'Ouses, Greenbelt and stuff
Comments
-
Ok, hadn't spotted this bit in the NPPF.
I don't think the affordable housing quotas work generally, but especially when the arbitrary quota ends up cancelling the project altogether. Much better to just work out a way to fund local authorities to build new stock for social rent. Replaces the stock sold off under RTB, reduces HB payments and goes to people who really need cheap housing.as well as freeing up the lower end of the private market for those who don't qualify for social housing.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Hasn't there been a requirement which is always ignored for 50% in London?
0 -
It is being done quite cleverly. Stick the onus on the local plan, make the green belt the last resort. Will punt the argument with "nimbys" down to the councils as well, and turn that into a battle over green/brownfield sites.
Interestingly I heard today that there are 1M consented houses that are yet to be built, because developers naturally want to maximise profit. That's where labour see the route to meeting the 1.5M target I reckon.
So, Rjst, how does 1M unbuilt homes fit with the narrative that it is all the fault of the planing system.
0 -
"So, Rjst, how does 1M unbuilt homes fit with the narrative that it is all the fault of the planing system."
Simple answer. Everyone wants to maximise profits. Also blows the concept of cheaper housing out of the water.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
That's an answer to a different question.
0 -
True, but that's because the narrative is baloney.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
But I thought the problem with housing was all down to planning and we needed a million new homes?
0 -
If there are 1m unbuilt houses with planning permission then the likely reason for not building is profitability.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Yes, thanks, got that far all by myself.
The question is, if there are a million houses with planning permission that haven't been built, is the planning permission and all of those nasty nimbys the problem? Because that's the relentless narrative on here.
0 -
Are British people losing g the ability to pick up on irony, like Americans?
Jesus.
0 -
This is just a marketing wheeze by the firm that runs the website for online planning submissions. All they've done is count the number of units in each approved application and take it away from an independent tally of the number units built. It's a made up figure. Most large developments have tens of separate applications for the same site, and in many cases different developers will reapply for a different scheme on the same site, so there will be massive double counting. You would expect a certain number of schemes to be abandoned between consent and construction, but the idea that if developers 'just got on and built everything' that we'd be there is just clickbait nonsense. Lots of traffic for Terraquest, though. Good work by their comms team.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
The reason this happens is planning only determines if a development complies with planning policy. Lots of people take sites through planning then try to sell them on. As I read lately the big housing developers are among the most financially astute businesses in the country and the sites simply don’t stack up for them. This applies a lot with the Brownfield sites everyone says we should be building on as the remediation costs can be astronomical. Throw in that having planning doesn’t be you can implement the scheme immediately - there are S106 Agreements to negotiate, most applications have a raft of Conditions or Reserved Matters to be sorted out and a scheme with outline consent isn’t necessarily buildable. Just because they aren’t being built out doesn’t mean they aren’t going to be built out or that the money grabbing developers don’t want to build them out.
1 -
There's a time delay between planning approval and building. Typically because developers need to do stuff and also find the money to complete the project. I'd imagine that would account for several hundred thousand properties.
I'd also imagine some are made unaffordable by planning requirements, so they are consented, but the developer will continue to argue for a better deal.
0 -
Another example would be flats in London which have been static in value for 7 years or so. Costs have increased significantly over that period, so for many of the projects the numbers may no longer stack up.
0 -
The idea that developers are sitting on expensive land they don’t intend to build on is a bit far fetched. They’re there to make money and they make money by selling houses. Leaving land empty in the hope the value will increase wouldn’t keep their shareholders happy. The people who work there also get very nice bonuses based on the company delivering ‘x’ units in the period. Anyone who has been involved in housing developments knows how much pressure they put on to make sure they get built so those bonuses get paid. They do, however, need to be planning ahead so they have a constant pipeline.
0 -
It's just a comforting fantasy for the people who think we can get by without building anything.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Like actually finish designing the thing. Planning drawings are not a finished design.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Oh, it was quoted by someone who used to be high up at Shelter, before being director of communications for the lib dems. She sounded like she knew what she was talking about.
0 -
😂
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Bottom line is, as long as net immigration exceeds net new housebuilding we won't see the RC holy grail of cheap housing or at least falling prices. Libs go figure.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
If only the previous government hadn’t decided to wave in loads of immigrants then
0 -
So what are the curent lot doing about it?
Starmer claims that immigration is too high- do you agree with him?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Too high for what? It’s probably too high to sustain with current infrastructure but probably necessary to provide essential services to an ageing population that want to continue to be able to retire in their mid 60s. But that’s been done to death elsewhere. If someone can find a way to maintain services, grow the economy and allow us all a decent length of retirement without net immigration I’d be quite happy.
The previous government was handing out visas like medals on school sports day whilst u turning on their own policies for building more housing. Why did you not have this big problem about immigration vs housing supply back then? All the focus, along with the sort of money that could have built a fair few social housing schemes, was on the relatively small numbers arriving illegally who aren’t taking up housing.
0 -
Maybe ask Starmer, he said it
As mentioned, the issue is what the current administration is doing about it. What are your thoughts on that?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
We’ve discussed immigration at length in numerous other threads so it doesn’t need to contaminate this one too but if we don’t need so many immigrants as the previous administration seemed to think we did then simply cut down on the number of visas as a starting point. Personally I think Starmer is showing a lack of backbone on a lot of issues and says what he thinks will be popular.
0 -
Not seen the policy on visa allocations so don't know, but net immigration is expected to decline naturally anyway (what with it no longer being actively promoted). Labour have pledged to reduce overall immigration, but no detail on how as yet. Worth noting that the Leader of the Opposition holds strong pro immigration views.
Regardless there was a housing crisis before adding an extra 900k population, so it doesn't really change the solution.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
-
An extra 900k people a year makes Labour's solution ineffective. As mentioned, these people all need somewhere to live. And as I've said before, managing demand for housing needs to be part of the solution.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
As far as I can see he's not doing anything substantial about the problem but is trying to talk a good game. At least he has stated that immigration is too high.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You keep writing it, but it doesn't make any more sense. We've had the extra 900k. They have already been here for a year. The changes to the visa system belatedly made by the last government are being continued and are having an effect. The student spike has also passed so numbers are falling anyway. All that said, immigration is not the major reason for the housing shortage: it's 40 years of under-building.
Not sure how close you are to Sittingbourne but that's going ahead and local businesses support it. I mean what could be more Conservative than creating more homeowners?
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0
