Woolavington, a village under siege.

updated 07 06 2025

Proposed Developments

Woolavington is a large Somerset Village currently subject to five proposed housing developments all of which with the exception of the associated Gravity housing element have been proposed without any wider cognizance or consideration of the adjacent village and how their proposals should fit together.

Development is also a consequence of the new Bridgwater Tidal Barrier forcing development (5000 houses) that should be north of Chilton Trinity and connected to Dunball/jct 23 being forced out of Bridgwater by the failure of Sedgemoor District Council and the pursuit of environmental objectives of the EA and associated nature businesses to adequately consider the wider impacts of it’s decisions on the wider area.

Woolavington is fast becoming the perfect example of the failure to deliver any form of control or vision for the future whilst the public only gets to see individual bits of a wider picture when asked to comment. They represent the continuing failure of the UK’s housing model to provide a wide and affordable housing offer that places the UK at the bottom of Europe’s housing offer in terms of sustainability, affordability, and width of offer.

It is a house or house regardless of one’s age or circumstances.

Ignoring planning policy, that will come later when these schemes attempt to move to planning applications and best dealt with there. The present consultations seek public engagement; this post attempts to look at the wider context of some of these proposals and how they bring nothing to the host community of Woolavington.

Woolavington: planned and proposed housing and Gravity site.

Note: Some individual properties may be within but not part of the indicated wider Persimmon scheme

https://www.persimmonhomes.com/corporate/media/news/2023/plans-for-potential-woolavington-development-near-gravity-smart-campus-revealed/

Each development promotes its proximity to the Agratas Giga Factory as a factor regarding need despite a clear message within the gravity development plans that it expects people to commute in a sustainable manner even providing a railway station and cycle paths. It is worth noting that the when the Gravity site was a munitions factory employing 4000 people and the original estate had been built by the UK government on top of Woolavington Hill the workforce was bussed in from surrounding towns. No wider car ownership in those days.

These proposals also imply local jobs at Gravity. These developments are unlikely to be of interest to well paid operatives at Gravity as the houses built on these sites will invariably comply with and be built down to UK minimum housing standards. Table 1 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6123c60e8fa8f53dd1f9b04d/160519_Nationally_Described_Space_Standard.pdf

Site	Houses
Gravity	720
Persimmon	1400
East Woolavington	170
Woolavington Road ( Notaro)	85
Cossington Lane (Bloor)	150
Land at Woolavington Hill	100
Total	2625

Despite all of the housing being proposed by developers and the Wainright application 54/19/00008 lapsing no other developer is proposing to construct a new roundabout at Woolavington corner, the junction of the B3141 with the A39.

All developments except Gravity are silent regarding this increasing traffic on the unclassified roads in and out of the village and in particular the unclassified road between Woolavington and Puriton. Equally the larger proposed Persimmon development will use the same road to travel east.

Each development talks about public space, exercise on the use of bicycles etc. The usual things. The potential to link to Cossington’s cycleway on the old Somerset & Dorset permanent way ignored. Only the proposals for the Gravity site have any detail and any hope of being built as they already form part of the development agreement for the site. The other four developments including the one that has lapsed form a disjointed and disparate set of proposals that may or may not come to fruition. What we do know is there is no single guiding light behind this village might improve and benefit from these developments. It is an unfolding planning disaster.

Woolavington – Geography and Geology

It is important to understand that Woolavington is one of a series of Polden Hills villages that form a string of north facing spring line settlements from Puriton to Shapwick.

If you drive from Woolavington to Street you will notice that all the old houses are to the left and at the foot of the hills. So called because the Polden Hills ground water comes out of the ground towards the bottom of the hill. The water in the old village well on what is called the batch is usually just 1m below ground level. and can be easily checkedif so inclined . The old 1913 ordnance survey map below shows the many wells (W and P) that provided drinking water. These wells are shallow and receive their water from the near surface ground water within the lias rock that makes up the Polden Hills. The relevance of this geology and groundwater migration will become apparent later.

Section looking west through Woolavington Hill and how the village developed.

1913 OS Map of Woolavington

“P” means a well under and “W” means a well.

Drainage

Woolavington lies on the north facing slope presently rapidly drains to the Levels below with water courses rarely holding water. As such there is little standing water.

