A controversial plan to build 478,000 homes across east England has been given initial backing. An East of England Regional Assembly panel has backed the plans, which cover an area stretching from Norfolk to Buckinghamshire.
Critics say the new housing would cause significant environmental damage and water shortages.
The panel rejected proposals for a further 18,000 homes between Stansted and Cambridge.
Do you object to these plans? Or do you think the need for more housing is paramount? Would you consider buying one of the new homes? Send us your views using the postform.
This debate is now closed. Thank you for your comments.
Your comments:
 | SUGGEST A DEBATE This topic was suggested by Ron Cartmale, UK:  Should the 500,000 homes planned go ahead?  |
More houses why? Are there not enough houses? All over the UK there are houses lying empty. There are derelict buildings and brown field sites. Why build more houses on farmland and greenfield areas it's madness. I live in Bexhill and there are proposals to build a large number of new houses on farmland to the north of the town. There is no infrastructure. Our local roads are a gridlocked already. We do not have direct trains to London what a mess. No wonder there are lots of TV prgrammes and newspaper inches dedicated to moving abroad.
David Griffiths, Bexhill East Sussex
Of course this is a good idea! The Government have finally seen that the supply of housing is far too low, and are actually doing something about it! I simply cannot understand any of the arguments against this. More supply will LOWER house prices and make them MORE affordable. Provided the developers actually look at the ordnance survey maps and don't build them on a flood plain.
Lloyd Evans, Brighton, UK
I pay �80 per week to rent a tiny room with a tiny kitchen. I earn enough for half a mortgage: house prices are just too high! Unless more actual houses are built, then I'm going to be stuck renting a tiny room into my 40s... Bring on the houses!
Chris Melville, London, UK
If we are to have affordable housing in the South East, we need more houses to address the imbalance between supply and demand. I would rather see more brown belt redevelopment such as The Royal Docks in London, this enhances the environment rather than damaging it.
Timothy Richens, Sheffield, England
This development should proceed only with commensurate provision of infrastructure and services as well as a commitment to make it affordable housing i.e. there must be some stipulation for any of this housing which is privately owned that it cannot be sold for a price in excess of the purchase price or in excess of some price which is a certain fraction of the free-market value of a house of a similar type, whichever is the smaller. Those measures will ensure that the new housing will not mar the quality of life for others and also that the scheme will not be abused by profiteers.
John M, LyneMeads, UK
What a joke! Relocate the government & parliament to Inverness, the BBC's head office (and all its London subsidiary departments) to Belfast and "the City" to Fishguard. This will take the pressure off London big time. The result will be an avalanche of housing stock becoming available in London again, which will reduce prices across the board, quite dramatically. Additionally, London Transport would function once again! Finally, forget the Olympics - as it is just another massive "indirect tax" on Londoners!
Ralph, Chelsea, London
| Is this Nimbyism? Too right it is. |
Absolutely not. The South east is over populated as it is, with sprawling towns with little sense of community and precious few green spaces. Surely the Government should be seeking to relieve the pressure on London and its increasingly widening suburbs and encouraging business to move to other areas of the country. Is this Nimbyism? Too right it is. When every empty house and derelict brown field site is inhabited, then talk to me about using greenbelt land.
Jen, Southend, UK Scotland is suffering depopulation and the south east is overcrowded. As the American's would say its a 'no brainer' but still the government gets it wrong. Bit of joined up long term strategic thinking please. The rest of Europe can manage it. Why can't we?
Niall Murphy, Glasgow, Scotland
Half a million affordable homes around the M1 and M11. The M1 and M25 are already at overcapacity, this will just exacerbate the problem. The other question then has to be, is this going to turn into a 'sink' estate with all the associated social problems. The fact is it's a poor solution to a desperate problem. Affordable housing needs to be spread throughout the South not concentrated in one area.
Martin, Reading UK
James is 100% correct. At the root of the transport and housing problem is the concentration of 'decent' jobs in the south-east. Most people would choose not to live in the south-east, if only employment could spread-out. I would encourage a focus on moving firms out of London and the South-east rather than hitting the poor commuter. Why is this not discussed more in the press?
