large developments of homes - who should design it.

slowbike

We have, near us, a proposed development of >50 homes & token gesture "business units" on a brownfield site - in a village.

Looking at the planning proposal, the developers have put a lot of effort into this. Yet they're proposing something more akin to town density housing and 3 storey houses (bedroom & ensuite in the roof space). As per all new developments, space is pretty much all used up by predefined areas - it's either a house, flat or designated "green space" planted up with specific trees/bushes & with bench/childrens play area ...

All looks great ... until you actually look at what they're proposing - it's akin to their other developments which are all a bit dominating and enclosed.

Then you think what they're trying to achieve - well, as with any company - they're trying to maximise their profits - I'd say they've got very little interest in the area and what it's required. They put in plans that push up to the legal boundaries of the law and challenge neighbourhood plans. I can understand why - if they put in the least number of properties then their profits would be gone.

But - it does make me wonder if "large developments" shouldn't be designed by developers - or at least, the requirements for the plot shouldn't be - it should be set by the parish councils - for X number of homes, comprising of these types of properties with Y number of on/off street parking etc etc ... then a number of developers could be asked to tender for the building rights.
At least then we'd stop wasting time with unrealistic developments and actually get developments that the residents of the area would like to see there.

rjsterry

Planning policy is set at county, district or borough council level. There will be requirements set out in planning policies, which the proposals will have been checked against as part of the planning application process. There is a bigger debate about the quality of those policies and the standard of assessment of applications - what with an awful lot of very mediocre stuff being built and yet it being remarkably difficult to get consent for anything of quality.

The developer will probably have consulted local bodies to some degree but the idea that completely unqualified people should design major development is... um... well I suppose we have had enough of experts.

If residents want to get involved, they could contribute to the development of the planning policies as these come up for regular review and consultation, but generally people can't be arsed until they decide they don't like something. By which time it is too late.

dinyull

Working in this field....

In an ideal world, you'd have an LVIA undertaken by a Landscape Architect who also takes on the masterplan (I would say that). This will be sympathetic to local planning conditions and surrounding area and any planners comments taken on board.

What tends to happen is a Architect/ Urban Designerwill masterplan the site going against the LVIA and squeezes in as many (usually 4/ 5 bed) houses as possible to appease land owner/ developer. Local Planning Departments that are understaffed allow things through the cracks as they can't or won't police.

dinyull

Dinyull wrote:

Working in this field....

In an ideal world, you'd have an LVIA undertaken by a Landscape Architect who also takes on the masterplan (I would say that). This will be sympathetic to local planning conditions and surrounding area and any planners comments taken on board.

What tends to happen is a Architect/ Urban Designerwill masterplan the site going against the LVIA and squeezes in as many (usually 4/ 5 bed) houses as possible to appease land owner/ developer. Local Planning Departments that are understaffed allow things through the cracks as they can't or won't police.

I should add. Even in the first of those 2 possibilities, house builders/ land owners will still go against what is agreed in planning and squeeze as many houses in as possible.

pblakeney

You think housing developments are about houses? How quaint.
They are about profit. End of.

Vino'sGhost

PBlakeney wrote:

You think housing developments are about houses? How quaint.
They are about profit. End of.

This.

And my experience is local authorities are not interested in and in any case, ill equiped to manage the environment properly. Furthermore they don't hire the brightest and the best, and consequently they don't have the intellectual rigour or capacity for much at all.

slowbike

PBlakeney wrote:

You think housing developments are about houses? How quaint.
They are about profit. End of.

Oh - I know it's all about profit ...

standing talking to the developers during a "public consultation" - being told that the distance is "greater than the legal minimum" ... yes - it is, by 1 meter - and totally ignores the fact that a) the property being proposed is situated higher than the adjacent property and b) they're building it higher as it's 3 storeys ...

No - I don't think you can design by committee - because, quite frankly - most of us wouldn't know where to start with designing a home ...

However, I do think that perhaps the local council (parish at this level) should have a massive input into the quantity and type of housing provided in a development - and that should override the landowners & developers rights to squeeze as much money out of it as possible. Because, at the end of the day - the landowner and developers will be onsite for a short period of time - the residents will have to live with the result.