The current proposals propose to use the SUDs system of ponds/pit to attenuate flows will change this as these ponds really do not work with any degree of speed resulting in

The contamination of the groundwater including multiple poisonous and harmful substances. Previous research by the Environment Agency and highways England identified copper, zinc, cadmium, fluoranthene, pyrene and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (Ref: Highway runoff and the water environment; May 2024) https://www.stormwatershepherds.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Highway-runoff-and-the-water-environment-report-combined-LR.pdf
The creation of stagnant water suitable for the breeding of mosquitoes that now carry many dieases new to the UK. This risk could be attenuated by discharging to the Levels albeit with the consquence oof loweing grownd water levels. It is a complicated balance that developers and the LA simply ignored having been pemitted on application 54/119/00008 https://ukhsa.blog.gov.uk/2023/12/11/health-effects-of-climate-change-the-health-threat-from-vector-borne-diseases/

This type of housing is a singularly unpleasant way of degrading the environment notwithstanding now the construction of these houses involving the cutting into the underlying rock to form foundations and drains will invariably release large amounts of surface water and as a consquence lower the existing groundwater with the detrimental effects on the habitat on the hills side. However a small crumb of comfort is Condition 16 of planning application 54/19/00008 that seemingly makes residents of developments responsible for their drainage system if implemented on these new schemes creating a path for reparations to those impacted by the developers use of pits rather than the alternative of direct discharge of runoff to the Levels.

Large amounts of surface water running on the road are already a problem in Woolavington on these proposals what scene designed to make the situation worse. It is difficult not to appreciate the irony a statement such as net biodiversity gain when the development model is likely to have a far wider negative impact beyond the boundary of these developments.

Woolavington planning applications and consultations.

Map of Woolavington showing house building consultations east of the B3141

Cossington Lane

Consultation Bloor Homes – Land at Cossington Lane

Bloor homes propose to build 150 houses on top of Woolavington Hill and suggests that this development will provide worker accommodation for the nearby Agratas giga factory presently under construction at Puriton.

As a proposal it does not reflect the needs of the village. With an older population there is a considerable need to downsize that would free up houses that this scheme and others purports to address. 150 homes could be provided by 4 to 5 apartment blocks rather than 150 unneeded houses.

Highways

Access to the development will be from the unclassified road between Woolavington and Cossington. The proposal neglects to mention that in order to reach the Giga factory from this site drivers will invariably take the shortest route and that is the unclassified road between Woolavington and Puriton. This road will also be used by people living on Gravity’s 725 housing units on the Gravity site, the 1400 units on the planned Persimmon site and the 170 houses on the Woolavington East site Weather where traffic from the northern part of that development will seek to cross the B3141.

Following the lapse of planning consent 54/19/00008 the requirement for modifying the junction between the B3141 and the A39 should be placed on this development or the East Woolavington site depending on which site comes first if both were permitted.

Landscape

With climate change any drainage system within the village should discharge the full volume immediately to the Somerset Levels. The vague suggestion of discharge into a watercourse that has no description and might be assumed to be nothing more than an open soak away discharging highway run off into the groundwater is unacceptable. All highway runoff should be fully treated to remove the chemicals before being allowed to enter water courses and invariably contaminate the groundwater below.

East Woolavington

https://woolavingtonhill-consultation.com/the-proposals

This is a land promoter’s speculative proposed development of 170 dwellings on 2 fields of around 8.4 Ha (21 Acres) to the east of Woolavington Hill seeks to create a single development crossing the main agriculture route, Combe Lane, that connects Woolavington and Cossington Levels through the northern part of the development. It seeks to gain access to the B3141 via two substandard road junctions.

It is a proposal that has been put together with no consultation with the local industry adjacent to it and who will be negatively impacted should it be permitted. It represents the worst of all approaches to development that rather than work with peopleand preserve rural employment it chooses to run roughshod over their interests and threaten their livelihoods through the invariable conflict between homeowners and employment centres. The public consultation appears to be little more that a way to get the public to do the work the proposers agents should have completed before going public with its consultation.

As a proposal it does not reflect the needs of the village. With an older population there is a considerable need to downsize that would free up houses that this scheme and others purports to address. 170 homes could be provided by 4 to 5 apartment blocks rather than 170 unneeded houses and have minimal impact on the environment.

