THE North East is likely to miss the Government’s housebuilding targets by more than 13,000 homes, according to a new report.
Analysis by the Centre for Cities thinktank suggests that Labour will fall short of its flagship aim of having 1.5 million new houses built across the country by 2029.
The research predicts that, despite proposed changes to the planning system to increase private development, there will be an underdelivery of at least 388,000 homes against the new target.
That includes a shortfall of more than 10,000 in Tyne and Wear alone, with metropolitan areas expected to be the worst performers.
READ MORE: Northumberland's housing figures sparks political row
At 49 per cent below the county’s target, that is the highest projected shortfall outside of Greater London.
In July, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) announced that local councils would be given new, mandatory housing targets in the hope of tackling a supply crisis.
Those proposals would see the 12 local authorities across the North East and Tees Valley areas being told to deliver a combined 12,182 new homes per year, almost double the current targets.
But Centre for Cities analysis of 80 years of data warns that even if private development in our region were to rise to the same levels seen during the peak of housebuilding, the sector would only be able to deliver fewer than 9,000 new homes annually.
Based on these calculations, it is estimated that private development would fall nearly 13,700 new homes short in the North East over the next four years – 28 per cent below the region’s target.
The thinktank says the shortfall is unlikely to be bridged in full by public sector housebuilding within that time.
The total projected housing delivery shortfall by 2029 is 10,225 in Tyne and Wear and 3,601 in County Durham and Darlington.
Northumberland, by contrast, is predicted to be just 25 shy of its target and there is a projected surplus of 150 across Middlesbrough, Stockton, Hartlepool, and Redcar and Cleveland.
Centre for Cities has called for more radical changes to deliver speedier housebuilding – including making the planning system more flexible, releasing some green belt land for development, and a major increase in grant-funded public housebuilding.
Its chief executive, Andrew Carter, said: “Rightly, the Government has set a bold housebuilding target. For the country to achieve it, parts of England would have to reach an 80-year high in housebuilding. This would be a huge positive for the country but the approach has to be much more ambitious.
“We’re in a productivity crisis. The UK’s big cities are the jobs and productivity engines of the economy but our planning system doesn’t allow – and has never allowed – them to build an adequate supply of homes for everyone that could work there.”
In response, Labour has said it will ask authorities who are otherwise unable to meet local housing needs to review their green belt and that it was recruiting 300 extra planners.
But the BBC reported this week that councils have described the new building targets as “unrealistic” and “impossible to achieve”.
An MHCLG spokesperson said: “Despite the dire housebuilding inheritance we are trying to fix, we will deliver the 1.5 million homes our country desperately needs and get Britain building again.
“To get there the government has already outlined plans to streamline the planning system, restored mandatory housing targets, established a programme to unblock homes stuck in the planning process, and set up a new body to deliver the next generation of new towns.
“On top of this, our Planning and Infrastructure Bill will go even further in overhauling the planning system to boost housebuilding and economic growth across the country.”
Richard Wearmouth, the deputy leader of Northumberland County Council, criticised Labour for having “needlessly saddled” the county with a substantially increased housing target while neighbouring Newcastle’s has actually been reduced.
The Conservative councillor added: “This report shows what the impact will be. Wealthy property developers will cash in, building expensive homes we don’t need in Northumberland piling pressure on our schools and other services. Meanwhile they will not build in other places where more homes are actually urgently required.
“It is now clear that the government’s approach is doomed to failure and they must rethink before it’s too late.”
Colin Ferguson, leader of Newcastle’s Liberal Democrat opposition, said the Centre for Cities report “casts doubt on the deliverability of Angela Rayner’s housing targets”.
He added: “We have particular concerns about why the Government is proposing to reduce Newcastle’s new build targets when neighbours will see significant increases. This has implications for Newcastle’s economy, local infrastructure, and regional transport.”
How housebuilding targets in the North East are changing
Under the Labour government’s proposed housebuilding targets, this is how many homes each local authority in the North East will be expected to deliver each year:
- Northumberland: Current target – 549. Proposed target – 1,769.
- Newcastle: Current target – 1,417. Proposed target – 1,345.
- Gateshead: Current target – 417. Proposed target – 909.
- North Tyneside: Current target – 745. Proposed target – 1,075.
- South Tyneside: Current target – 306. Proposed target – 706.
- Sunderland: Current target – 512. Proposed target – 1,208.
- Durham: Current target – 1,129. Proposed target – 2,210.
- Darlington: Current target – 152. Proposed target – 500.
- Middlesbrough: Current target – 251. Proposed target – 589.
- Redcar and Cleveland: Current target – 45. Proposed target – 642.
- Stockton-on-Tees: Current target – 444. Proposed target – 861.
- Hartlepool: Current target – 157. Proposed target – 388.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here