Housebuilding targets scrapped

[thewanderer]

Its something people dont automatically think about. London, for instance, has a huge number of empty properties, second and third homes of millionaires - left to rot away. The issue is that the value of land in London has increased exponentially more than in any other part of the UK. Big investyors from abroad spend millions acquiring land for offices and buying up ex social-housing stock for demolition and rebuilding. There are thousands of empty square-feet of office space in the City and Central London - but reduced income is offset by increasing value.

Places like Middlesbrough, Hartlepool, Burnley, have higher indices of relative deprivation - the lack of jobs, poor infrastructure and lack of available skilled workers, means that properties are under-used or left empty. The issue is clearly a complicated one.

As for our housing stock. Since Thatcher - the biggest issue is that over 2,000,000 of social housing stock has been hived off into the housing "market" - providing cheap housing for rogue landlords to buy up cheaply and rent them out to tennants - often supported by housing benefits. So, not only are local people being deprived of access to affordable decent housing to rent, but the public purse is paying money into private pockets. With the "Right to buy" still legal, there is no incentive for Local Councils to build Social Housing, because it is still subsidising the housing "market". Many local authorities have had to buy-back decaying and abandoned former social-housing properties. In places like the Birchfield Estate in Walsall, there has been a major attempt to turn round the dereliction and deprivation - not least the number of abandoned former council-owned homes. Its appalling that public housing stock should be gifted to the private "market" at give away prices and years later, local councils are having to spend public money, buying back those properties in a poor state.

I`l give an example: Nottingham used to have 65% of its housing stock in Local Authority ownership. This was good quality housing stock - with green spaces, gardens and facilities for local residents including schools, local GP surgeries and health services and good local transport. Nottingham now has over 9000 people on the waiting list - many are families with children and dependents. Although Nottingham City Council has attempted to build houses, the number of properties is a drop in the ocean. The council budget has been slashed by the Tory Government to the tune of over £100,000,000 per year. What is required is a Government funded building of new social housing coordinated by local authorities [who know their local needs best] - abolition of the "right to buy" [right to be homeless] and the integration of "Housing Associations" back into Local Authority Housing provision and control. There are brownfield sites available to build, but the local authority has been robbed of finance to invest in those sites to build affordable local housing. Meanwhile, house-builders [Like David Wilson Homes] are building into the "Green belt" on land they bought decades ago and are making millions on what they paid for it.

This Government wont change direction [because it values what people can afford - not what they need], so we will see the continuing depreciation of the value of public housing stock, increasing homelessness and over-crowding and increased stae-subsidy [public money] of private landlords. We need to restate the "Decent Homes Standard" and ensure that every exisiting rented home [including the private rented sector] should be up to that standard. Today, "Fit-to-let" is the standard, because many authorities havent trhe finance to upgrade every home to "Decent Homes Standard".

For those who may be interested, this is one particular article in the New Economics Foundation [https://neweconomics.org/] which you may find informative>>>

The damaging legacy of right to buy

Boris Johnson wants to extend right to buy to housing associations. But he's ignoring the grave costs of the policy.

neweconomics.org

There are not enough empty homes that's the issue. I'll repeat less than 1% of the housing stock is empty. Not even considering those in flux due to someone dying, those that are derelict etc.

Not convinced by recent events that public sector landlords are any better than private sector ones tbh. We can put bad landlords out of business by building more homes!

 

[r00fie1]

There are not enough empty homes that's the issue. I'll repeat less than 1% of the housing stock is empty. Not even considering those in flux due to someone dying, those that are derelict etc.

Not convinced by recent events that public sector landlords are any better than private sector ones tbh. We can put bad landlords out of business by building more homes!

In that which I posted earlier, I emphasised that it is more complicated than first appears. Few mention the issue of empty homes - thats exactly the reason I raised the issue. The inequality of the "market" is also a factor - it pays for people to live in squalor, in sub-standard accomodation and homelessness: the "market" is only sustained by high demand. There are many options and opportunities to build. There is brown-field land to build on - but private prtofitieers cant find enough profit on brown-field sites. This isnt an argument - but we have to consider all options and the current state of the country`s housing stock: this includes under-occupied private homes. To release these homes there has to be a strategy where occupants [especially the elderly] have the opportunity to move into more suitable accomodation.