It makes the statements about EV’s yet the population is ageing and by 2050 30% of our population will be over 65 on reduced incomes whilst the impacts of AI will have further reduced the ability of people through unemployment to own and operate a vehicle of any kind. Just imagine that this development and the others imagine that in order to live in a home they must purchase maintain operate and drive a vehicle all funded from a pension regardless of their age and circumstances. This development does not even allow for bus to go through it. It is a fantasy based on the assumption that the near future will look like the recent past when clearly that is not possible. The statements based on information from the ONS and other reputable sources indicate that they are incorrect.

Statements about decarbonising are made. It is simply not possible to decarbonise any car-based housing development where each dwelling will create on average 1.2 additional cars increasing embodied carbon and having high annual operational carbon due to the need to drive everywhere. The geology is such is that there will be massive over break when excavating foundations increasing the volumes of embodied carbon. Almost none of the statements in this consultation stands up to scrutiny or are explained in any detail.

Building this type of housing in a village and pretending it is sustainable is simply not credible. There is nothing sustainable about car dependent low rise housing.

North Section

Housing

The developer seeks to construct lower density housing (15) at the North End of the North field. This housing will back directly onto the industrial site and will invariably bring into conflict the occupants of these houses and the industrial activity of the joinery works to the west. Previous applications for housing in this area have taken cognizance of these industrial processes and been refused.

Road Access

The developer proposes a new access into Vicarage Rd (5) that obstructs and interferes with the operations of the adjoining joinery works. Vicarage Rd is an unclassified road that exits onto Woolavington Hill (B3141) where visibility is particularly bad. The road is also too narrow and the gradients from the B3141 junction exceeding good practise and there is insufficient width to satisfy highway requirements. The developer has shown no enthusiasm to improve the road or more importantly improve the junction with the B3141. It seems that no land has been aquired or is under the control of the propmoter to permit the construction of a safe access.

Landscape

The developer suggests that the use of attenuation basins at low points with parcels designed for biodiversity net gain is a way forward. This area is already prone to flooding with runoff leaving the field and eventually discharging to the levels via School Lane and Reeds Drove. This proposal will invariably pollute the existing groundwater and the many local wells. It will also create standing water suitable for the breeding of mosquitoes due to climate change are becoming more prolific in the UK and now carrying a number of dangerous diseases. With climate change any drainage system within the village should discharge the full volume immediately to the Somerset levels that starts at the bottom of Reed Drove.

South Section

Road Access

The developer proposes an equally poor solution to the B3141 that doesn’t comply with Highway Standards. It seems that no land has been aquired or is under the control of the propmoter to permit the construction of a safe access.

Landscape

This proposal will invariably pollute the existing groundwater and the many local wells. It will also create standing water suitable for the breeding of mosquitoes due to climate change are becoming more prolific in the UK and now carrying a number of dangerous diseases. This proposal will fundamentally change the environment for the existing people within the village and those who might occupy the development. Clearly there is no investigation work regarding the geology of the site because the proposal would understand but the use of Suds as proposed is neither sustainable or to be encouraged.

Directly to the north active springs continuously discharge ground water through existing properties to the north of the south section,

The surface wate drainage system should discharge the full volume from this part of the site immediately to the Somerset levels via Woolavington Hill.

Land off Woolavington Road

Consulation can be found at https://your-views.co.uk/woolavingtonrd/#firstPage

85 Houses off Woolavington Road

Road Access.

85 houses accessing an unclassified road (Woolavington Road/Higher Road) that all the the other promoted developments described here will used for primary access to work, shops (Woolavington COOP) and school. The only redeeming feature of this location will be that people can walk to the doctors surgery.

Drainage

The use of open drainage basins suggested to deal with stormwater. No investigative work has been done that would confirm the unsuitability of this situation. It is unfortunate that the promoter has already used this strategy at Puriton/

Summary

None of the proposals described produce a coherent and compelling reasons to come forward and the lack of any joined up thinking simply exacerbates the problem.

As someone with a interest in seeing Woolavington prosper it seems the village is destined to become a large poorly connected sink housing estate slowly poisoning the environment and habitat that will invariably fail to deliver what an ageing and poorer population needs.

13/07/202430/08/2024

Housing Crisis what Crisis?

There cannot be a crisis because if there was we would be doing something different because that is what a crisis demands.