And wouldn't it make planners life a bit easier if they could look at restrictions and regulations rather than opinions ...

bompington

Well, Bompington Hall is situated in a small private development of 8 houses in a village just outside Dundee.

The developer intended it to be 16 houses but the planners told them 8.

We have pretty large gardens and my neighbours on each side are about 20m away wall to wall.

And all for the price of half a kerb stone in the south east :twisted:

rjsterry

Slowbike wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

You think housing developments are about houses? How quaint.
They are about profit. End of.

Oh - I know it's all about profit ...

standing talking to the developers during a "public consultation" - being told that the distance is "greater than the legal minimum" ... yes - it is, by 1 meter - and totally ignores the fact that a) the property being proposed is situated higher than the adjacent property and b) they're building it higher as it's 3 storeys ...

No - I don't think you can design by committee - because, quite frankly - most of us wouldn't know where to start with designing a home ...

However, I do think that perhaps the local council (parish at this level) should have a massive input into the quantity and type of housing provided in a development - and that should override the landowners & developers rights to squeeze as much money out of it as possible. Because, at the end of the day - the landowner and developers will be onsite for a short period of time - the residents will have to live with the result.

And wouldn't it make planners life a bit easier if they could look at restrictions and regulations rather than opinions ...

The trouble with giving a big say to parish councils as that they all agree that more housing is needed, just not in their parish. If you've the time, look on your county or district council's website for their planning policies. Somewhere within them it will have something to say on densities, types of dwellings and numbers of storeys and so on, both generally and for specific locations. These are the numbers that the developer will be pushing against and it's unrealistic to expect them not to, unless you can demonstrate that there is more value for them in doing so. If you want better designed development, that needs to be written into the planning policy in a way that under resourced planning departments can enforce, and in ways that don't just put developers off building altogether.

slowbike

rjsterry wrote:

The trouble with giving a big say to parish councils as that they all agree that more housing is needed, just not in their parish. If you've the time, look on your county or district council's website for their planning policies. Somewhere within them it will have something to say on densities, types of dwellings and numbers of storeys and so on, both generally and for specific locations. These are the numbers that the developer will be pushing against and it's unrealistic to expect them not to, unless you can demonstrate that there is more value for them in doing so. If you want better designed development, that needs to be written into the planning policy in a way that under resourced planning departments can enforce, and in ways that don't just put developers off building altogether.

Ours have recently finished the neighbourhood development plan - and have (with the agreement of most of the locals) ear marked this particular land for development .. (at least our council seem pragmatic that they needed to accept some development)
It has written in exactly how many homes that should have built in the next 15 years ... including the amount of social housing and this development seems to be taking a lions share - of non-social housing ..

It really is taking the piss - it's like a child pushing against parental rules - seeing how far they can go - single track road, no pavements, shared driveways for 4 bedroom houses - 2 inline parking places and a bike shed with enough room for 2 perhaps 3 bikes -with the only path out being past the two parked cars - all on a plot the size of a postage stamp. The developers other developments in the area are similar - you get more space in a submarine ...

It almost needs the land to be compulsory purchased and then council controlled development - it's not a fleeting transaction - these are properties for life ... and it's killing rural locations and I'm sure it's impacting on the planning officers time - wasting it on planning apps that are sure to be massively objected against.

pblakeney

Also, local councils are easily swayed by the prospect of more property tax coming in. And developers know this.

slowbike

PBlakeney wrote:

Also, local councils are easily swayed by the prospect of more property tax coming in. And developers know this.

I don't think many local councils are _that_ swayed by the addition of property tax - they can see developments as cashcows for pet project though.

It's just annoying that so much time & effort has had to go in to creating and (I hope) rejecting a plan - whereas had the developers actually sat down with the council and gone through what would've been acceptable and followed it, then they could've had it approved by now.

rjsterry

Slowbike wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

The trouble with giving a big say to parish councils as that they all agree that more housing is needed, just not in their parish. If you've the time, look on your county or district council's website for their planning policies. Somewhere within them it will have something to say on densities, types of dwellings and numbers of storeys and so on, both generally and for specific locations. These are the numbers that the developer will be pushing against and it's unrealistic to expect them not to, unless you can demonstrate that there is more value for them in doing so. If you want better designed development, that needs to be written into the planning policy in a way that under resourced planning departments can enforce, and in ways that don't just put developers off building altogether.

