What we need in Britain is more homes not more houses - Yorkshire Post Letters

Ever since a certain book suggested that (to paraphrase) mankind may have dominion over the earth and all creatures upon it, there has been a pervasive, subliminal thread within civilisations based on that book, that mankind could do as he likes (and most often it is 'he') without regard to his surrounding natural environment.

Through modern times, the more enlightened truth has become more widely recognised, that humankind is in fact entirely part of this planet's natural environment, completely dependent on its continued benign functioning, and to act as if there is a superiority and dominion is dangerously mistaken.

Despite the development of the concept of stewardship however, the ingrained delusion persists, its historical interpretations embedded across our economy and subconsciously within many corporate processes.

The appalling legacy of many forms of past industrial pollution, old landfill practices, and the present state of our water industry, stand as bitter testament to our past hubris - not to mention our responsibility for climate change.

Any current or new planning presumption in favour of development becomes a further example. So the Prime Minister's statement lately, that a human being wanting a house has to have priority over a balance with nature and the environment, is merely another sad, shallow manifestation.

There is too much rhetoric about building houses and not enough on creating homes. This leads to discussion around green-field versus brown, green belt versus grey, and fear of large new developments swamping local facilities.

It plays into the agenda of large-scale housing developers, who seek to profit from high volume, high spec, higher priced properties crammed cheek-by-jowl onto the least problematic sites.

Their overriding profit motive is clearly and often shown by their efforts to minimise the number of ‘affordable’ properties on their developments, often building what local communities see as the wrong houses in the wrong places.

This happens despite the definition of ‘affordable’ - related simply to local average prices - being far from realistic when compared to the actual financial resources of many young adults wanting to move on from their parental home, let alone the limited means of those sorely in need of any permanent roof over their head.

Any house built for sale on the open market is by definition not appropriate for those who can't afford it. Any house built to a higher spec than can be afforded is similarly inappropriate.

The idea that high-spec properties allow upwardly mobile families to release lower priced homes, in a 'trickle-down' fashion, is confounded by the clear evidence that the market has already failed in that respect for decades. It has not made up for the Thatcherite 'right to buy' council homes, and in any case operates far too slowly.

Meanwhile there are, in urban communities in particular, many properties standing empty in whole or part, which could be brought into use as homes without impinging on unbuilt ground. These spaces probably do not fall within the definition of 'brownfield' so may not be taken into account in present discussions.

What our society desperately needs is not more houses but more homes - a focus on full use of existing buildings with potential to repurpose as homes; work that can be done through many small-scale local trade groups as well as larger contractors, with properly targeted public financial support - so decent living accommodation can finally be provided to those many families and individuals who desperately need it.