House building targets scrapped.

[socialmedia23]

www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/05/sunak-backs-down-on-housebuilding-targets-after-pressure-from-tory-mps

I am surprised there isn't a thread on this already on a parenting forum because this really does threaten British preferences and social norms. Most british people want to live in a house with garden. I was just on a thread where a poster was trying to decide whether she should downsize from a house to a flat in her preferred location and the prevailing consensus was that flats were no good for babies, should have a house with garden where the children can play in etc etc. This isn't the norm in many countries in the world, but it appear to be the norm in the UK outside London. However, what this norm depends on is LAND. in cities where there is generally less opposition to building, they tend to build flats due to the high cost of land.

The reason why so many British people live in houses today is because there was a house building boom in the 1930s and then the 1950s where they built lots of houses. Including ex council houses with gardens in the 1950s. I own a 1930s flat and when i read local history, it was literally opposite an actual farm. So while it is suburban london today, it was considered quite a rural area when it was built and completely different in character; today I am a 2 minute walk to a dry cleaners, a bakery, a small local supermarket/deli, a breakfast place and a 15 minute walk from a tube station that takes me to central london within 20 minutes.

So scrapping house building targets would mean that the future houses for the young Britons of today would not get built while the population is increasing. As every area would be able to object to housebuilding if it 'has an impact on the local character'. If this was the case in the 1930s, my flat would never have been built. And perhaps I wouldn't have been able to afford to stay in London as the only properties available would be Victorian workers cottages, flats above shops and grand mansions.

I think that this does not bode well for young people. As my friend said, if he did not have the means to buy property, he would definitely leave the UK. This could potentially engineer a London style housing crisis even in affordable regions of the UK. Never mind about houses for young families, I think 50% of the population would be struggling to rent. I read a stat that 25% of renters are either returning to the family home or would do so within the next year. This is the situation in 2022; how much worse would it be in 10 years time?

And no increasing mortgage rates would not help with this. You need the supply.

Agree not good for those without a home of their own.

There is far too little re-use of brownfield sites for housing, yet many empty shop buildings (which may only increase). Nothing is done to reduce second homes and holiday lets- if you could reduce them by a third it is equivalent to a year's house building.

Shop buildings would probably be converted to flats. And not even flats that I would want to live in as i would want a large communal garden and place for bike storage etc. You need land for that. And of course for the houses that British people love.

How to reduce second homes- you can increase stamp duty and you can increase council tax but rich people have money. They want to spend it. How can you stop that.

How to reduce holiday lets: Edinburgh is trying to restrict it by getting them to apply for planning permission- my instinct is that it could go some way but would not fully resolve the problem.

Surely there isn't enough room for everyone to have a garden?

They don’t develop brown field sites due to the high cost, a green fresh field is far more lucrative, bring on the digger and they can crack on, not so with brown field sites, like the OP says most people want a house, driveway and garden, this type of house is rarely built on BF as they are generally not located for the suburban dream and lend themselves to inner city/town living which means flats or townhouses without gardens so a limited market for the house builders which means much less profit. As for converting shops into flats, it’s quite hard and expensive to convert old buildings to comply with building and fire regs and again a limited market would want to live in them so again, less profit therefore no incentive for developers.

There is a market for flats in London. Housebuilders are happy to crack on. However they would want to sell them to foreign investors or foreign buyers to make maximum profit. I just had a viewing for my flat (suburban london but with communal garden), the buyer is v young but an ex international student. Most people live in flats in the country she comes from.

I am not British but I don't think we should position national policy to favour the preferences of the people who aren't even British. This does not affect international buyers at all as most of them would not want to buy outside cities in the first place so it is irrelevant whatever they are building outside cities.

Hang on, you aren’t British but you think Britain should follow your theories about house planning.
Okay.

my DC would be British...and I have lived in London for the past 10 years. I also have indefinite leave to remain and I own a home here, therefore pretty settled. my DH is British.

