The Starter Homes Initiative Will Fail Because of the Requirement for Gardens

The influence of the Astroturf Group Create Streets and Roger Scruton led Design Panel at work


“We’ve shown what we expect Starter Homes to look like not rabbit hutches or shoe boxes, but decent, well-built, homes with gardens – places to start and raise a family.

‘With Gardens’  these are starter homes not palladian villas, how many developments of brownfield sites in low affordability areas and targeted at first time buyers these days are houses with gardens, none, zero, and this if a requirement will make them unaffordable.

Consider the advice Peter Holland of Pins gave St Albans last week.

Mr Holland was told that “one problem for St Albans is that many in-migrants from London are able to pay considerable sums for housing.

“Consequently with much of the development … involving the redevelopment of sites containing older traditional family homes, even modest new family homes in St Albans are priced at around £1 million.”

He suggested the council discuss using larger sites for housing, to ensure the type of homes offered met local needs at a reasonable price.

In other words more cheaper apartments rather than 2 storey houses with Gardens.

This is all part of the Create Streets and Skyline campaign fallacies that we can get away with building houses in London rather than flats, a fallacy sahred by Mayoral Candidates David Lammey and Tessa Jowell, which will just make housing more expensive and London only occupied  by higher income groups who vote Tory – Create Streets real aim.

This is not to state as a nation we shouldn’t be building lots of lower cost homes with Gardens, but this should be net new in Garden Cities, large cities and lots of them,  not wasting the precious limited supply of Brownfield sites with them.

As a result this policy, and those of Labour’s Lammey and Jowell is crude populism designed having the opposite effect, making housing more expensive, than intended.




One thought on “The Starter Homes Initiative Will Fail Because of the Requirement for Gardens

  1. Reblogged this on Roger Gambba-Jones and commented:
    What a pity they didn’t offer some flexibility in this proposed policy, when cooking it up around the cauldron.
    Surely, given the choice between what will, inevitably, be a ‘deceivingly spacious’ rabbit hutch (because we’ve seen not a sniff of a minimum room size spec from government have we?) with a garden and a house with decent sized rooms and good internal and external storage, what do you think most people would choose?
    These decent homes, without gardens, would then have easy access to a nearby area of green space, that would be shared with their near neighbours. A much better way of promoting some feeling of community, than having everybody sat in their postage stamp size gardens, surrounded by a 1.8m fence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s