate that we understand the policies we criticise (or support). And it is on this point that the Adam Smith Institute consistently fails:

The first step is to classify Green Belt land into its three types. There is verdant land, with fields, meadows and woods – what most people think of when they think about Green Belts. There is ‘brown,’ or damaged land, including abandoned mines and quarries and former industrial buildings. Thirdly there is agricultural land, much of it given to intensive cultivation on vast fields using fertilizers and pesticides. It falls well short of being environmentally friendly.

Once the land is classified into its three types, the verdant land should be left untouched. All of the ‘brown’ land should be made available for building. In addition a one-mile deep strip of agricultural land at the inner edge of the Green Belt should be made available for house-building. In compensation, at least a mile of agricultural land beyond the outer edge of the Green Belt should be added to it as verdant Green Belt.

If you are to reform a policy it helps to understand the reasons for that policy existing - the ASI, in the example above, completely misunderstands the reason for us having a 'Green Belt'. And the way in which development on that land is constrained.

The Green Belt, according to policy, serves five purposes:

1. to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
2. to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
3. to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
4. to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
5. to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

Only one of these purposes relates to aesthetics (and the protection of settings for historic towns is very narrowly drawn). The remainder of the purposes are there for the practical and essentially conservative reason of preserving the identity of places by preventing sprawl and encouraging the recycling of redundant land within those places. There's a point at which the tightness of a 'Green Belt' results in over-dense development that really isn't sustainable or in the best interests of the economy.

The ASI wants to identify what it calls 'verdant' land in the 'Green Belt' so it can be protected. Again the ASI fails to appreciate that there are a bundle of other planning mechanisms intended to do just that. These tools range from Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Special Landscape Areas (SLAs) through Habitat Regulation Assessments (HRAs) and Local Nature Partnerships to World Heritage Sites, Conservation Areas and Local Landscape Policy Areas (plus many others - too many to list). The existence or otherwise of a Green Belt is not relevant to any of these policies - they protect on the basis of scientific, ecological, archaeological or aesthetic reasons for resisting inappropriate development.

Furthermore, in broad terms, previously used land in the Green Belt (what the ASI chooses to call 'brown' or 'damaged' land) is developable. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) says it's fine for:

...the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.

This isn't always popular (as we discovered during the Rochester and Strood by-election) but it demonstrates how thoughtful and sensitive development can take place within a Green Belt. Indeed, the relaxation of policy in the NPPF has already begun to deliver:

Glenigan was approached to investigate the number of new homes being approved on greenbelt sites and found that in 2013/14, 5,607 homes were granted permission. In the following year, this had reached 11,977, which also represented a five-fold increase since 2009/10.

These developments are almost all small scale - the conversion of redundant farm buildings, infill within small hamlets and the building of individual buildings on previously developed sites. The numbers aren't sufficient to change the economics of housing supply but it is significant that a minor change in attitude to development rights in 'Green Belt' has had such a profound affect without any alteration to the purpose of that 'Green Belt' as defined in policy guidance.

There is a very strong case for a full review of London's 'Green Belt' but this isn't the same as saying that there shouldn't be a 'Green Belt' or that we should (or even in terms of practical geography, could) simply take "a one-mile deep strip of agricultural land at the inner edge of the Green Belt" for house-building. In policy terms this fails on several counts - it ignores other protections (e.g. habitat regulations, flood risk), it takes no account of current or planned infrastructure, and it makes no attempt to match the location of housing supply to objectively assessed housing need. Such a blunt approach to 'Green Belt' review is worse than previous ASI comments that simply called for 'Green Belts' (or indeed the whole planning system) to be scrapped.

Finally, the ASI's attack on "agricultural land, much of it given to intensive cultivation on vast fields using fertilizers and pesticides" doesn't sit at all well with that organisation's supposed support for markets - intensification is about the more efficient use of land and reduces production costs allowing for a sustainable sector (that might allow us to stop subsidising it quite so much). More to the point, the ASI's ugly agricultural landscape absolutely fits the core outcome of 'Green Belt' policies - openness.