Are non British people not allowed to have an opinion about the country they live in and pay taxes in and also own property in? I also have the right to vote here as a Commonwealth citizen so I do have a voice at the voting booth...I don't get any visible advantages from taking up citizenship so I have not taken up citizenship. On the other hand, i do retain advantages by keeping my current citizenship including access to subsidized housing (should i choose to return) and subsidized healthcare (if the NHS does not work) and I am not allowed dual citizenship.

Other cities, towns and villages are available. The housing crisis does not start at the “welcome to London” sign.

a bit confused at your comment as my impression is that the housing crisis is quite serious in other parts of the UK. And could get worse...

i mean, i have a friend in the north who is a civil servant and struggling to buy his first property so i know its not just a 'London' thing. Anecdotally, most of my peer group in London do own houses but that is because their parents have helped them out. That doesn't mean that there is no housing crisis, it just means that I am in a bubble!

I agree with scrapping the targets because they just lead to developers having complete freedom to trash the countryside and build shoeboxes for maximum profit.

We do need house building but we need to get rid of the corruption that allows so much poor housing to be built on greenfield sites with so little accompanying infrastructure.

I think all MPs should be forced to live on or next to a new-build estate. Quality would go up overnight.

The Government does not build houses or flats.

Property developers buy land and build whatever they can within planning restrictions that will show a profit.

If there is no profit to be had, they will not build there.

It's that simple.

This is why we are persuading our kids to get educated in something they can move away with (luckily they can get an EU passport).

The problems with home ownership is not just building and land it's that people expect their house to keep rising in price yet then moan their children can't afford to buy near them.

Hopefully the rise in interest rates will alter this continued house price rise because two average wages in most of the UK can no longer buy one average house.

they can't build if the residents reject it as often planning permission would not be given!

they can't build if the residents reject it as often planning permission would not be given!

It's not so much existing residents as other planning constraints. Much of the land is saturated with nitrate phosphates and so developers have to pay huge amounts to offset the environmental impact. Often this will make the plot too expensive and they cannot make a profit.

What @WallaceinAnderland said. The big property companies have plenty of land however will build when the conditions suit them. Currently energy bills, high cost of materials, lack of skilled Labour, planning restrictions etc stop them. The government can't make them. They are out to make profit, believe or not margins are really tight in construction!

Much of this is a backlash against the wholesale destruction of farming land and the isolating of small town and large villages. within striking distance of a motorway.

Where I am we have a natural pinch point - a single river crossing.

We also have services that are at capacity, including GPs, schools
We have just lost our main bus route - apparently it wasn't used enough and so, despite it being a protected rural route it has been axed to 4 times a day, none of which get kids to school or people to work on time

The roads around us, all of the land within the town, between town and outlying farmhouses, has been earmarked, outline planning explored, by developers, who don't actually own the land, for development to meet the county's published numbers. These are all being given the go ahead and those developers are arm twisting to squeak in some more houses, skewing the social housing % in their favour.

So now our small town with its highly constrained roads, geographical issues with severe flooding - we are between 2 rivers, is being stretched from the 6,000 inhabitants to a further 3 - 4000 family homes, few of which will be bought or lived in by locals.

This will exacerbate the isolation of the town centre. It has already been bypassed, has a large, ever growing dormitory 'new town' on one side - that itself has very restricted access, absolutely nor faculties and the plans that are always put in place when each phase of new development starts are always then deferred until the next phase and the next and the next. That dormitory settlement is now larger than the original town and few inhabitants use the town shops etc. They do nothing for the town other than add tot eh congestion on that single river crossing point.

Plans in place will increase dormitory satellites around town, hemming it in, isolating it, using its essential services but not its shopping centre.

So good! Maybe we can stop some of the planned build.

well this issue will mean that our welfare state grows even more unaffordable.

Less housing = higher housing costs, fewer people being able to afford to buy = pressure on rents= more people forced to live in poor housing = effects on health and wellbeing = NHS under strain

Also the impact on housing benefit. If key workers cannot afford the rent in many areas, shortage of key workers in education and healthcare which affects us all.

