Small Sites, Big Impact: How Hastings Can Better Address Its Housing Crisis
"Small plots can produce more ambitious targets; to better address the housing crisis, we should focus on these inefficiently used sites that offer little environmental value." Argues James Prentice - our lead researcher.
The housing crisis in Hastings is well-known; Figure 1 shows that temporary accommodation use has more than doubled in the last five years (240 – 631).
A primary cause of this is the rapid rise in housing costs, coupled with the sudden increase in the cost of living and stagnating wages. This has left increasing numbers unable to find anywhere affordable to live, making them effectively homeless.
The council is legally required to support these people, something which the BBC has demonstrated is putting Hastings Borough Council (HBC) under severe financial strain. This has left HBC buying properties at a market rate to increase its stock of temporary accommodation, costing the taxpayer millions. This is not financially sustainable, as without building social units, the housing bill will continue to grow.
However, the issue goes further than HBC’s finances. Government research has revealed that Hastings had persistent and increasing levels of poverty, with the main cause being a persistent lack of access to affordable housing that can meet people's needs. Therefore, the inability to build more affordable homes will not just continue to weaken HBC finances, but it will also ensure that relative poverty will remain stubbornly high.
With the Local Plan in the final stages of consultation, it is highly topical to discuss whether the local plan can go further and better address Hastings’ housing crisis. The debate is often framed around the argument that the geography of the town prevents further building, meaning housing demand cannot be met.
The local plan seems to have followed this logic, where it asserts that many areas of the town can’t be developed due to high density. According to a FOI response from HBC, The authority commissioned the London-based consultancy, Allies and Morrison, at £51,885k to survey the town's density in order to examine where new housing can potentially be built.
They argue that, to keep the character of the town, the only areas where a good quantity of new housing can be built are in already densely populated areas. It argues that building in less dense areas would result in a loss of environment and character.
This analysis has resulted in the plan only meeting 27% of the town’s housing needs. It asserts that only 181 homes can be built per year up to 2041. This continues the Borough’s trend of being in the top 5 worst performers among all English authorities for building new homes; see Figure 2.
Yet, is the density report right? Can the local plan not be more innovative and go further? Is it not possible to build housing to meet the town’s needs without harming the environment? If it can’t, then the town is conceding that local government finances will continue to be poor and poverty rates will remain high.
Crucially, the report fails to acknowledge that Hastings is not that densely populated. The Office for National Statistics shows that Hastings is not in the top fifth of the most densely populated local authorities, see Figure 3. Hastings is less densely populated than similar coastal communities, such as Worthing, Brighton, Southend and Blackpool, which importantly all build more houses on a annual bases than Hastings.
Importantly, the density report also misses that even within highly dense areas, the town still has small areas that can be developed to provide more housing. This is because the report used a broad approach that misses small plots with great housing potential rather than surveying the town. Therefore, the Local Plan may be missing developing smaller plots that would face less objection and better meet its housing needs.
Local research shows more ambitious targets are possible:
To prevent overlooking these potentially useful small sites not in the local plan, local researchers have identified small plots of land to generate more ambitious house-building targets. By using small, inefficiently used sites within built-up areas that hold little ecological value, more housing can be generated without damaging the environment. The purpose of this approach is to avoid building on the most controversial greenfield sites whilst also better meeting housing need.
A brief analysis of the town by local researchers indicates that using these smaller sites could provide 1,323 more additional homes beyond what the local plan identifies. Additionally, it is estimated that by filling in very small sites (less than 0.25 hectares), the town could produce another 300 sites.
As retail is not performing as strongly as it once did, spaces remain empty. By converting inefficiently used employment zones into mixed-use areas, 200 more units can be produced. Empty housing and retail units also offer great value and could increase the number of new units by 300 without sacrificing any additional environmental space. Further, the research also considers how retrofitting large empty properties can easily provide another 300 new units.
Together, the research demonstrates that by focusing on developing smaller plots, filling unused units and more efficiently using employment zones, the town can have significantly more ambitious housing targets. Collectively, this would produce 2,423 additional units currently not in the local plan to better meet the town’s housing needs. These units could house an estimated 3,300 people. If 30% of these were social or affordable (727 units housing 990 people), this would provide enough housing for all 631 households in temporary accommodation.
Without pursuing these more ambitious targets, HBC finances will continue to be consumed by housing demands. The financial and social case is clear; the Local Plan must go further by being more innovative and ambitious.
For those interested in the details behind the finding, you can read the full report.
Acknowledgement: Thanks to Ken Davis for all his useful guidance and advice on the Local Plan and housing research.
Disclaimer: This research is not commenting on any one councillor, local party or its policy regarding the Local Plan.
Date: 05.11.2026.
Comments