The priority has to switch from what people can "afford" to what people "need". A country cant play with peoples lives by basing their right to a home dependant on how much they have in their pockets. The state currently subsidises private landlords by housing benefit payments and by paying the private sector for emergency accommodation. It skews the private mortgage - market by adjusting interest rates and releasing millions of former social-homes to the casino "market".

The issue is not just about empty homes - agreed. But the issue is that the "market" isnt a market at all. Its left to money to regulate buying and selling. The reality of "buying" a property is that, in many cases, the average 10% deposit is unachievable by many. Hence the "sofa-surfing" and dipping into the extremely expensive private - rented "market". To keep working and saving for a deposit, with 11% inflation [even higher considering food alone] - plus all the fees...is a pipe dream. As many are aware - its places like London and other urban areas, where rents are obscene. But there is little alternative. This is the reallity for many. For those less well-off, a mortgage [effectively renting a property from a building society] is not an option.

Weve outlined what the issues and possible solutions are. The issue is not just about empty homes - but the complete lack of any joined up policy at the heart of Central Government on Housing. The "market" has never and will never - provide enough suitable housing for our people. Its flawed logic and skewed to benefit those better off. ​

 

[thewanderer]

In that which I posted earlier, I emphasised that it is more complicated than first appears. Few mention the issue of empty homes - thats exactly the reason I raised the issue. The inequality of the "market" is also a factor - it pays for people to live in squalor, in sub-standard accomodation and homelessness: the "market" is only sustained by high demand. There are many options and opportunities to build. There is brown-field land to build on - but private prtofitieers cant find enough profit on brown-field sites. This isnt an argument - but we have to consider all options and the current state of the country`s housing stock: this includes under-occupied private homes. To release these homes there has to be a strategy where occupants [especially the elderly] have the opportunity to move into more suitable accomodation.

The priority has to switch from what people can "afford" to what people "need". A country cant play with peoples lives by basing their right to a home dependant on how much they have in their pockets. The state currently subsidises private landlords by housing benefit payments and by paying the private sector for emergency accommodation. It skews the private mortgage - market by adjusting interest rates and releasing millions of former social-homes to the casino "market".

The issue is not just about empty homes - agreed. But the issue is that the "market" isnt a market at all. Its left to money to regulate buying and selling. The reality of "buying" a property is that, in many cases, the average 10% deposit is unachievable by many. Hence the "sofa-surfing" and dipping into the extremely expensive private - rented "market". To keep working and saving for a deposit, with 11% inflation [even higher considering food alone] - plus all the fees...is a pipe dream. As many are aware - its places like London and other urban areas, where rents are obscene. But there is little alternative. This is the reallity for many. For those less well-off, a mortgage [effectively renting a property from a building society] is not an option.

Weve outlined what the issues and possible solutions are. The issue is not just about empty homes - but the complete lack of any joined up policy at the heart of Central Government on Housing. The "market" has never and will never - provide enough suitable housing for our people. Its flawed logic and skewed to benefit those better off. ​

There is not enough brownfield land and the land allocation for housing is entirely controlled by the state and there is not enough empty homes because of this. You moan about "the market" but the entire problem is that the market is not allowed to function more effectively because of the state.

Also there is joined up thinking, it is to protect the wealth of older homeowners at all costs.

 

[r00fie1]

I refer you to this extract from an article on "brownfield" land in UK - related to domestic house building:

Unlocking brownfield sites through 'PropTech': a solution to the housing crisis?​

"There’s enough readily available brownfield land to deliver over 1 million homes, so why are we not building the homes we need? The public sector owns swathes of developable land, yet lacks the resources to develop the smaller, trickier sites. By shifting the balance of power and unlocking public sector capacity constraints we can enable the public sector to deliver more affordable homes and help the government reach its target of building 300,000 homes a year."

Heres a link to the article from the National Housing Federation [https://www.housing.org.uk/]>>>>

Unlocking brownfield sites: a solution to the housing crisis?

There’s enough readily available brownfield land to deliver over 1 million homes, so why are we not building the homes we need? Combining technology with new business models has the potential to completely restructure and evolve our industry.

www.housing.org.uk

​

You may also find this report useful from The Council for the Protection of Rural England
[Published October 2020]
Extract:

There is enough brownfield land for 1.3 million new homes and over half a million already have planning permission, a new report from CPRE, the countryside charity, has revealed.
The figures demonstrate that there is already enough available and suitable land in the planning system to meet the government’s ambition to build 300,000 homes per year for the next 5 years (this parliament), calling into question the controversial plans to deregulate the planning system that has been proposed by ministers.

