please empty your brain below
The fundamental question is, of course, why do we have a housing shortage in this country?
I'd posit it is because a lot of what should be first-time buyers' homes are gobbled up, before release, by greedy BTL landlords using mortgages stacked on other properties they own (who then let at inflated rents, which are often paid, at least in part, by Housing Benefit), and a lot of property in cities is/has been sold to non-resident speculators, who then leave it empty. Plus, 'social housing' isn't working as it should: those who occupy it should not have a right to it for life (and then, in many cases, the right to buy at knock-down prices), but just until their situation improves.
Yes, the current situation needs improvement, but this is not the way.
Let's hope that enough Tory back-benchers rebel that the legislation does not get through.. although with an 80 majority, that seems unlikely.
A white paper written on the back of an envelope. Worry about the detail, dysfunction and impact on people's lives after it's too late.
A few years ago the Tories were pushing a 'bonfire of the regulations' agenda just before Grenfell happened. They still are, in all but name.
Jenrick was most unconvincing yesterday.
Where my parents lived, austerity saw the Labour council flog off anything they could to bring money in. They closed and sold community centres, libraries and more.
One of the things they sold off was any patch of grass that could be suitable. That corner of greenery at a road junction now has houses on it. The playing area at the edge of a housing estate (one with the inevitable NO BALL GAMES sign)? Covered in bricks.
And of course the Tories are trying to solve to wrong problem. The problem isn't the planning system. It's the fact we build houses to purchase not rent. Builders will only ever build at the rate they can sell. They don't want empty houses on their books.
So they eek out the building process. Take their time. Not going to sell all the houses quickly? Put a batch down as "phase 2".
The Tory obsession with private purchase is the cause of housing shortages. The fact that council's can't build social housing is the cause of our housing shortages. The Tories are are the cause of our housing shortages.
This planning reform will change nothing in that respect.
[As a topical reference, they would probably see controls on storage of ammonium nitrate as "red tape".]
The tragedy is, with its majority, this incompetent government can do almost anything it likes to ruin what remains of this country. Conservatives? What exactly are they interested in conserving?.
You term 'Moths nibbling at a favourite blanket' will be more prevalent i feel
1) people living longer, so parents staying on for many decades in the larger house they bought when they had kids, e.g. my parents and friends' parents in their 70s in 3- or 4-bed houses. This means reduced movement in the market.
2) atomisation of society, far more solo living at all ages and for longer than there used to be. So we need more properties per head of population.
3) land-banking by property developers - basic supply/demand curve, if you have lots of X available, the price goes down, so why would they voluntarily cut their profits? Of course there is some elasticity re: demand for particular locations and property types.
4) government fear that a vast part of the economy depends on ever-rising house prices so that same lack of scarcity / price falls would impact on everything else.
5) in London and elsewhere, mass building and marketing of luxury flats to foreigners for the sole purpose of investment; no-one is allowed to live in them as it would taint the investment. An underlying but officially unacknowledged factor is lots of those purchases are made by anonymous tax-haven companies for money-laundering. Boris was an enthusiast as mayor: IIRC he went to foreign property shows to advertise these blocks in London.
6) in 'nice' parts of the countryside, vast numbers of second homes that are empty most of the time.
7) no interest in building Council homes - Nick Clegg was told by either Cameron or Osbourne "why should we build homes for people who mostly vote Labour?" Blair did naff all too.
8) immigration, of course, but nowhere near to the level that the loonies think it is.
- Land too expensive
- Land hoarding by developers
- Poor quality construction and design
- Expensive construction and design
- A planning system that probably isn't great
- Land too expensive
- Land too expensive
- There are no good quality, cheap, family sized apartments with high quality, well maintained shared spaces.
- Land. Too. Expensive
But I can't back up with an internet search whether this really happened or if it was just a dramatic plot device in a distopian drama (unless anyone knows anything more specific historically).
There will still be building regulations, so there should be no slums as far as poor quality construction.
Zoning just means you have a right to build what you want as long as it conforms to zoning conditions of the plan.
Proposals include a flat infrastructure levy on permission rather than the current baroque section 106 agreements.
People argue it will allow large amounts of new construction. Well yes, that's the point.
Among the reasons: too much green-belt-ism, nimbyism, dominance of owner-occupiers, too much land gobbled up by golf clubs. too much planning control and planning permission-itis, together with obsessions with the past, preservation orders, heritage societies and so on.
As some other commentators have said, other countries do things differently and have no housing shortages unlike the UK.
But at long long long last the UK is starting to grasp the nettle and do something. And already all the nimbysters and little owner occupiers are up in arms. Its to be expected.
Once upon a not-very-long-ago time, all Building Regs inspection was the domain of Local Authorities.
Then other bodies were allowed to do the work, so large developers employed their own people.
Then standards fell, as Inspectors employed (directly or indirectly) by developers have different priorities to impartial Local Authority Inspectors. Things get signed off by non-LA Inspectors that would never be allowed by LA Inspectors.
And therein lies the problem. The person who pays the piper calls the tune.
Building Standards have definitiely gone down, and despite strict new regulations in many areas, particularly thermal efficiency, there are so many ways round them.
If you want compliance with Building Regulations or fire safety codes it will cost extra.
Many thousands of voluntary hours from local residents go into preparing a NP, which has to pass Inspection by both the LA and a National Planning Inspector. To tell those communities who have invested in one that they have to start over, under a crazy new scheme, might just lead some people to understand the mistake they made when they voted Blue.
Blue Witch, I suspect the people who volunteer their time to help local government are the socially inclined who wouldn’t have voted Tory . anyway.
As always with these things there will be unexpected consequences. Here in York the Council has been trying to get derelict railway land redeveloped for years. It’s expensive because the ground is contaminated. Now, of course, the developers will simply move out to the next uncontaminated site leaving a big brownfield hole close to the centre of the City.
In London you can pay a million for a rabbit hutch, whereas in places like Middlesbrough you can buy a terraced house for 40k.
The real answer isn't to build more hutches near London, but to move the jobs, opportunities, cultural amenities, nightlife etc. elsewhere
And there is also a housing led regeneration scheme for Brent Cross shopping centre a little further north.
TridentScan | Privacy Policy