Steven , Milton Keynes
| Instead of cramming more people into the south-east the government should be giving incentives to companies to move into less densely populated areas |
Stupid idea from a stupid government. The south east is already massively overcrowded. Anyone who regularly travels on the M1/M25 will know that the slightest accident snarls up the motorway for miles. There simply isn't the infrastructure to cope with more housing developments. Instead of cramming more people into the south-east the government should be giving incentives to companies to move into less densely populated areas and thereby alleviating the pressure on the south-east.
Mike, London, UK Britain needs more low cost houses - and this might not be the case if people were prevented from owning more than one! I know American, Canadian and Swiss couples who own English homes, having chosen low cost ones, naturally, for holiday accommodation visited no more than twice a year! I would like our grown sons to have the opportunity to own a home. Perhaps, with more homes than buyers, prices will fall making this possible, but only if other requirements of ownership are put in place.
Mary, East Sussex
478,000 new houses will require more water and at least two extra mid range electricity generating plants. Couple this with the fact that the South East of the country has the lowest average rainfall. Next add that there are existing problems with water supply in this area. Why not give employers the incentive to move into the north where costs are lower and there is excess infrastructure capacity? No? Joined up government? Not even joined up thinking.
Martyn, Stratford upon Avon, UK
This is insane. We do not need more house covering all of the green and rural areas. There are thousands of derelict and empty houses that can be renovated, empty city centres, why destroy what little nature we have left. The answer is probably greed, someone will make money from this - it's that simple
Simon Phillips, Romford, UK
| Otherwise, I'll never be able to afford to buy a house |
Classic supply and demand theory states that if supply falls short and doesn't satisfy demand then prices rise. Based on this premise the house price boom is explained. Half a million extra homes (on the supply side) should cause prices to fall if that is sufficient to satisfy the demand. In my view this opportunity to affect market prices by reducing them has to be a good thing as, otherwise, I'll never be able to afford to buy a house.
John, Cheshire
Presumably the planning includes an appropriate transport system so the homes will help to provide a good quality of life to the occupants. Then again, let's be honest - that's highly unlikely.
Stuart, London, UK
This is a complete joke, the only beneficiaries from this are going to be the property developers who will make millions out of supplying second homes for those with a couple of hundred thousand to spare.
Kelvin Marsh, Welwyn Garden City, England
I fail to see how building thousands of new homes in villages in the east of England will create new communities. It will destroy the existing rural communities and just create more high priced housing and profits for developers.
M Window, Bishops Stortford
There are plenty of houses available in the North and other regions of the UK. The government needs to lead the way moving departments out of the SE and encourage large employers to do the same. This would help regenerate some of the areas with lots of housing but little work.
Ruth K, Warrington, Cheshire
Rather than erase green belt with new developments, why will the government not address the issue of multiple home owners who leave properties standing empty? We should make better use of existing housing instead of destroying our rural landscape.
JJ, Bideford, Devon
This development should proceed only with commensurate provision of infrastructure and services as well as a commitment to make it affordable housing
John M, Lyne Meads, UK
Build more water reservoirs as well, of course. Let's hope they are not the rabbit hutches that a certain well-known house builder inflicts on the country.
Tim H, UK
| Due to the housing shortage, loads of people have been complaining about house prices |
Due to the housing shortage, loads of people have been complaining about house prices being too expensive to get on the housing ladder, and yet the same lot will be complaining about their countryside being ruined by all these houses and development. How ironic eh?
Darrel, Cardiff, UK What is so annoying is that the councils always side with the developers against the local people. They never seem to win even though we live in a "democracy". Add to this the fact that increased housing causes increased problems, more traffic, more pollution, more pressure on hospitals and doctors, why is that local people are so powerless to prevent it?
Jon , Reading
More fuel to the fire to overheat the property market! What proportion of these homes would be for rent? This is the only way people on low incomes would be able to afford to live in them. No doubt they will all be for sale, excluding the cleaners, nurses and fire fighters they were intended for.