Enough brownfield land for 1.3 million new homes, CPRE report reveals ​

https://www.cpre.org.uk/about-us/cpre-media/enough-brownfield-land-to-meet-targets/​

 

[newusername]

and councils taking brown envelops to allow it without any investment in facilities

I wish, it was a struggle to get developers to put a 1p more into a project than they had to do to make it compliant.
'Meet minimum standards' was the mantra not create great places to live that become thriving communities & a benefit to existing residents.

If the local plan said £50k for public art, you got £50k.
If formula for school places meant they made a contribution of £100k, you got £100k.
If Highways were concerned about access to the site they'd improve that but if another road was already congested they wouldn't fund any improvements.
If the bus stop (within 400m of the development) had 3 buses an hour until 6pm, you'd get nothing for transport.

If the proposal is compliant & councillors reject it as they've had load of complaints from residents about school places, more traffic, no room at the GPs, the developer will appeal and win and then the council have to fund their costs of the appeal.

They didn't need brown envelopes, the system is already geared towards them.

The problem with housing in the UK is that all the recent stimuli have been on the demand side (starter homes, Stamp Duty cuts, low interest rates, 'help to buy',) there has been no carrot or stick for major house builders to increase the supply and while councils aren't allowed to build their own (& the tories are saying they'll extend 'right to buy' to housing association tenants

 

[Redwurzel]

Ref Brownfield sites - Some can be developed and are fine but many are not. Most people don't want to live on ex-brownfield sites and positively refuse to. The better sites have been developed such as former hospitals see Workhouse hospital in Guisborough.

Some of my family are from South Bank, but they don't want to live there now. Nearly all of South Bank is brown field and probably in the 1.3m quoted. I am sorry to say its not going to be the new Shoreditch. The older members have some great memories from the 1940s and 50s, but those days have gone and went quite a number of years ago.

Ref - money for infrastructure - when a private new developer builds a house they have to give a fixed amount of the money received to the local public services. Near me new classrooms to schools have been added with these funds, money given to hospital and GPs, road maintainance and development. I can't remember the name but its Section something ( a number) funds.

 

[Redwurzel]

I wish, it was a struggle to get developers to put a 1p more into a project than they had to do to make it compliant.
'Meet minimum standards' was the mantra not create great places to live that become thriving communities & a benefit to existing residents.

If the local plan said £50k for public art, you got £50k.
If formula for school places meant they made a contribution of £100k, you got £100k.
If Highways were concerned about access to the site they'd improve that but if another road was already congested they wouldn't fund any improvements.
If the bus stop (within 400m of the development) had 3 buses an hour until 6pm, you'd get nothing for transport.

If the proposal is compliant & councillors reject it as they've had load of complaints from residents about school places, more traffic, no room at the GPs, the developer will appeal and win and then the council have to fund their costs of the appeal.

They didn't need brown envelopes, the system is already geared towards them.

The problem with housing in the UK is that all the recent stimuli have been on the demand side (starter homes, Stamp Duty cuts, low interest rates, 'help to buy',) there has been no carrot or stick for major house builders to increase the supply and while councils aren't allowed to build their own (& the tories are saying they'll extend 'right to buy' to housing association tenants

I tend to agree with Mr..... new user name

Why can't council build some housing, they are allowed to buy shopping centres in other parts of the UK, but not build a house in theor own area - crazy and to me morally corrupt.

Right to buy from housing associations - just wrong to me when we have major housing shortages, it just smells of a bribe and reduces the rental market.


Its not just Conservatives neither - didn't Blair follow the same philosphy.

To me there should be a healthy private sector housing and healthy public sector for rentals. If a housing association don't want to sell one of their properties they should not be forced to.

Planning permission should have a time limit to stop developers sitting on land with permission to build, say 2 years to start and a minimum completion of 50 properties a year.

 

[r00fie1]

I tend to agree with Mr..... new user name

Why can't council build some housing, thye are alowed to buy shopping centres in other parts of the UK, but not build a house in theor own area - crazy and to me morally corrupt

Right to buy from housing associations - just wrong to me when we have major housing shortages, it just smells of a bribe and reduces the rental market.


Its not just Conservatives neither - didn't Blair follow the same philosphy.

To me there should be a healthy private sector housing and healthy public sector for rentals. If a housing association don't want to sell one of theor properties they should not be forced to.

