When a house is taken out of use it needs replacing if a community is to sustain itself. If a community is expanding then additional housing is required. We are in a situation where failing to legislate against second home ownership and a failure to build public housing is creating the scenario where large scale development may seem attractive.
Can a community build its way out of trouble? It creates jobs, (for a short while) a few meanly built affordable homes are sometimes thrown in to pacify opposition, but does it solve or add to community problems? Are they building a post office, a pub, hotels, shops, a school or an additional medical centre? How about things this community requires at this moment like a waste-transfer site with decent access? Doubt it.
If there aren’t restrictions or conditions placed on who can own new housing then how is this helping? If new buildings are not designated as “principle residences” they should definitely be opposed. Houses that stand empty in the heart of a community will stop its heart beating sooner or later.
If 20% of housing in West Dorset is unoccupied and there are 2700 households (families not individuals) registered for social housing then some enlightened “management” of existing stock (private and public) is required. Much of West Dorset is currently “unspoilt”. There is additional pressure, with AONB, SSSI or greenbelt issues putting the price of any available land at a premium. Any development needs rigorous consideration before approval, not just of quantity but quality of the environment it replaces.
Holiday lettings and second home ownership ratchets up the price of private and rental residences. Where housing is scarce, owning an unoccupied house is an unacceptable luxury; it is deeply antisocial. If this practise was heavily taxed, to create funds for replacement housing, it is arguable that no large scale building work would be necessary, as many owners would be encouraged to sell up, creating potential for those with no homes. This could be achieved with the stroke of a pen, without a single brick being laid.
High rents create a need for housing supplements through benefits. Our local authorities tell us they are desperate for our cash through on street parking etc. – to pay for their much-needed new multi-million pound offices. The developer at Vearse farm is presumably after a profit. If such a development goes ahead, clumsily, greedily, self-serving and offering nothing useful to the community, why should it be approved? What is in it for Bridport?
Sean Geraghty
