When I fly into Gatwick airport over southern England, the overall impression is the colour green. It is a delightful sight and contrary to those who believe that the United Kingdom has become covered in ‘concrete’.

The amount of land which is built on as buildings, or built over as roads and infrastructure, is about 7% of the total land area of the United Kingdom. Naturally, most of 93% unbuilt on land, is not going to be where there is the greatest demand for new developments, particularly housing.

We know that successive governments for the last few decades have failed to make sure that sufficient new houses have met the demand. The planning process has had to change in the last few years to have good reason to deny planning permission for new housing projects.

Today there was a news story that a million new houses are to be built on green belt land, and that only 30 % of these will be affordable housing. This naturally raises the question, why on the green belt? The Campaign for Rural England argue that there are already enough brown field sites for this number of houses. The counter argument is that these are in the wrong places, away from where there is work.

Strategically this empowers governments to encourage new businesses where there is already housing and an infrastructure to support the housing. This would mean creating what is envisaged as a ‘Northern Power House’. And yet we also saw on the news that the rail infrastructure in the northern cities is woefully inadequate. This in the shadow of the concept of high speed trains between London and the Midlands and north of England for which the huge cost is apparently, no problem. Yes, there is money for ‘glamorous’ high profile projects like HS2, but the  slow internet speeds in many parts of the country and strangling any economic growth.

So people come to the south of England to find work and somewhere to live. Hence the demand for new houses on green belt land.

Personally, I don’t think it is so damaging to the environment to build on the least attractive and bio-diverse areas of the green belt. But this will always be in someone’s back yard and a dog walkers paradise, so good luck persuading locals!

I also don’t mind if most of the houses are detached three and four bedders for middle managers and their families. They will be moving out of smaller, cheaper houses and providing opportunities to buy at the bottom of the housing ladder.

What does concern me is the idea that people have to live in houses. Let me explain. After the second world war there was a desperate housing shortage. The solution was to build temporary homes called ‘pre-fabs’. These cold, leaky buildings still tended by loving owners in a few places – although they were only ever intended to last ten years. If you go to many of the estuaries on the south coast, to harbours like Shoreham, you will see people still living in various weird houseboats, including, MTB’s or motor torpedo boats. They are warm and dry – being built to marine standards.

I therefore suggest that the government act in a similar way to post war governments, that is to solve the housing crisis, not with more of the same – but with innovation.

I see no reason why the large areas of fresh water in southern England cannot be used to house new communities. Floating houses are not a new idea and provide cheap places to live that are the envy of many a resident of a soul-less housing estate.

Firstly you don’t need land. That’s obvious. However since the land is about one third of the price of a new building, you can see where the main saving comes from. The floating house can be made for between thirty and and sixty thousand pounds. There will need to be strict environmental rules for boats on reservoirs and waterways, but this is not impossible.

Southern England is criss crossed with 19century canals that are either dry, overgrown or disused. They would make excellent moorings for floating houses, once restored and re-filled. Canal societies, such as the Wey and Arun Canal Preservation Society, are already doing this job for governments, at no cost.

At a time of climate change it is likely that the south of England will become desperate for more reservoirs, and floating homes are a complimentary reason to create them.

Floating homes are innovative but not weird. They can provide high levels of comfort and a proximity to an attractive environment that is the envy ‘land lubbers’. The effect of creating as many floating homes as it is possible to build will provide a temporary respite to the housing crisis; no demand to build on the green belt and 100% affordable housing, built in factories quickly to fix an immediate problem now, not in a few years time.

So whilst the country sorts itself out, in twenty years time floating home residents can be moved on into ‘normal’ houses. I suspect that they won’t want to move.