John B, Gloucester, UK
The government is under the misapprehension that state planned and built settlements are somehow a miracle cure. Do we need to look at other classic examples of state-run projects to see what a disaster this will be? This is simply a ploy by the Labour government to shatter Tory control of the south by wheeling in lots of benefit cheats who'll vote for whoever offers them more money.
Derek Blighty, UK
| I don't think the homes should be built. |
I don't think the homes should be built. The government need to realise the UK is in essence, an island, and islands can only support a set number of people. The government needs to look more at stabilising the UK population, rather than letting it spiral out of control.
Andy, Leeds, UK If the areas selected are because of "where the jobs are" then why not provide incentives for businesses to move away/expand into more rural/peripheral locations. It would cut down the transport issues and spread the housing demand more evenly.
M. Kendall, Royston, Herts.
No, no, no� that does it. I'm voting green. When will it stop, when the last field is turned to tarmac? I thought we set the green belt for a reason. What do future generations have to enjoy? We must stand united and fight this decision, with all the power of democracy.
Christian, Bromley
Can someone tell me how this will solve any problems long term? By enabling more people to move to or remain in the south-east, more businesses and people will come and more houses will be wanted, in a simple cycle. It's time to encourage the development of all the other regions, not tarmac over what remains of Essex.
Justin Rowles, Southampton, UK
No way. As if the South East doesn't have enough bland suburbia! They should be knocking down this grim toy towns, not building more. In East London, there are plenty of dwellings, but many are too horrible to attract buyers. Inner cities should be regenerated before concreting the green-belts.
Russ, London, UK
People have to live somewhere. In reality there wouldn't be a water shortage, increased traffic yes but the show must go on.
Matthew Higgins, Reading, UK
| Why doesn't the government focus on those abandoned "blighted" properties that litter the UK. |
Why doesn't the government focus on those abandoned "blighted" properties that litter the UK. Perhaps spending money building on that land would reduce the need to destroy yet more greenbelt. All we do by building more housing is empty existing areas, and create streets of boarded up housing.
Dan A, Manchester UK Surely it's up to the Countryside Alliance, they seem to want to be able to rule the country side, whether we want them to or not. After all, all that land lying there empty, why should needy peons get affordable homes when the gentle huntsman could be admonishing a well deserved , but humane punishment to some small foxes.
Brian, Corby
I believe that this decision should be made by a properly constituted elective body. Who voted for the Regional Assembly of East England? Who even had heard of it? Why should the government placed women decide this issue?
David Ayers, UK
I live in Hertfordshire where the trains are overcrowded and unreliable, main roads are usually busy and often at a standstill during peak times, there is a shortage of GPs and in many areas a shortage of school places. Surely our creaking infrastructure should be improved first before any more strain is put on it
Suzanne B, Herts., UK
Why are they doing this when people such as myself - single, 31 and earning �15k a year are completely unable to afford a mortgage in the first place. This doesn't help us, we need affordable housing and this won't be affordable.
Anon, Glasgow
Personally, I think they should concentrate first of all on the people who have more than one home that is vacant most of the time. Hike up the council tax for second home owners. If these houses were in use there wouldn't be a need for as many new ones to be built.
Kenny, Bicester
New homes should go ahead, but not in the form the Government proposes. High-density urban terraced housing is very popular with homebuyers (think of house prices in Islington, or Chorlton in Manchester) but what the Government proposes is low-density sprawl. Many of our large town centres are still blighted with derelict warehouses and multi-storey car parks - why not build high-quality terraced housing there, close to employment, shopping, transport and entertainment facilities?
Noam Bleicher, Oxford
Our council is giving the go ahead for many new developments, already bringing out the need for affordable housing argument. Unfortunately, most developments always seem to be just under the level required for compulsory affordable housing. You can also look at the fact that most new developments are snapped up off plan, usually by investors. Until we recognise the truth that new developments are purely profiting developers and investors, then we can forget this nonsense about affordable housing.