I fully understand - and have a great deal of sympathy for - criticism of planning. But if we are to set out a reform approach, it has to be grounded in real geography, based on the purpose of the policy in question and must avoid the ASI's biggest error, an essentially arbitrary land allocation. If the ASI took the trouble to read and understand a little of England's planning policy, it might be able to create a better approach to 'Green Belt' reform. Until that time it's just wrong and looks silly.

....

Bradford Council: Restricting fast food operators through planning won't reduce obesity, is probably illegal and is open to challenge

****

There are proposals in Bradford to introduce restrictions through the planning system on fast food outlets. Below is a report I prepared for Councillors in Medway on the issue. It applies in Bradford too - the policy is probably illegal as it is unsupported by evidence, will not contribute to reducing levels of obesity and is open to challenge by Inspectors and through the courts.

Planning and fast food outlets

Simon Cooke MSc March 2014

There have been calls for the use of planning policy as a tool in public health chiefly in contributing to reducing levels of obesity especially in children. There are fifteen local authorities with ‘supplementary planning policies’ that touch on obesity and food retail, ten of these specifically relating to hot food takeaways. 

Generally these policies focus on ‘exclusion zones’, typically 400m around schools, community centres and leisure facilities. There have been a lot of decisions to refuse where the reasons for refusal include being within such an exclusion zone.

However, while some of these refusals have been successfully defended at appeal, none have cited the exclusion zone as the only consideration in upholding refusal. There is, therefore, no robust planning evidence that these policies are either purposeful or defensible at appeal.

The grounds for introducing policies of this sort are twofold:

• 1.    A view that, with local authorities taking the lead role in public health, planning policies need to contribute to broad public health strategy
• 2.    That there is a specific link between what are called ‘obesogenic’ environments, such as the presence of fast food clusters near schools, and rising levels of childhood obesity

It is hard to take issue with the first of these objectives. However, planning policy should be purposeful i.e. it should be able to demonstrate that removing someone’s right to develop will achieve the purpose of the policy. In the case of hot food takeaways near to schools, we therefore need to show a clear link between the concentration of such outlets and childhood obesity. If such a clear link doesn’t exist then the policy does not meet its purpose.

We can see this by looking at comparable policies aimed at promoting all-population outcomes especially in encouraging the reduction of carbon emissions as part of a strategy to combat climate change. In every case where these policies exist there is a specific and measurable benefit – by requiring changes to build quality we can show an exact reduction in carbon emissions. Whatever our view on the value of such requirements, it is clear that the policy meets its purpose of reducing emissions.

Therefore, in looking at using planning policy to reduce levels of childhood obesity, we need to answer two questions:

• 1.    Is there a good enough evidence base demonstrating a link between the proximity of hot food takeaways to schools and levels of obesity?
• 2.    How will we measure the impact of the policy on levels of obesity in children?

As a presentation by Medway planners to the Town and Country Planning Association noted:

Evidence base is contested:

‘The use of SPDs by local authorities has not as yet been evaluated and the impact on obesity and other health issues remains unknown.’ Takeaway Toolkit (2012)

‘The literature review overall is entirely unclear and not firm enough to base ANY planning policy changes on.’ [Andrew Lainton, planning commentator]

There is a mixed evidence base with research conducted in the UK, the USA and in multi-national studies. Some find ‘moderate’ links between takeaways and obesity while others find little or no link.

“Exposure to takeaway food outlets in home, work, and commuting environments combined was associated with marginally higher consumption of takeaway food, greater body mass index, and greater odds of obesity.”  Burgoine et al, British Medical Journal 2014

“The obesity epidemic exists among those without significant consumption of or availability to takeaway foods. In a setting of easy availability of food, the obesity epidemic relates strongly to reduced physical activity, but not to consumption of takeaway food.” Simmons et al Int J Obes (Lond). 2005 

Within a population of urban low-income preschoolers, overweight was not associated with proximity to playgrounds and fast food restaurants or with the level of neighborhood crime.” Burdette & Whitaker, Preventative medicine, Vol 38 Issue 1 2004

These results indicate a correlational relationship between both the number of residents per fast food restaurant and the square miles per fast food restaurants with state-level obesity prevalence.” Maddock,  Am J Health Promot. 2004 Nov-Dec;19(2):137-43.

As these studies show the evidence of a link between concentrations of hot food takeaways and obesity is very weak (indeed you could argue it is non-existent).

