The butcher, the baker and the idealists

In the fifties, labour housing secretary Aneurin Bevan dreamed of recreating "the living tapestry of a mixed community" where "the doctor, the grocer, the butcher and the farm labourer all lived in the same street". The whole New Towns programme was based on the creation of "self contained and balanced communities".

This ideal is engrained in government housing and regeneration policy today and is at the heart of PPG3: Housing. To quote some key phrases from PPG3's first two paragraphs: "Housing should not reinforce social distinctions. The housing needs of all those in the community should be recognised, including those in need of affordable or special housing in both urban and rural areas … Local planning authorities should … provide wider housing opportunity and a better mix in the size, type and location of housing than is currently available, and seek to create mixed communities."

The fall from Bevan
PPG3 is most commonly used for negotiating some affordable housing in market schemes proposed by private housebuilders, but the ramifications are much wider.

In many rural settlements, the Bevan idyll has long since been eclipsed by wealthy commuters, second homeowners and the right to buy. The provision of social or affordable housing will be key to restoring social balance.

Conversely, in metropolitan pockets recently targeted for market renewal – where social housing estates are patently not of a quality and type in which people want to live – it may prove critical to stimulate market demand by redeveloping patches of private housing.

This is not merely a matter of tenure but of density and land use. Two thirds of Bristol's most deprived wards are in the worst half of the UK's most deprived wards; almost all of this deprivation is concentrated in post-1945 purpose-built housing estates.

The common, and only slowly changing, characteristics of these estates are low density and little diversity in land use, with employment opportunities and local amenities notably lacking.

The simplest argument for mixed communities is economic: income mix is vital for supporting local business

Important practical points are emerging in the application of PPG3 policies. Affordable housing targets of 50% and 100% affordable housing schemes on relatively small brownfield sites spread throughout urban areas are likely to blend in relatively easily with existing communities.

Devon goes too far
On the other hand, authorities in Devon that are proposing targets of up to 70% affordable housing, including up to 40% social housing, on large-scale greenfield developments are running the risk of creating the ghettos of tomorrow. They are already meeting opposition from RSLs and developers.

There is also the question of how affordable housing is fitted into schemes. Housebuilders have tended towards separation rather than pepperpotting. Some RSLs have tended towards separation on management grounds, but a consensus seems to be emerging that groups of no more than 10 dwellings should be encouraged.

The push towards high-quality permeable layouts is making seamless integration of affordable housing a design issue. The Poundbury and Caterham Barracks projects are excellent examples.

The simplest argument for mixed communities is economic: income mix is vital in supporting local amenities, business and the physical environment. But issues of wider social cohesion are grounded in the networks and opportunities that can be created.

Not too much should be expected of mixed communities. People may live side by side but they will not necessarily mix. Although evolving research shows that there are important intangible benefits to living among different types of people, the tangible benefits are often relatively prosaic.