Ours have recently finished the neighbourhood development plan - and have (with the agreement of most of the locals) ear marked this particular land for development .. (at least our council seem pragmatic that they needed to accept some development)
It has written in exactly how many homes that should have built in the next 15 years ... including the amount of social housing and this development seems to be taking a lions share - of non-social housing ..

It really is taking the wee-wee - it's like a child pushing against parental rules - seeing how far they can go - single track road, no pavements, shared driveways for 4 bedroom houses - 2 inline parking places and a bike shed with enough room for 2 perhaps 3 bikes -with the only path out being past the two parked cars - all on a plot the size of a postage stamp. The developers other developments in the area are similar - you get more space in a submarine ...

It almost needs the land to be compulsory purchased and then council controlled development - it's not a fleeting transaction - these are properties for life ... and it's killing rural locations and I'm sure it's impacting on the planning officers time - wasting it on planning apps that are sure to be massively objected against.

It's certainly an area where the market is not functioning properly. There is such high demand that buyers will accept houses with small rooms and tiny gardens. There are minimum space standards but with the general trend towards deregulation, Parker Morris went out of the window years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Morris_Committee

norvernrob

These new developments are largely the same. Houses crammed together with the footpath being 4 feet from your front door if you’re lucky. Driveway for one car with a garage not actually big enough to fit said car in. A token play area and park in the middle somewhere.

Then people buy into the ‘lifestyle’, often utilising the help to buy schemes on new houses which mean as well as a mortgage they also owe the government a massive loan too.

craigus89

I'm an Architect and all of my work for the last 4 years is exclusively on housing developments for local developers. If any of the developments I've designed were in the my local village I don't think I would be best pleased either. The problem is that for the developers it is all about profit and parish councils do have a greater say than many people realise.

But to dumb it down a lot, the problem is much more political and I spend probably 30% of my time basically acting as a planning lawyer. All councils must have a 'Local Plan' which contains the details of enough sites allocated for development to accommodate the number of houses that the government says must be built in a set period of time. If the council can't prove that their site allocations are realistic then it is as good as open play for developers to build what they like, as they can basically say "You can't prove a 5 year land supply, so you have to approve this".

It's not quite that simple or that easy for the developers, as the planners do have other criteria, but you get the jist. Local Authorities are also massively understaffed and having a conversation with a planner on the phone is near enough impossible these days.

slowbike

Craigus89 wrote:

I'm an Architect and all of my work for the last 4 years is exclusively on housing developments for local developers. If any of the developments I've designed were in the my local village I don't think I would be best pleased either. The problem is that for the developers it is all about profit and parish councils do have a greater say than many people realise.

This is it isn't it - (not that I'm blaming you personally - or any architect - you're constrained by your brief) - cram in as much as you can get away with - to hell with the locals.

When I suggested to the architect of this development that if he changed a particular row of houses for bungalows he just laughed at me. But, that's exactly what's needed in the village - we have an estate of aging residents in 3 bedroom houses who don't want to leave the village, but a complete lack of anywhere suitable for them to go - but if they did, they'd free up the 3 bed houses for families to move into. And thus, the issue is the developer only looks out for the maximum they can get away with for the minimum outlay - rather than joined up thinking of how the development could be of benefit to the existing residents.

rjsterry

Slowbike wrote:

Craigus89 wrote:

I'm an Architect and all of my work for the last 4 years is exclusively on housing developments for local developers. If any of the developments I've designed were in the my local village I don't think I would be best pleased either. The problem is that for the developers it is all about profit and parish councils do have a greater say than many people realise.

This is it isn't it - (not that I'm blaming you personally - or any architect - you're constrained by your brief) - cram in as much as you can get away with - to hell with the locals.

When I suggested to the architect of this development that if he changed a particular row of houses for bungalows he just laughed at me. But, that's exactly what's needed in the village - we have an estate of aging residents in 3 bedroom houses who don't want to leave the village, but a complete lack of anywhere suitable for them to go - but if they did, they'd free up the 3 bed houses for families to move into. And thus, the issue is the developer only looks out for the maximum they can get away with for the minimum outlay - rather than joined up thinking of how the development could be of benefit to the existing residents.

