The Goldilocks Speech

Teignbridge District Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee yesterday voted unanimously across party and independent group to recommend to the Executive a reduction in the number of houses that will form part of Plan Teignbridge 2013-2033. These numbers over the last decade have been set variously at 15,900, 14,800, 12,400 and now 10,000. The last Local Plan (formally known as The Core Strategy) was rejected as I understand it by the planning Inspector as Unsound for among other reasons being housing numbers and location of said houses.


Teignbridge is not of itself an island. it is neither Lilliput nor Brobdingnag. We want neither too few houses nor too many houses. We want the Goldilocks Solution. Enough houses to satisfy demand, but not so few as to have the Planning Inspector following petition at the Public Examination of the Local Plan, identify land in the final report on which houses must be built and specify the number.

But houses we do need. This Administration is pledged to 'make housing a priority' '..and deliver homes where communities want them.'

The Localism Act allows for greater community participation, and in recent months both Buckfastleigh and Dawlish have been involved in this process. However, during the Plan Teignbridge 2013-2033 Preferred Options consultation, in addition to all the individual responses, a lot of communities through their local parish and town council representatives raised concerns at the proposed numbers of houses in their communities.

So why the high numbers and why the reductions. The Housing Market Assessment which all Local Authorities need to have, shows that Teignbridge needs more houses for a variety of reasons. (links to all these documents can be found on TDC's web site or somewhere on this Blog). Some of these reasons relate to a failure to build sufficient houses in previous decades, and the need to accommodate future in-migration and local residents in so called 'hidden households' (adult children living at home with parents and unable to afford their own homes).

Where none seems to disagree is that there is a need for Affordable Housing, and the sooner the better.

Therefore how is this seemingly unsolvable paradox resolved. Is there a conflict between the need for affordable houses, intermediate market houses and communities' desire to have housing appropriate to their current community extrapolated over 20 years?

Does the Localism Act take precent over the National Planning policy Framework, or can they work together?

The Goldilocks Solution may be the solution. Set a figure now, which in the light of economic and demographic circumstances can be reviewed every five or so years.