Gavin, Salisbury
Of course these should not go ahead. What demand is it that the Government sees? House prices are stabilising which indicates that demand and supply are about right.
Adrian M Lee, Saffron Walden, England
| These new homes are long overdue |
It is better that we all have homes to live in and no countryside than a few have homes and countryside and the rest have nothing at all. These new homes are long overdue. If many of the people who own their own homes and are divorced had managed to stay with they spouse there would be more homes available for the rest of us. The point being that a changing Britain needs a changing housing solution.
Roger, UK Most of the debates on this website regarding housing, traffic and NHS GP waiting lists and so on are a symptom of the same over emphasis on the south of England. Up here in Scotland I complain if my commute takes me more than 30 minutes, if I get home after 6 or if I have to wait a couple of days to get a doctors appointment. Call me parochial, but I don't think we have a problem. Londoners need to wake up and realise that �50k jobs in London can lead to less fulfilment and quality of life than a �25-30k job in Newcastle, Edinburgh or Inverness.(Just don't all come at once please)
Brian, Edinburgh Scotland
Move Government Departments across the country. Commuters and service sector businesses will go with them. This will fill empty houses elsewhere, ease the pressure on the countryside in the South East and reduce transport congestion in the South too.
Matthew Knowles, South Ockendon, UK
Another 'Democratic' process begins which we all know the outcome will be! Pity Prescott, the developers and anyone else who sanctions this are not made to live within this proposed sprawl. That would be Democracy!
Mr G.E. Burke, Knebworth, Hertfordshire
Affordable housing? That's a good one. I live in an area which was built with the idea of affordable housing now no one can afford the houses.
Ben Isaac, Cardiff, Wales
| This is a wasted opportunity |
I think this is a wasted opportunity. The government should have built these houses in the north and encouraged more businesses to open up there. This could have been a way in helping lessen the north-south divide. But wherever there houses are built, there's no doubt that more are needed, and the views of NIMBYs shouldn't come into it.
James, UK The South East will, if we let it, gradually suck the life out of the rest of the country like a cancer. We must try to encourage economic activity and regeneration in other parts of the country.
Jane, Wales, UK
As a planner in local govt I know that the only "sustainable" communities are ones that are self-supporting (that is the business in them forms a pretty much closed loop serving local people and their needs and which uses a single earth ecological footprint). These new so-called "sustainable communities" are going to just add greater demands onto an over-populated and over-developed island that is already no way near having resource(energy/minerals/space/water etc) use within our carrying capacity. Also bear in mind that much of the need for new housing is down to a higher number of divorces and a lower number of families with children, and you'll find that supporting demand in this way is only going to add to our pensions problem etc. Very soon it will snap, but the politicians dare not tell you that - well, either that or "hello, Brave New World".
Anon, Southern England
There have been a lot of new homes build were I live in Hertfordshire, BUT, they are in the �300,000+ range on large plots of land way out of normal (teachers/nurses) peoples range. The Government should have taken steps to stop the use of available land for unnecessary "Luxury" homes that have kept the property market artificial buoyant. The same developers that have profited from this will no doubt profit again from building affordable "shoeboxes". They could also encourage people to downsize and free up "Family" homes by putting an "empty bedroom" premium on Council Tax (excluding pensioners).
John Warburton, Borehamwood UK
If these houses are not built, then it stands to reason that sooner or later, businesses will find it uneconomic to locate in the south east. Horror of horrors, this will result in more companies (and their employees) relocating (and thus spreading the wealth) to other, less prosperous areas of the country. Sounds pretty good to me as a northerner. Why do we have to keep the economy of southeast overheating at the expense of the rest of the country?
Jon, UK
These houses should be built and sold on the condition they are not rented out for X years. Anyone renting should be forced to pay 90% of the rental income over to the local council.
Martin, England
The availability of professional decently paid work is concentrated in the Home Counties forcing the working population of the UK to migrate to the London area to find employment. It would be a wiser to encourage business to diversify their activities across the UK to other areas where housing is not only widely available but affordable. Most large cities in the UK do not suffer from overcrowding or environmental issues.
James, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
Oh are the NIMBYs out again? Wherever development is proposed, there is always opposition. We have plenty of it where I live, and I sometimes think it's a wonder we get anything done in this country. If something is genuinely needed, then it really has to be done, despite the people who in the majority of cases, are only worried about the price of their home going down, or the view they have of the countryside when most never use it at all! The only thing that needs to be addressed is the infrastructure to support these homes, if that's in place then it should go ahead... not just here, but wherever development is needed
Anthony, Basingstoke, England If planners had worked over the years to make the whole of Britain attractive (Newcastle is one of the few places in the north that has a good infrastructure) then there'd not be a need to concentrate so much building in one area.
Francisco, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
All we are doing is turning most of the South East in suburbs of London. It would be far better to give incentives and encourage commerce and business to spread itself around Britain instead of making London the focus. We could then spread the house building across the regions also and not turn the South into a layer of concrete and bricks supported by shoddy travel infrastructure.
John, Watford, UK
Absolutely not, I don't think half a million new homes should be built in one area, we can't keep destroying the countryside for new homes, there will be more flooding and the farmland which makes the English countryside English will be gone forever. Already rural areas are threatened. We can't keep building houses indefinitely or England will become a massive suburban area with the odd bit of National Trust countryside.
Clair, Surrey, UK
The general quality of housing built in this country is abysmal - cheapest materials for little boxes sold at extortionate prices. This scheme would mean that the quality of life in the already overcrowded south would further deteriorate as people would suffocate in a welter of shabby estates and overcrowded roads, transport systems and other vital services would be unable to cope with the population increase associated with the new housing.
Dave, Reading, Berks
Before embarking on such a massive new building programme, might I suggest that a survey be undertaken to identify all the vacant property in the country. It seems to me that there is a lot of wasted space, such as over shops, which could be converted in home much more cheaply than the proposed new development
Pauline Fothergill, Halifax, West Yorkshire
If they build along the M1 that will mean even more crowding through local traffic on what should be a national through route. The result will be an even bigger disincentive to businesses wanting to move further from London, which will cause even more people to move to the South East. In a few years they will probably have another housing shortage....
Chris Q, Bradford England
Why does the onus always have to be on the South? This is an excellent opportunity to either develop an existing town or even build a new city from scratch elsewhere. It could have an integrated transport system and be designed in such a way that people can live near to their place of work. Building a huge estate along already congested roads sounds pretty miserable. Let's make something to be proud of not something that will always be a blot on the already overcrowded southern part of the country.
James, England
I think it is a great idea to build these homes, provided that there are strict regulations imposed on who can buy them - they should be affordable for the locals who actually live and work in that area, who earn a local wage, not for the buy-to-let monsters or yet more London workers who earn enough to live closer to their offices and are just too greedy to spend the money.
Jennifer, Netherlands/ex UK I am in total agreement with Jennifer, Netherlands/ex UK So many areas of the South East are a disgraceful shoddy mess due to cheap-skate buy-to-let landords who let their properties run down to a shocking degree. Not to mention what they do to property prices. Buy-to-let is truly a scourge of modern society. Build these new homes for sure, but please please please sell them only to local homeowners.
Melanie, London, UK
Would it not be more sensible to start by reusing the many boarded up and derelict buildings first? I appreciate that there are probably not 500,000 of these but there are a lot.
Anon, Brighton, UK
Unless the environmentalists propose deporting the entire population of Britain elsewhere and turning the whole island into a nature reserve then we need houses. If 500,000 people in the S.E need houses then we build 500,000 houses and find the water somewhere. Desalination or a pipeline from Wales, Scotland or Keilder in Northumbria seem viable options. If we can pipe oil across Canada & Russia then we can do the same with water.
Peter, Nottingham (U.K)
What's the betting they'll be snapped up by investors and rented out privately at extortionate rents?
Daniel M, London, UK
People desperate to get their feet on the property ladder will of course support new affordable homes. People already living in expensive homes in the area will no doubt come up with lots of spurious environmental reasons why they should not be built. As usual, those who have will try to deny what they have to those who have not.