Perhaps the most striking study from New York not only showed no link between fast food consumption and obesity but actually showed a negative correlation!

When the researchers weighed these children they found something rather interesting. Here are the average body mass index (BMI) figures for each group by frequency of visits to fast food outlets. Bear in mind that a 'healthy weight is 18.5 to 25:

Weekly visits        BMI

Every day:            17.8

4-6 times:              18.3

2-3 times:              19.6

Once:                    20.3

Less than once:     21.4

It seems to me that planners are taking a big risk if they introduce policies that prevent a business from operating purely on the grounds that the presence of that business will contribute to higher levels of childhood obesity.

So the evidence, such as it is, suggests that at best the ready availability of hot food takeaways has a marginal impact on adult obesity (Burgoine et al and Maddock) but that most studies looking at local impact find no correlation between concentrations of takeaways and obesity.

Even if we accept a link (which would be playing fast and loose with the evidence) we still need to be able to show how the planning policy will achieve its purpose – lower levels of obesity amongst children. Most specifically lower levels of obesity among children affected by the decision – those attending the school or other facility within an exclusion zone where a planning permission for a hot food takeaway is refused.

I do not see that there is any way of making this measurement without expensive and intrusive programmes of weighing and measuring children in the relevant school. Moreover the policy cannot affect existing hot food takeaways – unless there are locations where there are no such takeaways within a proposed exclusion zone.

The result of such a policy would likely be that some people would be unable to open a takeaway in their property (with the potential for a negative impact on the economy) but that there would be no measureable or indeed noticeable reduction in childhood obesity.

If we are concerned about child obesity, our focus should be on the factors that contribute to the problem. Here from a French study:

The results show that parental overweight and birth overweight are closely related to the child's obesity at five years of age ... The environmental factors which contribute to child obesity are: southern European origin of the mother, snacks, excessive television viewing and, more importantly, short sleep duration .... A logistic regression model, after taking parental overweight into account, shows that the relationship between obesity and short sleep duration persists independently of television viewing.  Locard et al, International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders : Journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity [1992, 16(10):721-729]

You’ll note the reference to snacks – this relates to eating between meals in the home not reliance on takeaways.  Indeed much of the evidence about obesity points to the following factors (these are from a Glasgow University study):

·         Birth weight;

·         Obesity in one or both parents;

·         More than eight hours spent watching TV a week at the age of three;

·         A short amount of sleep - less than 10.5 hours a night at the age of three;

·         Size in early life - measured at eight and 18 months;

·         Rapid weight gain in the first year of life;

·         Rapid catch-up growth between birth and two years of age;

·         Early development of body fatness in pre-school years - before the age at which body fat should be increasing (at the age of 5-6).

What is not present in any of these studies is any support for the idea that an ‘obesogenic’ environment outside the home is a contributor to raised levels of childhood obesity. There is evidence that shows a link between poverty and obesity – this reflects the relative cheapness of energy dense food and especially processed carbohydrates. A related link is between levels of physical exercise and obesity and we know that children from poor families get less physical exercise.

In conclusion, I think that these policies are:

• 1.    Probably illegal in that they are unsupported by the evidence
• 2.    Do not contribute to reducing obesity in children
• 3.    Leave the Authority exposed to challenge by Inspectors and the Courts

.....

Jim and Sandra move to the countryside. A story of planning policy.

Jim was fed up. Fifty hours a week running the print and design business, endless repairs to a house he didn't really like and Sandra moaning on and on about her job and how she wants more time with the horse.

For the bloke looking in at them, thought Jim, it looks a great life. Big four-bed detached, Range Rover and enough cash to have a couple of decent holidays every year as well as eating out regularly and the occasional weekend break.

But Jim was fed up. Tired. And ready for a change.

That chance came when the two guys with the web design business called and offered silly money for the business. A few sums, a chat with the accountant and it looked like a deal. The buyers want to keep on Steve, he's three years from retirement so he's probably sorted. Looks like best part of a million quid once the value of the old mill building he'd bought for a song thirty years ago is factored in. The buyers probably want to convert it to trendy loft apartments.

What to do thought Jim as he headed to the King's Arms for a pint and a ponder.