This does sound as though the Local Plan is at fault. It should have identified the shortage of one particular housing type and over supply of the other in this village and made it clear that that was the development that was sought. Relatively dense 3-storey development can be made attractive to older buyers looking to downsize with a bit of thought.

craigus89

I'm not just saying this because I'm on one side of it, but planners and policy makers know that developers are out for profit (you can say that's wrong till you're blue in the face but that is the way the world works unfortunately) so they are the ones who need to lead when t comes to insisting on good design and getting the right type of houses built.

To be fair one developer in particular is very good with the locals and is very considerate in terms of good design but they are few and far between.

mr_goo

I'm in construction industry. Which is totally wrong for my mind set of protection of rural areas and its communities and small towns. I cannot think of anywhere that is escaping the ill conceived central government dictat of every borough/district being legally obligated to build X number of dwellings by 2030/35.
No consideration is being given for the uniqueness of each district and it's requirements. It's just giving the green light for developers to pave over the countryside.
Councils are banking Section 106 money or using it to prop up essential services rather spending it on the schools or medical centres required to support the increase in population.
Eg. Large plot of land on eastern reaches of Christchurch has been given planning permission for 860 houses (Taylor Wimpey). The council planning committee granted permission and stated that the existing infrastructure will easily support this development. So my estimate is that this development will house 3500 with at least 1000 being children. Where are they going school?

If one looks at my district of New Forest. The local plan is for 10500 new homes by 2036. Yet most of the land of the district is National Park. Therefore we are going to see the New Forest encircled by development, because this won't stop at 10500 homes as more local plans will be introduced.

FYI. Check out Bournemouth BC and the controversy over the council leader John Beesley (Con). He has his fingers in so many development business pies that he was rumbled by the chief executive the main witness. Who in turn got the push with a golden handshake to keep it hushed up and is now dead so cannot be questioned . Dorset Police launched investigation and it's now been dropped in a complete whitewash due to impending local elections. Private Eye magazine awarded Beesley their annual conflict of interest prize.

So another consideration for developers when putting in applications is to use the brown envelope economy. It does go on.

rjsterry

Mr Goo wrote:

I'm in construction industry. Which is totally wrong for my mind set of protection of rural areas and its communities and small towns. I cannot think of anywhere that is escaping the ill conceived central government dictat of every borough/district being legally obligated to build X number of dwellings by 2030/35.
No consideration is being given for the uniqueness of each district and it's requirements. It's just giving the green light for developers to pave over the countryside.
Councils are banking Section 106 money or using it to prop up essential services rather spending it on the schools or medical centres required to support the increase in population.
Eg. Large plot of land on eastern reaches of Christchurch has been given planning permission for 860 houses (Taylor Wimpey). The council planning committee granted permission and stated that the existing infrastructure will easily support this development. So my estimate is that this development will house 3500 with at least 1000 being children. Where are they going school?

If one looks at my district of New Forest. The local plan is for 10500 new homes by 2036. Yet most of the land of the district is National Park. Therefore we are going to see the New Forest encircled by development, because this won't stop at 10500 homes as more local plans will be introduced.

FYI. Check out Bournemouth BC and the controversy over the council leader John Beesley (Con). He has his fingers in so many development business pies that he was rumbled by the chief executive the main witness. Who in turn got the push with a golden handshake to keep it hushed up and is now dead so cannot be questioned . Dorset Police launched investigation and it's now been dropped in a complete whitewash due to impending local elections. Private Eye magazine awarded Beesley their annual conflict of interest prize.

So another consideration for developers when putting in applications is to use the brown envelope economy. It does go on.

All that being said, if the 3500 people aren't going to live on the edge of Christchurch, where should they live? Nobody seems to think the extra housing that is needed should be built near them.

mr_goo

rjsterry wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

I'm in construction industry. Which is totally wrong for my mind set of protection of rural areas and its communities and small towns. I cannot think of anywhere that is escaping the ill conceived central government dictat of every borough/district being legally obligated to build X number of dwellings by 2030/35.
No consideration is being given for the uniqueness of each district and it's requirements. It's just giving the green light for developers to pave over the countryside.
Councils are banking Section 106 money or using it to prop up essential services rather spending it on the schools or medical centres required to support the increase in population.
Eg. Large plot of land on eastern reaches of Christchurch has been given planning permission for 860 houses (Taylor Wimpey). The council planning committee granted permission and stated that the existing infrastructure will easily support this development. So my estimate is that this development will house 3500 with at least 1000 being children. Where are they going school?