Chris, UK
I think that more should be done to move public departments to other parts of the country, and encourage industry to do likewise. I don't think that the situation is helped much by the fact that London is the only area with a regional assembly and a mayor to argue for yet more investment into the richest part of the UK.
Chris Q, Bradford, England
It depends on the standard. A lot of new homes are tiny, poorly built boxes. Hopefully additional homes would help to bring down prices though.
Mike, Wigan, UK
Provided that the homes are only sold to people for which it will be their only home and provided that they are built on brown field sites then the idea sounds great.
Dominic, Plymouth, UK
There appears to be little choice but provide affordable housing somewhere. However, it may exist already. Perhaps the UK government should encourage businesses to locate away from the Capital to redistribute the population more evenly over the country. I would prefer the UK government to plan adopting some common sense sometime soon.
Andy Bird, Cheshire, UK
We need more new houses to bring the property market back down to affordable levels nationally. People who earn good money should really be able to afford their own house in the 21st Century. It's the supply and demand issue again!
James, Cornwall, UK
Yes we need more housing but not at the expense of ruining many small towns and villages. Build some new towns with all the necessary services i.e. new hospitals, police stations etc, do not build on existing towns and stretch their resources to the limit as has happened in the "new town" Crawley where I live
Keith, UK
| Britain is suffering from an acute lack of affordable housing |
I say yes. Of course they should. Britain is suffering from an acute lack of affordable housing. If more houses are built, then surely, with more on the market, prices will drop? Of course, no doubt those whose interests lie in making as much profit from housing will say absolutely not, and trot out excuse after lame excuse, all to keep their pockets lined. If only they would build more starter homes in Kent!
Ross Allan, UK The government have clearly not tried to drive down the M1 at 8:30 in the morning.
Tony, Beds, UK
It is not about protecting green belts, all it does is scaring many people who benefited from the house prices increase. They do not want cheap houses next to their 500k house and see it come down to 'normal' value.
David, Bradford
While I understand the desperate need for new homes in the UK, I can't help feeling that money and resources would be better spent re-developing older sites and renovating existing housing that has stood empty for years. Every city in the country has spaces like this, maybe it's time to start recycling wasted housing and not just household waste?
Kaye, Leeds, UK
Planning should be in the hands of local people. We don't need Stalinist central planning, in housing or any other field
Neil, Surrey, England
The South East is too crowded, the roads and transport systems can't cope. In the early 1980s Mrs Thatcher scrapped the system that encouraged business to go to the regions. We have had more than 20 years of 'industrialisation' of the south east whilst the regions are all suffering depopulation. Will somebody please re-instate these policies and stop concreting over our green and (once) pleasant land.
Alan Goswell, Sonning Common, Oxon
Well I live in Gloucestershire, where we can still see hills and trees, so I'm all in favour of 500,000 new homes being built in the south east. Maybe it could even stop people moving out of the south east and coming down here! Great idea!
Mike, Gloucester, UK
Do we not feel that the roads are at full capacity now? Maybe we should be looking at a way to keep the motorways clear instead of adding to the congestion, as we all know an accident on one motorway usually ends up making several others come to a stand still.
Sophie, Bracknell, Berkshire
This proves that our growing population cannot cope any longer with large families and open door immigration. This is going to burden the already failing NHS, schools, pensions etc. Our countryside is shrinking because the government cannot get a grip and the losers are us.
Carole, UK
The problem we have in Milton Keynes is that they build the houses but don't bother to sort out the other essentials - the hospital can't cope with the current population, never mind adding more people needing its services. The schools can't provide places for children in their catchment area. The doctors are over loaded. If you want new housing, put the support structure in first.
Alison, Milton Keynes, England With the amount of uninhabitable housing stock existing in the UK, the government should spend cash bringing these up to a liveable standard before hacking out great chunks of our beautiful countryside.
Paul, Glasgow, Scotland
One-Minute World News 
News services
E-mail this to a friend 
Printable version 