In the pub there's the usual crowd and Jim parks himself on a stool in the main bar. Propped up at one end is a copy of the Sunday Telegraph and Jim has a quick flick through, not really reading much just absorbing the headlines. As he's doing this one headline leaps from the page:

MPs fight to save the National Parks from suburbanisation 

This strikes a chord for Jim. Not the politics but the idea of moving to the country. I'll look into that he says to himself. Maybe find an old barn or farmhouse to do up - would be a project and at the end a great place to live.

Once he's home Jim tells Sandra about his thoughts. She's thrilled, full of ideas and excited at the prospect (and a second horse). Jim does some research and finds out that the government is relaxing the rules on converting farm buildings by removing the need to get planning permission so long as certain conditions are met such as keeping the same footprint, height, design and materials as well as complying with rules on flooding, highways and so forth.

Jim sets to with looking for an opportunity - he's got two possible places in mind. One's a smallholding on Dartmoor where the farmer has finally had enough of 80 hour weeks, no holidays and an income less than the minimum wage. Getting half-a-million for the farm means he can retire - nice bungalow in Torquay and enough cash to provide an OK pension. The other's a ramshackle set of farm buildings near Honiton, not as nice a location (and a nicer price), where there's already a planning permission for a barn conversion.

Jim and Sandra want the Dartmoor place. It's the sort of place they like, they're not bothered about the isolation and it's not so far into Plymouth by car. With the new relaxed rules they can use the farmhouse (perhaps with a little extension to give another bedroom although this would still need planning permission) and build three good houses on the footprint of the barns, two to sell which should recoup much of the cost of buying the farm and a third for the kids when they visit.

Looks like a deal, thought Jim, we'll drive down on Saturday and make a good offer. But first it's a pint at the King's Arms.

Down the pub Jim is telling Clive the landlord about his plans, he'd be sorry to leave but no point in waiting too long - "I'd be too old then" jokes Jim.

Clive frowns, picks up the newspaper. "Looking at a national park are you? Maybe you should read this then."

Jim reads the piece Clive points to:

As reported in the Daily Telegraph, the Government is planning to exempt National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) from measures that would allow landowners to convert barns into up to three houses, without having to get planning permission.

Jim read it several times. The deal was off. No way was he taking the risk of buying the farm now, not if he might not get the permission to do what he wanted. Bad news for Joe, the farmer, who'll have to stay there longer or else take a lot less money. Joe won't get to retire, move to Torquay and live his life out in modest comfort.

Apparently having him (and a couple of other families) living up there isn't as sustainable as Joe staying on his uneconomic farm struggling to make a living. And him converting the place would 'change the character of the area irreversibly'. What nonsense thought Jim, what nonsense.

Still Dartmoor's loss is somewhere else in Devon's gain. The National Park has won its point, Joe, the farmer, is still struggling on trying (and mostly failing) to make a living and Jim with Sandra and the horse are spending their wealth in Honiton. And Dartmoor remains a place where only the rich can buy the few houses that come on the market, not the old farms needing conversion but the little cottages and already converted farms. The place is trapped in an environmental timewarp condemned to an unviable, unsustainable economic base because the advocates of viability and sustainability are plain stupid.

....

Housing affordability and the consequences of containment

****

Let's begin with a graph:

And then let's ask a question - why is this the case? Why are those places so expensive? Perhaps:

...as urban containment policies have been implemented in some metropolitan areas, house prices have escalated well above the increase in household incomes. This is exactly the effect that economics predicts to occur where the supply of a good or service is rationed, all things being equal. 

The result is something of a trap. Containment policies become popular (and the bigger that multiple gets the more popular they become) leading to a preference for 'densification' strategies. However, as we have seen with proposals for downtown Hollywood, such policies are predicated on a growth in high net worth, childless young professionals when the population growth is in lower income families.

The problem - according to Alain Bertaud of the Stern School of Business at New York University and former principal planner of the World Bank - is resolvable if planners reprioritise:

...if planners abandoned abstracts and unmeasurable objectives like smart growth, liveability and sustainability to focus on what really matters –  mobility and affordability – we could see a rapidly improving situation in many cities.  I am not implying that planners should not be concerned with urban environmental issues.  To the contrary, those issues are extremely important, but they should be considered a constraint to be solved not an end in itself.