I am not sure how having an expensive house (worth far more than what you paid for it) is of much use if you are elderly and infirm and the local hospital is overstretched due to lack of staff and then you die of a heart attack because there is no staff. Or if you are infirm and the care worker can only spend 10 minutes a day attending to you at home as she has a 100 mile round trip from her home. You could pass it on to your children but would have a miserable end of life due to it.

perhaps what should be proposed is that developers should work with local residents to figure out where best to build these new homes, rather than just simply rejecting all new homes.

they can't build if the residents reject it as often planning permission would not be given!

Tell me how often you have entered into that process?

We residents have almost no way of stopping development no mater what issues are raised.

Not even on land called The Water Meadows. If you build there, we all said, paid for assessments and proved, you will push the flood water elsewhere. First attempt and Rishi Sunak no less, said that the land was not right for development. Developers waited less than 3 years to go again... houses now complete and guess what? Houses that have not been flooded in 3 - 400 years have now been absolutely gutted by flowing waters.

Who pays their bills? Not the developers.

There is little truth in the idea that local knowledge and the voices of local people will be listened to.

perhaps what should be proposed is that developers should work with local residents to figure out where best to build these new homes, rather than just simply rejecting all new homes.

See my very next post.

OP "I am not sure how having an expensive house (worth far more than what you paid for it) is of much use if you are elderly and infirm and the local hospital is overstretched due to lack of staff and then you die of a heart attack because there is no staff. Or if you are infirm and the care worker can only spend 10 minutes a day attending to you at home as she has a 100 mile round trip from her home. You could pass it on to your children but would have a miserable end of life due to it."

1. what does that have to do with new building? It sounds like a rant against old people.

2. the family home can be a great comfort to the elderly and infirm. Case in point, my mum was told by so many people to move. Thank goodness she didn't. As a family we have access to a house and garden with room to house me and a carer if needed. If she was in a small flat, and me and my sister in a small flat, it would be much harder.

3. what does hospital staffing levels have to do with where someone lives? Some people might need to choose location on account of hospitals but that's not applicable to everyone. We are in London and there's staffing issues here.

I grew up in flats, it was fine! I’d rather have land set aside for wildlife and biodiversity, which is really struggling.

There is a huge disconnect between what is happening with legislation and the impact it is having on the housing market.

The reality is we need more housing. We need flexible housing and we need a variety of different types of housing because we have a diverse population whose housing needs are not currently met.

The rules on renting have caused so many problems and increased the costs, which impact tenants saving for a deposit. The reduction in homes available for rent has reduced the ability of the workforce to be flexible and move to where there is work.

Planning rules are important but you have a lot of greenfield sites which could be used for housing. People need a roof over their heads and it’s better for the economy overall for housing to be affordable. I say this as someone who has 15 acres of land split between 4 sites which isn’t farmed but has horses on them. Meanwhile I pass homeless people in the street, less than 3 miles away. You can’t make it up.

Im also not opposed to people having a 2nd home. What about someone working in London and having a flat for mid week while the children and their spouse live further out? What about a family having a small 2 bed apartment in town and having a weekend home in a rural area? If we build housing to this model it shouldn’t be a problem.

rather than just simply rejecting all new homes. And the point is that here, without a new river crossing, our roads just cannot carry any more traffic.

There is no real chance of a new bridge. It has been mooted and dismissed for decades.

And I am not talking about the roads being a little bit full. I am talking about a road that gets regularly flooded and the alternative route can be a 50 mile detour.

Currently the time to travel into the nearest major work place, 7 miles, takes about 20 minutes. In rush hour, school pick ups time etc, that can take 2 hours. That is 3+ miles of cars, along 3 major routes so 10 ish miles of standing traffic, each and every single day. Those queues get longer with every new development opened, even without flooding, road works, and we have loads of those as gas, electric, water, cable/wifi/telephone lines etc are being laid for the new developments, one at a time.

So yes. We tend to reject any and all new builds on that point alone.

@Aintnosupermum please don't suggest green field sites without reading my posts.

Your acreage si one thing. Fully rural areas are quite another. And we have found that we can do NOTHING to ameliorate the issues.