Emma Judd: Can you imagine favelas on Blenheim’s palatial estate?

STEVE CANAVAN: It was a lot of rattle over just a little roll

0
Have your say

It seems the housing crisis has got so bad even Blenheim Palace is flogging some of its land for new homes, or at least attempting to.

Since Portsmouth is the most densely populated place in the UK outside London we know a little bit what it’s like to live on top of one another.

For the family on that television show the moment they heard the council was taking over their accommodation they rejoiced.

But I think we’d all agree we expect a certain standard of housing.

If, like me, you watched How To Get A Council House and were horrified at some of the conditions people were living in, such as two adults and two children living in one room and sharing one double bed, you’d be forgiven for thinking it was 1915, not 2015.

Back then Britain was in the throes of the First World War, but here at home a lot of the Victorian back-to-back terrace houses thrown up after the Industrial Revolution had turned into slums.

It was only in 1915 that any kind of control was put on rent, and just a few years later in 1933 that councils were forced to make clearing the slums their main priority.

The reason for a history lesson is important: just this month a think-tank came up with the suggestion that Britain needs to recreate the slums – to remove housing regulations so builders can cram in more rooms, use cheaper but less energy-efficient materials, or rent out their houses to multiple families.

Imagine the outrage if houses like that were planned for already-controversial developments like Welborne near Fareham, or Woodstock – the Blenheim Palace estate.

Could you imagine living in a favela with three other families, sharing a communal bathroom and maybe sharing a bed?

What juxtaposition that would be if it was in the grounds of a palace – a Unesco world heritage site, in fact.

For the family on that television show the moment they heard the council was taking over their accommodation they rejoiced.

No more landlord breaking the door down at 6am.

No more living four-to-a-bed.

And perhaps the chance to live, rather than exist.

We need more housing, but not if the cost to society is too great.