The UK has a manufactured housing shortage. Building houses caused it. Building more houses won’t solve it. This is because unlike Europe and other advanced nations the UK to all extents and purposes exclusively builds low rise car dependent houses colloquially known as “single family homes”. Built exclusively for the ambulant car owning sector of the population. It is a narrow housing offer based on a post war Boomer demand that is now over. However sufficient demand exists as much of our existing 26M houses is blocked by ageing Boomers with no realistic option to move somewhere more appropriate and stay within their community.

Some Background

Demographics, technology and the desire/ need for non car dependent lifestyle is ignored by UK politicians and developers alike. In Europe apartments make up 40 -60% of homes. It is probably no accident that the countries now struggling the most are those with a similar car-based low rise housing model. US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Countries wedded to the idea of the shortcake house with a lawn back and front.

It should not be a surprise that advanced states such as Germany, New Zealand and California are squeezing out houses and in Germany even considering banning them. Yet in the UK we trumpet and pursue this form of housing seemingly happy to be the world’s worst outlier in terms of housing. No state is as bad as the UK. No state so self-disillusioned to believe that its housing offer is the right one. No state happier pouring mindless volumes of concrete into the ground. No state placing ever greater demands on the future generation when its then smaller tax base will struggle even more than it does today. It is not as if we don’t have a choice. We do but seemingly don’t care about the future just today. Politicians gullibly support national house builders and fail to ask them why we have ended up where we have.

With a new government seemingly devoted to nett zero we have now arrived at The UK Housing Paradox.

“Pursuing Nett Zero whilst choosing to build Europe’s least sustainable housing (2x the EU average embodied carbon) that maximises embodied and operational carbon, transport poverty and car ownership.”

If there wasn’t choice maybe there could be some justification but there is and there isn’t.

Houses (Single Family Units)

Houses are expensive and even the UK’s smallest and cheapest is expensive compared to an apartment not withstanding that every house requires a piece of road in front of it. The UK ones are appallingly expensive, appallingly small and of equally appalling quality.

Apartment blocks need much less infrastructure in terms of highway, services, drains than houses. It is little wonder that not only are UK houses more expensive they have 2X the embodied carbon of the average EU Home. Houses generate more CO2 than apartments as the graph below shows.

What is clear that whilst other countries developed and broadened their housing offer the UK housing offer remained with a few noticeable city exceptions at 2 story’s. Medium rise (5 – 10 story) housing makes up between 40-60% of European countries housing offer. Affordable housing where a car was not necessary to live there. If you can afford a car you dont need affordable housing. A client recently noted that it was easy to spot UK affordable homes as they were the ones with new or expensive cars on the driveways.

Historically UK the housing model was largely the invention of London’s railway companies who invented the suburb. Expanses of low-density low-rise identikit houses. The result is that London has a population density less than half that of Paris. It was a model followed post WW2 and suited the Boomer generation and did not require skill or planning do deliver it and most importantly the least working capital. It fitted the British anti investment mentality. The pattern was set for the problem we have today.

Why didn’t it change?

About 40 years ago a property developer and fellow college student explained that what the UK builds is the most profitable for the developer (why would you build something that wasn’t?). Even a terrace is avoided.

The reasons are simply and solely for the benefit of the developer.

It requires the least amount of working capital to develop a site. Apartment block and terraces needed to be finished before sales are completed. A house requires far less money before the investment is recovered.
Production of houses can be adjusted to suit changing market conditions. The procurement system allows work to be stopped and started as required.
Sites need to last 3-5 years whilst the next one is brought online; the sales/build rate is throttled by price adjustment to ensure that presence is continually maintained.
It is a low-tech winning formula that makes money.
There is almost no product liability associated with individual houses.

The result is houses. Lots of houses and little else. A sea of houses best summed up by an Italian colleague who on first seeing a UK housing estate remarked. “so many buildings so few people”. Houses are built only for profit and a narrow customer band. Developers are simply mining a diminishing market leaving people trapped in the houses they have previousl built over the last generation or two. It is little wonder that housing developments that offer nothing for the local population are so ardently resisted.

Two graphics below that both compare the UK with Europe illustrate the problem.

The first is from the Financial Times using ONS data on housing.

The one below the FT graphic is from the 2020 BRE report on UK housing stock https://files.bregroup.com/bretrust/The-Housing-Stock-of-the-United-Kingdom_Report_BRE-Trust.pdf section 5

The simple fact is that Europe has a wider housing offer with a lower financial entry level that is cheaper, faster and more sustainable to build. It is not a difficult correlation to make that countries with a higher proportion of apartments have less of a housing shortage. Our “only houses” offer is the problem. Building more of a failed solution is not going to fix the shortage.

