“I have spent my whole life fighting Thatcherism, I never thought I’d have to do it here.” So spoke Tim Farron, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats at the Party’s Annual Conference earlier this week.
It turned out to be a fight that Mr. Farron was not only forced to have but that he (and the Liberal Democrat leadership) went on to lose.
The membership voted in favour of an amendment tabled by the Young Liberal Democrats to reinstate annual housing targets of 380,000 houses per year. This is a 26% increase on the Conservatives previous annual target of 300,000 houses per year and undermines a previously favoured attack line that the Conservatives only chose such a high number because they were “in the pockets of house-builders”.
Speaking to the BBC’s Today Programme, the Liberal Democrats Deputy Leader Daisy Cooper tried to argue that this target was different from the Government’s because they would only be building the 380,000 homes “where they were really needed” and only in places where everyone agreed that they wanted them.
This is pie in the sky.
We really need houses in the South East. Nearly everyone agrees on this.
But where should they go? In West Berkshire there are a number of significant limitations. Approximately 74 % falls within the AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and is therefore protected. Much of the rest is either flood plain so unsuitable for homes, or part of the Detailed Emergency Planning Zones around the two AWE sites which are protected by the Ministry of Defence.
That leaves a mere 11% of land that is suitable for housebuilding.
For that reason, West Berkshire has always had the lowest housing target to meet of anywhere in Berkshire and one of the lowest in Thames Valley. In previous years, the Council was required to build 511 new homes per year. Add 26% to this and that would rise to 643.
When the previous administration at West Berkshire Council came forward with potential development sites– whether in Compton, Lambourn, Sandleford or North East Thatcham – these resulted in significant local objection. I am making no criticism of those concerns – people often have legitimate worries about environmental impact and infrastructure. But the short point is that houses have to go somewhere and all developments are generally unpopular with those who live closest.
It is no longer good enough for the Liberal Democrats to criticise sites chosen by their predecessors without being straight about their preferred alternatives. 380,000 houses is a hefty target that will impact everywhere. How would they find the space in West Berkshire? If it means building around the rural villages in the AONB then residents have the right to know if our beautiful countryside is about to be carpeted in houses like Didcot. If it means building no houses at all, then they must explain how they reconcile this with the local shortage and their own party’s policy. These have never been easy choices; it is wrong to pretend otherwise.