Even in a policy framework of contained cities, the mission creep of modern planning contributes to unaffordability and this could be altered with a more focused policy.

....

More evidence that planning stifles economic growth...

****

Now this isn't to say that we shouldn't have planning but is to observe that, if we do have planning, then we must appreciate the costs that society faces from having that planning. And the main cost is in economic growth - fewer jobs, fewer businesses and more expensive goods in the shops:

Using the quasi-natural experiment of the variation in planning policies between England and other UK countries and a difference-in-difference approach, we isolate the impact of Town Centre First (TCF) policies. We find that space contributes directly to the productivity of stores and planning policies in England directly reduce output both by reducing store sizes and forcing stores onto less productive sites. Our results suggest that since the late 1980s planning policies have imposed a loss of total output of at least 18.3 to 24.9%. This is equivalent to more than a ‘lost decade’ of output growth in a major sector generated directly by government policy.

Maybe we were right to have TCF policies but, in having them, we must also accept that loss of output growth and that lower productivity. Plus of course the negative impact on the UK economy of that lost output and lower productivity. We may be socially richer from having a "vibrant" high street but we are economically poorer.

So next time some planning expert tries to tell you it supports the economy - laugh in his face.

....

Another good reason to vote Conservative...

****

I might say a little more about the Conservative Party's planning "green paper" but its general direction seems excellent. This line struck me especially:

"...giving local people the power to engage in genuine local planning through collaborative democracy - designing a local plan from the "bottom up", starting with the aspirations of neighbourhoods."

That plus abolishing the Infrastructure Planning Commission and nobbling the Planning Inspectorate is a good start towards having a responsive, locally-focused and accountable planning system. And that the vested interests of the British Property Federation and RTPI don't like it suggest to me that we might be on to something!

....

Housing policy - a couple of modest suggestions

***

I was struck by a piece in New Start Magazine about how the UK's planning system is a drag on the development of housing - and especially housing for rent. The article draws comparison with planning regimes in France, Germany and Holland where performance is a little better than in the UK.

Thinking about this it struck me that there is a further issue - land value. We know that land values are far higher in the UK than in France (mostly a function of the amount of developable land available - France is a lot bigger than the UK) and that those land values represent a significant element in the cost of housing.

So why not eliminate land value entirely? Rather than providing subsidy to the housing associations to build affordable homes on public land (and in effect turning the subsidy into a capital receipt for the public agency owning the land) why not require those agencies to gift the land at no consideration? This would make building affordable homes affordable and the subsidy could go directly as grant for the purchase of land - a major saving and a more effective system.

And while we're about this we should extend a duty onto developers to retain an interest in the properties they build for at least 25 years - whether in the form of a freehold or an equity share. This would provide an incentive to build better, more efficient housing.

...

Sorry markets folk this is not the most important day in your history - the Government have set up a committee, that's all!

Today the National Association of British Market Authorities (NABMA) has been getting all frothy and excited over the reaction of the Government to the recent report from the Communities and Local Government Select Committee into traditional markets. Afficionados of The View from Cullingworth will know that I blogged on this report just following its publication in July. And the main substance of my response was this:

“There was…too much producer interest apparent - the market traders' association's desire to maintain their business through regulation rather than through competition and a stream of worthies from local government arguing for different types of new regulation and control. And I could scream at the prospect of a "national strategy" for markets under the malign aegis of the Department for Communities & Local Government.”

The Government’s response seems to take just the view expressed by the committee – the way to get better markets is to set up a new committee and a special interest group somewhere in the bowels of DCLG - replete with producer interests and selected local councillors:

“The Government will champion the interests of all markets with a new body that will bring together key government departments, representatives from the retail markets industry and the Local Government Association. Communities and Local Government will lead the group and assume the strategic lead for markets across Government.”

So there you go – brilliant! Markets are saved and protected by swift Government action. I think not, but the producer interests at NABMA and the Retail Markets Alliance seem to think this is the biggest and most important day in the history of our municipal and street markets.

All I would ask is:

1. Why no encouragement for non-municipal models of delivery?
2. How does having 2 or 3 meetings a year constitute “championing” markets?
3. Is there an agenda of real actions to support markets?