Instead, we Brits satisfy “The definition of insanity is doing the same experiment and expecting different results.” ― Albert Einstein where we continue to perpetuate the construction of expensive carbon max (2X European average) pokiest housing where you have to own a car to live there.

The consequence of the narrow UK housing offer is that

We have a shortage of affordable housing. It is madness to build affordable housing that still requires the occupant to commit 25% of their gross income to owning a car. Affordable cars that with will disappear with the last petrol and diesel cars (circa 2040) a mere 15 years away.
It encourages house blocking compared to first world countries like Europe where there are generational options through life. There is no obvious progression from house to non-car dependent spacious apartment. We need housing close to established transport and amenity hubs and where no new infrastructure is required. Reusing existing embodied carbon economically and climate wise is the obvious best option. Yet we build the opposite. We could do it but we choose not to because those solutions rightly dont provide the maximum profits.
The idiocy of the UK solution is the constant need to build schools as the older population blocks housing in school catchments. Converted schools litter the countryside.
The average UK house has 1.2 cars per household. About 10T of embodied carbon plus operational carbon per house.
The need for avoidable roads. Roads that use oil-based binders to create the surface. There is no credible alternative yet in sight. Will we return to cobbled roads and pavements?
Income that could be diverted to jobs, diet, a healthy lifestyle and maintaining the economy of our high streets is instead used to pay for power, car insurance and loans. As an example, the cost of running a UK car is around £4K per annum, £5k before tax. If 1M non car dependent homes were built this would potentially release £5B a year into local economies notwithstanding the reduced demand on the NHS that a better lifestyle and greater disposable income would bring.

Houses won’t solve the housing problem because

Changing demographics, old people don’t drive or do stairs.
People want or can only afford car free lives.
Nimbyism. They meet planning resistance because nobody sees the benefit. It just more of the same.
Housing estates require new roads and infrastructure before house construction can start.

A thought:

The UK has 26M largely car dependent houses. Many of those built after WW2 and before 1976 are low quality and vulnerable to climate change. Between 1946 and 1979, a total of 5,804,150 houses were built in the UK.

Cornish Type 1 – worth keeping? No.

Observe the sagging ridge lines and know about the shallow foundations and well documented floor defects of these houses and bungalows and we know they are well past their design lives. The original TRADA roofs designed for light clay tiles are simply not up to the addition of PV (solar panels and insulation) let alone retiled with concrete tiles. A perverse action undertaken by many authorites where perfectly good clay tiles are replaced with concrete tiles. The recovered clay tiles then recycled to new expensive 3 and 4 bed houses.

It is irrational to try and improve such old buildings. The argument for improvement rather than a wider holistic consideration of housing in the move to nett zero seems vested in self-interests. Academic support of improvement of the existing housing stock ensures the perpetuation of the greenfield development model. We apply ridiculous values to the minimal embodied carbon of these houses and bungalows whilst building carbon intensive roads and bridges and massive concrete foundations under houses whilst the superstructures decrease in weight.

What these old buildings do have is roads and infrastructure. Usually within 1 or 2 km of the nearest amenity and transport hub. Built and ready to go. These houses and bungalows represent land that could be rapidly exploited. Require little planning effort and exploit the changing trends of demographics and society.

No complicated 106 agreements needed when the development consists of 4 or 5 properties assembled by the owners. 5 homes become 30 in 6 months. Why the owners? Because with £5.5T about to move generations as the Boomers die out why not harness that money with an inheritance tax concession that gives the whole country a stake in the solution rather than housebuilders shareholders.

How many homes do we need?

The UK estimates that we need 300,000 homes a year. That is 3M for the next 10 years.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/new-homes-fact-sheet-1-the-need-for-homes/fact-sheet-1-the-need-for-homes

Climate Migration

In addition to our normal housing demand, we might expect to see a further 30M MENA climate migrants (400M are running out of food water there) come to the UK. In order to house our population, we probably need around 15M homes. 30 to 40% wont drive.

Personal Transport

As we become too old and too poor to drive options like Zoox autonomous cars will become the affordable pay as you go transport of choice. It will drive the change that should already be happening.

https://zoox.com

Nimby verses Yimby

This apparent conflict is simply the result of the narrow UK housing offer.