Planning permission should have a time limit to stop developers sitting on land with permission to build, say 2 years to start and a minimum completion of 50 properties a year.

Thats the problem wurzel: with the "Right-to-buy", there is no incentive to build social housing - because its sold in no time.
Its wasted money - effectively local councils spending money to build houses for the private "market".
Every Government since Thatcher has ignored the effects of selling off public housing, and actively encouraged it - including Blair and Brown.
There is only one Labour Leader who pledged to abolish the "right to buy" in the last 40 years.

 

[Redwurzel]

I doubt any Labour Leader has been brave enough except Corbyn?

 

[Redwurzel]

Just remebered the name of the infrastructure funding from new builds, its called Section 106 arrangements.

 

[ThatFragranceGuy]

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.

I hear the brown envelope jibe constantly and seems an odd one to me - the committees are usually cross party so any of that happening surely would be called out and investigated and fairly easy to prove?

It's often more that they can't say no if they know they will lose at appeal as tories changed the rules so they have to pay appeal legal costs if they lose, so the committee get advised by the planners as to if the case meets the framework and if it does, even if residents aren't happy, they can't say no without risking paying legal fees. If it does go to appeal I believe Secretary of State can just overturn it anyway which is what often happens.

It's quite clever really as I see people saying the brown envelope thing or saying council is greeedy for council tax (as it's a profit??) when reality is they are over a barrel and don't want to pay legal fees for a case they've been advised they will lose at appeal

 

[1finny]

A few things

Golf courses occupy more land than houses. We have the space.
Infrastructure needs to be sorted but it is easy to do if there is a will.

House builders profits are high (My view obscene - persimmon).

More houses = more supply = prices dropping = affordable for more.

Also = house prices dropping for those that have them and profits for house builders fall.

Its not hard.

 

[Air Resistance]

I hear the brown envelope jibe constantly and seems an odd one to me - the committees are usually cross party so any of that happening surely would be called out and investigated and fairly easy to prove?

It's often more that they can't say no if they know they will lose at appeal as tories changed the rules so they have to pay appeal legal costs if they lose, so the committee get advised by the planners as to if the case meets the framework and if it does, even if residents aren't happy, they can't say no without risking paying legal fees. If it does go to appeal I believe Secretary of State can just overturn it anyway which is what often happens.

It's quite clever really as I see people saying the brown envelope thing or saying council is greeedy for council tax (as it's a profit??) when reality is they are over a barrel and don't want to pay legal fees for a case they've been advised they will lose at appeal

This is completely right. Councils are over a barrel and house builders make an obscene amount of money. Weak National laws, blame it on planners but decorate it as local decision making, in reality developers get away a huge amount and input very little

 

[BoroMart]

Infrastructure needs to be sorted but it is easy to do if there is a will.

Infrastructure equals jobs, why are people scared to invest in infrastructure?

 

[BoroMart]

House builders profits are high (My view obscene - persimmon).

Land owners profits are higher. Land handed down through families from original theft and gifting by kings down to the modern owners. Handed over through trusts to avoid inheritance tax, i's all profit

 

[Glover_elbow]

This is completely right. Councils are over a barrel and house builders make an obscene amount of money. Weak National laws, blame it on planners but decorate it as local decision making, in reality developers get away a huge amount and input very little

planning is a farce, there's a process at local level with due diligence which is utterly pointless as national government just reverse the majority of decisions.

 

[thewanderer]

Most brownfield sites are in the middle of ex industrial sites, just look at a map of Teesside on Google earth for example.

The TCPA needs ripping up and starting again, it has been a disaster. We need zonal planning system rather than our current case by case system which maintains the big housebuilders oligopoly.

 

[thewanderer]

I tend to agree with Mr..... new user name

Why can't council build some housing, they are allowed to buy shopping centres in other parts of the UK, but not build a house in theor own area - crazy and to me morally corrupt.

Right to buy from housing associations - just wrong to me when we have major housing shortages, it just smells of a bribe and reduces the rental market.


Its not just Conservatives neither - didn't Blair follow the same philosphy.

To me there should be a healthy private sector housing and healthy public sector for rentals. If a housing association don't want to sell one of their properties they should not be forced to.

Planning permission should have a time limit to stop developers sitting on land with permission to build, say 2 years to start and a minimum completion of 50 properties a year.

Nothing to stop a council setting up a housebuilding company. Every time it has been tried it has ended in disaster because they cannot maintain the supply of land for development due to the arcane planning system.