Even while battling inappropriate new housing, conservationists should remember that we really do need to build many more houses. This will entail some loss of countryside, though how ‘vast’ a number of new homes the countryside can absorb is open to question. The exact nature of the housing crisis, however, needs unpacking, as do the solutions. Crude claims that we must build over lots of countryside in order to achieve 230,000, 250,000, 300,000 or more homes a year are misguided and, because they get people’s backs up, counterproductive.

We have a shortage of particular types of homes for particular people in particular places. Simply building lots more homes across the country will not, in itself, address the problem, which is partly one of growing inequality between north and south, young and old, and those with a chance of getting on the ‘property ladder’ and those with no chance. It matters where the new homes are built and how they are shared out. More five-bedroom villas in the Green Belt, which is often what is on offer, will solve some problems (how to ensure bigger houses for wealthy people who want to live in the Green Belt; how to provide a new investment vehicle for those with excess cash) but will not provide what is needed: a decent home for everyone at a price they can afford.

The chapter starts by considering whether it would be easier to tackle the housing challenge if we stopped immigration and lived shorter, less fecund lives. This is a question often avoided in liberal society, but half the online comments under any newspaper article on housing call for population controls.

Population

Population growth is a major driver of housing demand.