In November 2011, the Coalition Government, led by David Cameron, set out its ambitions to stimulate the development and construction sector in order to meet the rising demand for housing in England. The document ‘Laying the Foundations: A Housing Strategy for England ‘ sets out the long-term plans for tackling the current critical housing shortage.
The Government states in the document that:
In 2009/10, there were 115,000 new build housing completions in England. Meanwhile, the latest household projections suggest that the number of households will grow by 232,000 per year (average annual figure until 2033).
If this growing demand is to be met, then there needs to be both extensive investment and increased development in the housing sector.
The problem as seen by the Government is wide-reaching: Investors, developers, growing families, growth of tenants and restrictions by the lending banks were all factors that culminated in the stagnation of new housing development; but one of the biggest issues, and probably the most contentious, is where to build these houses.
Land in the UK is at a premium, finding the right location that meets the demands both socially, geographically, and economically, is a challenge, and we’re not talking about a handful of houses here, we’re talking about thousands at any one given time.
As part of the proposals to solve these issues, the Government said it will:
– Free up public sector land with capacity to deliver up to 100,000 new homes – with ‘Build Now, Pay Later’ deals on the table, where there is market demand and where this is affordable and represents value for money, to support builders who are struggling to get finance upfront.
– We will provide more support for local areas that want to deliver larger scale new development to meet the needs of their growing communities – through locally planned large-scale development – with a programme of support for places with the ambition to support new housing development on various scales.
– We have consulted on simplifying planning policy through the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
– We are giving communities new powers to deliver the development they want through Community Right to Build.
Former defence sites especially airfields, have become prime ‘targets’ for housing development, and for a variety of reasons, (many of these have been highlighted in previous posts: Britain’s Airfields – What does the future hold?). However, they are not unique. Other ‘Brown Field’ sites, ex industrial areas, derelict housing estates and so on, are also targets and have also been identified as possible areas for development. The problem with some of these sites is clearing them, many may have contaminated soils or are just ‘inappropriate’ for housing development, and so existing land, adjacent or near to other larger conurbations, is preferred. It would now seem that this is where many of these new developments are heading. (Many of the identified sites are listed in the ‘National Land Use Database of Previously Developed Land 2012 (NLUD-PDL)‘ ).
Adding to this, the Ministry of Defence is desperate to save money and recently gave notice of its intention to close and sell off a number of active sites around the UK, again these have been highlighted previously, (Britain’s Airfields – What does the future hold?). Furthermore, with American interests in European defence also wavering, the possibility of further cuts, or condensing of their activities, is also a possibility on top of those previously identified.
With all this in mind, the Government recently outlined and published its list of the first 14 sites where new ‘Garden Villages’ will be built. One of these is directly on the former airfield at Deenethorpe whilst a second directly affects the currently active site at former Andrews Field.
Whilst neither the Deenethorpe nor Andrews Field development proposals are new, this move certainly signifies the end of flying at Deenethorpe and certain development of one of the UK’s larger former bomber bases. It also threatens flying opportunities in Essex and risks further development on that site.
This move is a major step forward in meeting the current housing crises, but at what cost both environmentally, locally and historically? How much of the history of these sites will be lost or preserved and what does it say about preservation of historical sites in this country? This could well be the ‘thin end of the wedge’ for these old sites – only time will tell.
Further reading and links
RAF Deenethorpe appears in Trail 6
RAF Andrews Field appears in Trail 33
For a full list of the 14 sites designated for development see the BBC report .
The Deenethorpe proposal can be seen as a pdf file here.
News reports about Andrews Field can be found on the Braintree and Witham Times.
Aviation Trails 
Its for things like this that I chose to write about defence rather than national politics – although often they aren’t mutually exclusive. The thing is its easy for us bloggers to just say we need more spent on defence and if we keep closing these sites we will have to put a pay & display ticket everytime we park up a Challenger tank. The fact of the matter is there is no clear and all-encompassing plan for defence requirements. These SDSRs in the last 7 years have been short sighted to ill-advised. We need a fully comprehensive SDSR taking in to consideration internal security, NATO, the effect the EU army will have on us, the Russian factor and economic limitations. Once all that is established then the government can work around what is needed with what we got and need. I don’t doubt that there is MoD land that could be sold off for housing but we need to know what can’t be spared and what can. To me it feels like we’re going back to the 1920s where all the services are squabbling again despite the post-Cold War amalgamation efforts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are absolutely right Tony. There is land that that can be sold off quite easily, it would raise money for the MOD and free up valuable housing land. Any such decisions need to be made carefully and with consideration of future challenges rather than looking for ‘short-term’ gains. A detailed study and analysis of defence requirements is certainly a good start.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It has to be down to economy. ‘Garden Villages’ sound so nice, cosy and pleasant don’t they? But the government is committed to 1 million new homes by 2020. These will likely be nothing more than large-scale housing estates, of the type that Margaret Thatcher sold off, by persuading council tenants that it would be in their economic interest to purchase their council homes, leaving the nation with a chronic shortage in housing. Now that the MOD is short of money, they are forced to sell off installations at rock-bottom prices to developers eager to build on sites that have significant historical value and that means losing some of our beautiful airfields. That means that we won’t just be losing outstanding historical aviation sites, but also sites that have provided habitats for reptiles, amphibians, water voles and wild fowl.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Precisely Rich. The big argument now is ‘affordable’ housing and council stock. Had they not all been sold off at rock bottom prices we would still have them and wouldn’t be in this situation of having to rebuild more. A lot of these properties are bought by ‘landlords’ wanting to rent them out, so buyers don’t actually get them.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’ve never really understood why more of the many brown field sites, particularly oop north, could not be used for housing requirements.
LikeLiked by 3 people
No it’s not very clear, but I think some of it is economics, too expensive to clear up, and some is if it’s a ‘failed’ housing estate why build another one in top? I guess it’s about demand. People don’t want to live in certain ‘urban’ areas over other ‘nice’ villages with fields nearby. Who really knows the answer to that one John!
LikeLiked by 2 people