There are two misconceptions in this artifical war.

1) A bunch of old people hold up the provision of new homes is perhaps the greatest misrepresentation of the housing industry. It is simply not true. The houses the Yimbys want and need already exist. What doesn’t exist is the route for the older parts of our society to get out of them and make them available whilst remaining in their communities.

2) Developers are some sort of benevolent altruistic organisations trying to solve the housing shortage. They are not. The shortage of affordable housing has been manufactured by the UK industry in order to maximise demand for the most profitable product – the 3 and 4 bedroom house.

The trick to freeing up housing in a community is not to build for the young but for the older increasing segment of society and those who would live car free lifestyles. The migration of the house blockers would provide the homes the Yimbys want.

What developers get from this conflict is to build more unnecessary but profitable 3 and 4 bed houses with government clearing away dissenters.

Rural Housing

There can be nothing more entitled than the demand for rural housing.

In the UK there is almost no need for anyone to live in the country. Across Europe we have seen the countryside empty. Not so the UK where it is nothing but a lifestyle choice; one that is subsidised by the urban population many of who are less well off than those that now live in the countryside. A situation that has reversed in the last 50 years due to the availability cheap of fuel and cars. A situation coming to an end and time for the countryside to return to its industrial agricultural use and become once again somewhere to escape from rather than a theme park to escape to.

Why subsidised? So called rural dwellers pay the same for utilities, water, they drive farther and have greater operational carbon footprints. How is it possible that a rubbish bin costs the same to empty in a village than a city estate? It is not possible.

Not only is rural housing environmentally and carbon wise the worst housing solution but Governments that seeks nett zero support this worst housing of all with additional financial support. Rural Housing maximises embodied, operational carbon and transport poverty. It seems to have missed the policy makers attention that universal car ownership will fall dramatically and many lifestyles dependent on cheap cars will no longer be viable. Politicians need to travel beyond the M25 occasionally.

A solution

Most countries dont see houses as a solution and neither should we. We need to stop building houses, increase the density of our population and not continue to build what amounts to some form of future open prison as demographics, migration and decreasing car ownership reshapes society.

https://www.refire-online.com/markets/single-family-homes-are-they-on-the-way-out

Replacing 3M of our substandard houses each with 6 apartments would generate the housing we need. Avoid 3M upgrade costs and create +15M new homes. This would save around 23,000 Km of new roads. 36M Tons of embodied carbon. It would create a fair and more inclusive society, yet no politician seems able to grasp simple demographics.

Imagine

15M homes (apartments) that would not require a greenfield site to be used or a new road to be built. It would reinvigorate our high streets using disposable income from carbon saving focused on local businesses.

15M apartments that would still leave the UK almost at the bottom of the EU table where the ratio of apartments to houses is concerned

23/01/202205/06/2025

UK Housing is not fit for the future.

The Assumption

There is a famous saying “Never ASSUME, because when you ASSUME, you make an ass of you and me.” Today there seems to be an assumption that the near future will look the same as the recent past. Electric vehicles will simply replace petrol and diesel ones and life will carry on as before. It is an assumption that is about to make an ass out of all of us. If nothing else the last 15 months of living with Covid-19 has shown us how quickly things can change when it’s necessary.

Current UK housing assumes car ownership. Today to own or occupy a house you need to own or have access to a car. This is especially true as our ever-spreading sprawling housing estates move us ever more distant from the facilities we need for everyday life. This is an assumption that does not stand up to examination because three things are now driving change that will see car ownership plummet and with it the desirability of estate and rural living.

1. Our Ageing Population

The Office of National Statistics estimates that over the next 50 years another 12.5m people will be over 65. This will reduce the number of drivers / car owners

UK housing is simply not suitable to grow old in. The UK has some of the smallest homes in the world. There is no room to fall or live with a wheelchair. As more boomers consider downsizing they will come to the conclusion that the new houses on offer isn’t a viable option for an ageing population. Consider how that small compact en-suite becomes a death trap as you move into old age or become in-firmed. The next time you sit on the toilet ask yourself “if you collapsed could someone get into to help you?”. Could a carer help you? The answer is invariably No. Inward opening doors will kill you. Check out if installing a stair lift is a viable option to delay your incarceration in the prison of your children’s choice.

