Housebuilding targets scrapped

It doesn’t help when developers plans to build houses on greenfield sites, that is blocked by residents that live on a plot that was greenfield site not so long ago, oh the irony 😜
 
Targets were never achievable anyway - in the current political climate there are not enough trades to do the building. So the magical target figures were simply numbers.

It's affordable properties built that are the crucial numbers......which developers and Planning Authorities (smell of brown envelopes stuffed with cash......) are failing dismally on.
 
Depending on where you get the figures from, the number of new homes required is exceeded by the number of second homes.
Something to think about.
 
JM14 said:
If it stops the current policy of filling the countryside with overpriced, substandard ***** whilst locking in first time buyers for years to come then it certainly won’t be a bad thing
Click to expand...
The countryside isn't full of housing, it's a myth. Only 5% of land in this country is owned home owners. Only 2% is owned by conservation and charities. The biggest owner of land is the aristocracy with a minimum of 30% of it and maybe as much as half....they're very secretive. They're the problem, they sit on this land, claim government (and previously EU farming subsidies) and deny access to the land itself.

BoroFur said:
Yeah that's great but in the meantime our kids and grandkids have got nowhere affordable to live.
Click to expand...
Biggest factor in the cost of housing is that we allowed the aristocracy and landed gentry to steal our land and not return it. The right of conquest is no longer internationally accepted, so why do continue it within our nation? Take the land back and open it up to the public, and give appropriate areas for cheap public housing.
 
BoroMart said:
The countryside isn't full of housing, it's a myth. Only 5% of land in this country is owned home owners. Only 2% is owned by conservation and charities. The biggest owner of land is the aristocracy with a minimum of 30% of it and maybe as much as half....they're very secretive. They're the problem, they sit on this land, claim government (and previously EU farming subsidies) and deny access to the land itself.


Biggest factor in the cost of housing is that we allowed the aristocracy and landed gentry to steal our land and not return it. The right of conquest is no longer internationally accepted, so why do continue it within our nation? Take the land back and open it up to the public, and give appropriate areas for cheap public housing.
Click to expand...
Statistically yes it’s not full of housing but we can all see examples locally of green spaces being slowly eroded away for more house building, and the type of housing being build is mainly shocking which will cause so many issues for homeowners in years to come. It’s not sustainable
 
JM14 said:
Statistically yes it’s not full of housing but we can all see examples locally of green spaces being slowly eroded away for more house building, and the type of housing being build is mainly shocking which will cause so many issues for homeowners in years to come. It’s not sustainable
Click to expand...
Neither is allowing the rich to own the majority of the land. 50% of the land is owned by 1% of people. There is enough land for every person to own half an acre. Or a family of four to have 2 acres.

Quality of build is because we need to reduce build quality to offset the rediculous costs of procuring the land from the elite. We could build far better quality housing, for much less than todays house prices, simply by reneging on any ownership by conquest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top