If one looks at my district of New Forest. The local plan is for 10500 new homes by 2036. Yet most of the land of the district is National Park. Therefore we are going to see the New Forest encircled by development, because this won't stop at 10500 homes as more local plans will be introduced.

FYI. Check out Bournemouth BC and the controversy over the council leader John Beesley (Con). He has his fingers in so many development business pies that he was rumbled by the chief executive the main witness. Who in turn got the push with a golden handshake to keep it hushed up and is now dead so cannot be questioned . Dorset Police launched investigation and it's now been dropped in a complete whitewash due to impending local elections. Private Eye magazine awarded Beesley their annual conflict of interest prize.

So another consideration for developers when putting in applications is to use the brown envelope economy. It does go on.

All that being said, if the 3500 people aren't going to live on the edge of Christchurch, where should they live? Nobody seems to think the extra housing that is needed should be built near them.

In increasing numbers the inhabitants of the developments down here are from London. Cheaper housing, better life style and city is commutable on daily basis. Although I wouldn't want to do it.
Because of the rapid changes to the area I am looking to move further west and off the mainline. I know where I'm going but not telling as I don't want you lot from London ruining it. LOL.

awavey

Mr Goo wrote:

In increasing numbers the inhabitants of the developments down here are from London. Cheaper housing, better life style and city is commutable on daily basis. Although I wouldn't want to do it.
Because of the rapid changes to the area I am looking to move further west and off the mainline. I know where I'm going but not telling as I don't want you lot from London ruining it. LOL.

its inevitably the London lot moving in who are then the most vociferous nimbies about further expansion or changes, as it ruins the idyll they thought they were buying into, most locals accept housing has to be built somewhere because they can see the impact of a lack of housing has on their children, or their friends and their local economy.

Pross

Working day in, day out in this field I wish gaining planning was as simple as so many of the public seem to think it is - not to mention all the post-planning approvals!

Pross

To elaborate, I'll give an example of a development I'm currently working on. Whilst it is on Greenfield it is a classic infill site. The developer initially submitted planning for about 100 units with a good spread from apartments to 5 bedroom detached and it didn't feel over-developed as there was a lot of public open space resulting from tree protection zones etc. In addition, current guidance to improve flooding issues also mean many sites will have open areas set aside for conveyance channels and storage as this site does.

We spent a year liaising with highway officers regarding the design of on-site roads and assessing off site impact together with motivation and were able to get a 'no objection' from them when the application was submitted. In the end it got refused on scale and even though the Developer feels they have grounds to appeal they are re-submitting. They liaise with the housing officer at the Planning Authority and the scheme has now reduced to 70 units again ranging in size based on the Council's understanding of housing need and the Developer's understanding of the market. No reasonable Developer wants to build a load of 2 bed terraces if the market wants 5 bed executive or vice versa. Then you have to take account of the need for an affordable housing allocation. Of course, once a site has planning it will often be bought by one of the big PLCs who will often try to get more out of it but even they will be guided by market forces.

Someone mentioned access widths, no footways etc earlier. For a road to be adopted it has to meet the highway authorities standards, normally any road serving 6 or more houses will be offered for adoption and even if the Developer elects to keep them private there will usually be an obligation that they are designed and built to adoptable standards. Adoptable standards are usually based around the DfT's Manual for Streets which introduced an ethos of developing sites around people not cars and so road widths were reduced and shared spaces / home zones introduced to create areas where traffic speeds are kept slow a d cars don't dominate. Whilst Developers no doubt like this efficient use of space the thinking has come from Urban Designers commisoned by Government. We still have to demonstrate that sites are accessible by refuse vehicles that would be too large to negotiate any of the existing streets in the area. Likewise, parking restrictions within a development are planning policy and many Developers would like to be able to provide more as it would be a selling point for them.

