New housing developments also need to be built close to where people work. New commuter villages such as the development proposed in High Lane are absolutely the wrong way to address the housing problems we face.
I'm not entirely sure how you square this circle. There are multiple problems with building housing near where people work.
I speak - and can only really speak - as an office worker. I actually work from home, although if I did work from my employer's local office then I'd be working in Salford Quays. I could live in Salford Quays - be right near the office. But I have a young family and who wants to bring up a young family in an area with no decent sized supermarket, few schools, doctors etc. Yet alone lack of having any outdoor space. It's right for some - I know people who live out there - but it's not right for everyone. So where do I live to be near that office that gives me the lifestyle I want?
And what happens if and when I move job? People move jobs, no matter what they do. The job for life doesn't exist any more. Companies go grow, shrink, go bust. They relocate. Twice in my career I have been working in jobs where the employer makes a major move of its offices. Both organisations moved to offices eight or nine miles away from their previous one. The second employer was months away from another (less drastic) move before I left.
Companies move for all sorts of reasons. To consolidate their locations. To gain bigger - or smaller - premises. To get people to work for it. Although I work from home, most of my team are based in West London. We struggle to hire people because of the location. It's a pain in the backside to commute. One of my previous employers moved from West London to Central London for exactly that reason. It was easier to fill vacancies. Said company went to the extent of moving its UK HQ from Slough to Central London because it couldn't get the staff. Not enough people wanted to work - or commute to - Slough. Lots of people would commute to Central London.
Just think of all those people who did live in Slough. Who had - perhaps - moved to be near their employer. I'm talking office work here, but factories relocate. Warehouses do. It can happen in any role.
Another factor we haven't even got close to is that when people are in a relationship, it's common for both to work. The days when the husband was the breadwinner whilst the wife stayed at home and cleaned/looked after the children are gone. What do we do when couples work in completely different locations. I've never worked that close to where my partner works.
Building houses near where people work seems like a sensible idea. But it's one fraught with problems on a practical level. And that's why commuting happens. What we need are better commuting links because it's always going to be needed.
Incidentally, this seems a good point to mention why places like High Lane are likely targets for housing. There is land there. Every politician worth their salt shouts "BUILD ON BROWNFIELD FIRST!" because it's what the electorate want to hear. But what happens when the brownfield land potentially available to build housing on, will provide less than 50% of the housing you need.
Welcome to Greater Manchester's problem. In the next 20 years we need 227,200 homes. The brownfield sites identified as having options for building? That will provide 100,000 homes if all built on.
https://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/news/brownfield-register-only-meets-50-of-housing-need-says-barton-willmore/Of course the more brownfield sites we build on, the less land we have in towns for business where people can work...
Perhaps if we all suddenly stopped wanting box houses with a garden and all moved to apartment blocks instead, it could work. But somehow I don't see that happening either.