But above all, where are the proposals to stop supermarkets killing markets through predatory pricing and the planning changes needed to protect town centres?

How many supermarkets can one small town take?

The fine town of Keighley is enjoying - if that's the right word - a new ASDA superstore. This vast new addition to the town's shopping offer is situated just off the town centre (so people no longer have to fight the traffic) and was crammed today with customers - well the car park was very full!

So what's the problem? Well Keighley already has...Morrisons, Sainsbury, Iceland, Aldi, Netto and Co-op. And they all seemed busy today as well! And if this is so where is the new ASDA getting all that business from?

I can tell you - it comes from neighbouring towns without a supermarket or with a smaller store - Bingley, Steeton, Crosshills, Glusburn - and from shoppers taking advantage of the cheap clothes, household goods and other non-food products that adorn ASDA's shelves.

Keighley gets 400 low grade jobs (a lot of them part time) at the expense of businesses and jobs elsewhere in the town and in surrounding communities - perhaps as many as 200 jobs will go. Will we see Keighley Market decline again? And smaller retailers in the town close for lack of footfall?

Another victory for our stupid planning system. Another place compromised by the strong arm tactics of the big supermarkets. And remember - if the choice had been left to local decision-makers there would not be this new blight on Keighley!

Garden grabbing, green belts and affordable housing - a sensitive subject!

As someone elected to represent five villages surrounded by a swathe of West Yorkshire's 'Green Belt' I should perhaps stay off the subjects of planning and housing! But since these issues are the 'big deal' when it comes to local voters it would be rather foolish not to comment!

Let's start with the options as people - or at least the vocal ones - tend to put them:

1. The BANANA policy. Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone. This is the 'green party' position and says that the 'green belt' is too precious and too important for even the smallest change to the most insignificant wall to be permissible.

2. The NIMBY approach. Probably the most common and might be summarised as "...please Mr Planner, Sir build your houses in the village down the road not here." Obviously the NIMBY sets out lots of very good reasons where 'there' is better than 'here' - but that's the gist of the case for sure

3. The KOSCAG platform. Keep out scroats, chavs and gypsies. OK Mr Developer and Mr Planner, you can build some houses if you really insist. But they have to be 4-bed detached houses (with or without a moat) and ABSOLUTELY NO AFFORDABLE HOMES. We welcome Jaguars, BMWs and Mercedes (but not more than two years old - unless classics).

Now I have some sympathy for all of this but have concluded that we have to be more responsive if we are to prevent the planners - egged on by the worst of the mass housebuilders - simply building huge new housing estates on former farmland. I call this the triumph of the suburban farmer - the one who wants to grow houses rather than hay!

We need to review 'green belt' policies, the attitude to previously developed land in villages, definitions of employment land and the justifications for protecting gardens from development.

1. Green Belt policies - farm & other rural buildings. You know those semi-derelict farm buildings, mill buildings, store-houses and barns? The ones that planners say can't be developed for holiday lets, business units or light industry? We should let them be used and we should allow additional limited development within former farm sites.

2. Green Belt polices - land in villages. Many small villages and hamlets are 'washed over' by the 'green belt' making any development within them very difficult. We should identify sites and allow development where it does not extend the boundaries of these places and where the development is in keeping with a rural environment.

3. Previously developed land in villages. It drives me nuts when planners - and the occasional Parish Council - oppose housing development in order to protect "employment land" within rural villages. Haven't they noticed how employment has changed? And how this land lies unused because commerce and industry isn't interested in putting it to use? Build houses on it!

4. Stop obsessing about 'garden grabbing'. I'm all in favour of protecting good gardens, orchards and the general feel of a neighbourhood. But saying that big garden - not something most folk want these days - can never be developed for housing (sorry Eric) is stupid. We need policies that protect - within reason - fine houses (something the Church of England needs to learn) and their gardens but not a blanket "never allow building on a garden policy". (As an aside here, can we also relax the rules on horticulture in the 'green belt' to allow rural villages to provide much needed allotments.)

5. Facilitate Village Housing Trusts. Too often I hear complaints about social housing allocations forcing people out of the village - and they are wrong. Creating village housing trusts using public land can provide affordable housing for local people - with the allocations policy controlled locally by the trust or by a Parish Council.