It really isn't a matter of some greedy Developer seeing a patch of land and then simply applying for permission to build as many houses as possible on it (or not always). As for schools and infrastructure the money from S106 contributions does get used, there are all sorts of complicated formulas to assess need, we are working on several school expansions and a new school funded from these sources. However, the best solution to these issues is actually to have much larger developments where the facilities can be built alongside them but these tend to get even more flack.

We should probably be blaming all the singlies though as it is the upsurge in people moving out of the family home over the last 30 years that helps create the current housing shortage but no-one ever seems to mention that!

rjsterry

Excellent post, Pross. Thanks for sharing.

bompington

Pross wrote:

We should probably be blaming all the singlies though as it is the upsurge in people moving out of the family home over the last 30 years that helps create the current housing shortage but no-one ever seems to mention that!

I've always assumed it was that, along with family break-up.
A quick Google shows the average household size is fairly stable over the last ten years or so at 2.4, but I can't find anything much longer term, intuitively you would reckon it must have gone down over the years.

mr_goo

awavey wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

In increasing numbers the inhabitants of the developments down here are from London. Cheaper housing, better life style and city is commutable on daily basis. Although I wouldn't want to do it.
Because of the rapid changes to the area I am looking to move further west and off the mainline. I know where I'm going but not telling as I don't want you lot from London ruining it. LOL.

its inevitably the London lot moving in who are then the most vociferous nimbies about further expansion or changes, as it ruins the idyll they thought they were buying into, most locals accept housing has to be built somewhere because they can see the impact of a lack of housing has on their children, or their friends and their local economy.

Or from my stand point. The influx of London/Commuter Belt people moving further out to Western Hampshire and East Dorset has driven house prices up. Thus pricing out younger generation's from home ownership. Even renting is beyond many youngsters ability to pay. What has happened with the London property market has filtered out 100 miles and beyond. However there aren't the London wages to be had.

mr_goo

Pross wrote:

It really isn't a matter of some greedy Developer seeing a patch of land and then simply applying for permission to build as many houses as possible on it (or not always). As for schools and infrastructure the money from S106 contributions does get used, there are all sorts of complicated formulas to assess need, we are working on several school expansions and a new school funded from these sources. However, the best solution to these issues is actually to have much larger developments where the facilities can be built alongside them but these tend to get even more flack.

With regards to the S106. Do you not think that an obligation to construct facilities should based on the number of dwellings built and the cost be born in full to the developer who must build at the same time as their houses.
Eg:
50 houses = 1x primary school classroom extension plus Extn to medical centre.
100 houses = 2x primary school classroom + 1× Secondary school classroom.....etc
Jumping to
850 houses = 1x New primary school. 2x expansion of secondary schools. New medical centre. Sports fields. Community centre.

In too many instances Pross the S106 money is NOT being spent on easing the burden on existing stretched resources.

If you want to see a new housing scheme at its very worst then check out the new housing for Army families on south side of Tidworth. Talk about cramming in. Not a tree or shrub to be seen. I would think it's a real miserable existence to live on it.

rolf_f

Pross wrote:

We should probably be blaming all the singlies though as it is the upsurge in people moving out of the family home over the last 30 years that helps create the current housing shortage but no-one ever seems to mention that!

On the other hand we should probably not - as long as the singlies aren't producing sprogs then they are, in the long term, reducing demand. It is perhaps most constructive not to pick on any single source though inner city investment flats surely take a significant chunk of blame (ie the sort of property young people would love but can't afford and older people can afford but wouldn't be seen dead in - ie nobody who wants one can afford one so they end up empty). They are making a lot of such flats in Leeds right now though Manchester is 10 times worse for it).

Pross

Mr Goo wrote:

Pross wrote:

It really isn't a matter of some greedy Developer seeing a patch of land and then simply applying for permission to build as many houses as possible on it (or not always). As for schools and infrastructure the money from S106 contributions does get used, there are all sorts of complicated formulas to assess need, we are working on several school expansions and a new school funded from these sources. However, the best solution to these issues is actually to have much larger developments where the facilities can be built alongside them but these tend to get even more flack.

