In engineering, if you define the problem incorrectly, even perfect execution produces failure. A core structural flaw in UK housing policy is that “housing need” is often treated as if: market pressure = social need. But those are not the same thing.

If people and firms concentrate in one part of the country, prices rise and pressure intensifies. The system then reads that pressure as “need” and responds by forcing more development into the same places.

It sets out clear evidence that East Hampshire is being asked to deliver far more housing per person than most other places — despite having limited infrastructure and no control over where the demand is really coming from.
Key points:
• EHDC is expected to deliver 39% more housing per capita than the national average.
• Past overdelivery has absorbed displacement, not unmet local need — and yet targets keep rising.
• Affordability has worsened, not improved, despite high delivery — so the uplift isn’t working.
• The 500 homes/year cap is based on solid data: local growth, national share, and environmental capacity.

What’s the point of having rules if no one’s enforcing them? That’s the uncomfortable paradox at the heart of England’s housing and planning crisis. It also forms the starting point … Read More

The British public rightly expects that land granted development value should serve the national interest — not be diverted into private offshore gain or speculative asset cycles.