2. Climate Change

Decarbonisation of the economy will reduce car ownership because

The end of new petrol and diesel cars (2030) will see demand for fuel decline. This decline will cause the cost of fuel to go up as refining of hydrocarbons needs volume to be profitable. Availability will go down as multiple fuel stations have insufficient throughput to survive; many are already more convenience store than petrol station. It will simple become too expensive to run the last traditional car that will probably have all but disappeared from our roads by 2045. The average lifespan of a UK car is 15 years.

We have all seen that new EV’s aren’t cheap. The battery is the expensive bit and at present lasts about 10 years (no doubt they will last longer as technology improves). Today a ten or even a fifteen year old car provides an economic and viable transport option for many people. In the future that affordable option will not exist as the cost of replacing the EV’s battery is almost the same as a new car. Low-income households running multiple older cars will simple not be able to afford to rely on the continuing availability of a steady stream of affordable used cars. Transport poverty will now drive the choice of homes we buy.

3. AI technologies

In the coming decade(s) AI technologies will take many of the jobs of those of working age. Autonomous trucks don’t just replace drivers but reduce the number of trucks by around 40% as they will now run 24 a day and not on the drivers legal hours. These trucks don’t need truck stops for food and rest. All those support jobs will go. Similar job loses can be expected in the legal, medical and construction industries. The resulting drop in household and UK PLC incomes as well as fewer commuters as people increasingly work from home we will see car ownership and the number of new cars decline significantly.

Self-driving AI cars that can be rented by the hour will provide a halfway house between car and no car. Call the car and it will turn up and take you to your destination. It’s a Pay as you Go solution and when compared to the annual cost of around £5k to run a small car you can do a lot of trips for £5K. Car ownership will plummet. Zoox.com will lead the way.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that climate change, demographics and technology will bring to an end the traditional British housing estate not because people won’t want them. As a viable living space they will simply be increasingly socially and economically unaffordable.

Tipping Point

There is a tipping point coming where multiple elements of our society will find themselves living in the wrong place, the wrong house and without accessible affordable transport. Too far from a bus route. Too old to drive and personal cars too expensive with the limited disposable income we will be left with a few uncomfortable options;

Own the sort of EV’s that dominates China, a car little bigger than a large mobility scooter.

Live in increasing isolation where leaving the house becomes an increasing rare treat. Only Amazon and your food delivery company will know you are alive. Your house will have become unsaleable as all those groups with transport poverty realise that your private house is just not worth it.

Or find a solution

The Solution

The UK is addicted to low rise housing and has demonised apartments whist accepting ever smaller houses. It’s no different than chocolate bars where the price remains constant but the product continues to get smaller. Admitting the situation is the first stage of recovery to any addiction. Shrinking houses have barely improved in 40 years. In comparison simply look at a 40 year old car and today’s offer from a car manufacturer. The difference is stark, not so UK housing.

Recognising the inadequacy of the UK housing offer and understanding the new drivers is the first stage of delivering the change needed to meet the challenges we face.

Affordability

Affordability will no longer be just about the cost of the house and most other costs being equal but the cost of living at your address will be impacted by transport costs. We will find that the proximity to a fixed bus route, safe cycleway or simply being within walking distance of frequent destinations that negates the need for a car will become the key selection criteria.

People need to retain more of their disposable income. Increasing disposal income will improve our desperate high streets and let us lead better lives.

Other solutions such as autonmous cars such abeing developed by Zoox will provide a viable alternatives to personal cars.

Energy costs.

Houses and bungalows compared to apartments and flats are inefficient energy wise. Developers don’t even offer a solar system to heat a daily tank of water.

Size

UK housing is too small for an anyone other than the smallest household unit. We need to increase the size of apartment and balconies where the benefits of single level living can allow people to live safely and independently longer.

Location

The assumption that home owners are also car owners will go. The reality is that we need to be with a mile or so from towns and shops. The ability to walk, cycle or indeed use a mobility scooter offers the least cost solution and greater disposable income and ultimately a better quality of life.

It’s now time to stop building out and start building up.

It doesn’t have to be sky scraper but it does need

1) a lift to allow the elderly and young families with young children to use the upper floors

2) a large balcony where its possible to sit , grow plants and entertain.

3) to be of a decent size where a couple who use wheel chairs can function with dignity.