With regards to the S106. Do you not think that an obligation to construct facilities should based on the number of dwellings built and the cost be born in full to the developer who must build at the same time as their houses.
Eg:
50 houses = 1x primary school classroom extension plus Extn to medical centre.
100 houses = 2x primary school classroom + 1× Secondary school classroom.....etc
Jumping to
850 houses = 1x New primary school. 2x expansion of secondary schools. New medical centre. Sports fields. Community centre.

In too many instances Pross the S106 money is NOT being spent on easing the burden on existing stretched resources.

If you want to see a new housing scheme at its very worst then check out the new housing for Army families on south side of Tidworth. Talk about cramming in. Not a tree or shrub to be seen. I would think it's a real miserable existence to live on it.

No, not really. The local authority should be best placed to determine need and it isn't always as simple as that. For example, it may be a development is being built at the western side of town but the local school is taking children from the other side at present because the school over there is above capacity so what is needed is for the school the other side of town to be expanded to free up space in the school nearer the development. By doing things through S106 contributions the local authority can pool the money from several sites to get the best result. I'm pretty sure they are obliged to use the monies raised for their intended purposes. For example, Bristol has been taking S106 money for decades towards a major public transport scheme (originally trams were proposed but they are finally building the Metrobus system).

What you suggest can and does happen if, through the planning process, immediate need is shown to exist and as I've said on larger developments the facilities are incorporated into the Masterplan and conditioned in the planning consent. For example, there may need to be a new primary school open prior to 100th occupation, a medical centre by 200th occupation and comprehensive school by 250th occupation plus local centres etc. However, the one issue that does tend to get overlooked is how to staff the extra resources. You can build all the extra school or medical facilities you want but if there aren't enough teachers or GPs to staff them you have a problem.

My work takes me onto a lot of newly built developments and my feeling is that in many cases they are vastly improved from those of the 80s and 90s. You do still get high density developments but these are usually in areas where there is high demand and a shortage of land. Also, some of the big boys churn out some horrible standard house types still but others do have imagination (we work with a couple of mid sized developers that do some really nice designs and one of the smaller developers we work with is building a new estate that includes thatched houses in keeping with the surroundings).

norvernrob

Mr Goo wrote:

Pross wrote:

It really isn't a matter of some greedy Developer seeing a patch of land and then simply applying for permission to build as many houses as possible on it (or not always). As for schools and infrastructure the money from S106 contributions does get used, there are all sorts of complicated formulas to assess need, we are working on several school expansions and a new school funded from these sources. However, the best solution to these issues is actually to have much larger developments where the facilities can be built alongside them but these tend to get even more flack.

With regards to the S106. Do you not think that an obligation to construct facilities should based on the number of dwellings built and the cost be born in full to the developer who must build at the same time as their houses.
Eg:
50 houses = 1x primary school classroom extension plus Extn to medical centre.
100 houses = 2x primary school classroom + 1× Secondary school classroom.....etc
Jumping to
850 houses = 1x New primary school. 2x expansion of secondary schools. New medical centre. Sports fields. Community centre.

In too many instances Pross the S106 money is NOT being spent on easing the burden on existing stretched resources.

If you want to see a new housing scheme at its very worst then check out the new housing for Army families on south side of Tidworth. Talk about cramming in. Not a tree or shrub to be seen. I would think it's a real miserable existence to live on it.

There are over 800 new houses being built in the area I work. There are no plans for a new school, yet every school in the area is already over-subscribed (my wife teaches at one of them). There are already families with children going to different schools because they could only get one place at each!

Rolf F wrote:

Pross wrote:

We should probably be blaming all the singlies though as it is the upsurge in people moving out of the family home over the last 30 years that helps create the current housing shortage but no-one ever seems to mention that!

On the other hand we should probably not - as long as the singlies aren't producing sprogs then they are, in the long term, reducing demand. It is perhaps most constructive not to pick on any single source though inner city investment flats surely take a significant chunk of blame (ie the sort of property young people would love but can't afford and older people can afford but wouldn't be seen dead in - ie nobody who wants one can afford one so they end up empty). They are making a lot of such flats in Leeds right now though Manchester is 10 times worse for it).

Surely over the last 10-15 years less and less people are moving out of home due to the massive increases in house prices? How many single people can realistically afford to buy a house these days? There may be more family breakups, but I’d imagine the amount of 30 and 40 somethings still living at home would negate that.