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.

Are you getting confused about housing crisis / affordable housing in cities and major towns ?
Where I live villages are being eaten up by building on fields and therefore joining up towns / villages .
There aren't new jobs , new schools / new shops / new Dr surgeries to accommodate them .

Sorry, I also missed this last bit

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.

Not a problem for who?

For those born, working, living rurally this causes no end of issues. Mostly being priced out of properties, buying or renting. It also changes the nature of most infant and junior schools, those families tend to head back for 'town' when the kids get older, suddenly the rural idyll becomes less idyllic!

So we also have unsubscribed secondary schools that then have to close. Leading to issues with bus routes, and all sorts of other things.

It isn't as simple as "Let them eat cake!"

a lot of the people protesting against house building are predominately older home owners. This is to maintain the value of their homes. However these people do not exist in a bubble; as they grow older, they require the services of predominatly younger people to wipe their arses and cure them of their many ailments. Hospital wards are not staffed by 80 year old homeowners or even 40 year old rich homeowners; many of them would be staffed by nurses on low wages and junior doctors. Who are very much at the mercy of the current housing market as they are in their 20s and would not be able to buy at a time when it is affordable.

You are bloody kidding. Ageist, clueless bollocks.

Lack of housing supply and higher housing costs means that people would have to live further from where they work. Or may not live in a certain location as the housing costs vs pay does not make sense. Actually london has less of that problem as it is a magnet for immigrants who tend to be more willing to live in smaller accommodation or may be able to bunk in with distant family. I am an immigrant and i lived with my DH's family for 3 years before buying my own place;this is very normal in my home country but probably not normal for most British people! However for expensive parts of the SW, it may mean that younger people working in essential services, who do not yet own property would not want to work in a hospital in such a location.

You have no idea, do you?

erm so where are the key workers who don't have a handout from mum and dad supposed to live if there is no new supply in the local area?

Are they all supposed to rent rooms from the older home owners? What if they have families?

*they require the services of predominantly younger people to wipe their arses

*
Lovely bit of ageism there OP! You sounds completely clueless and quite ignorant actually.

can you imagine how bad the housing crisis would be in cities if there were no new build estates where there is actually space to build them?

I would love there to be more flats and houses in my London suburb but if we did that, we may actually have to get rid of our local woods as well as demolish whole streets. There isn't any space.

So you are saying they have to wipe their own arses when they are senile? That is just cruel!

I mean, growing old is a natural process and short of euthanasia, that would be what is required. And yes I hope that it is younger people who would be doing the job, hopefully there would still be some sort of state pension at that point? And I hope it is 25 year olds who are doing this sort of job because caring for the elderly is difficult and labour intensive and it is better if it is predominantly younger people with no dependents who would be doing such jobs.

erm so where are the key workers who don't have a handout from mum and dad supposed to live if there is no new supply in the local area?

Mmm! Let me see. Currently they live with their parents. They used to move out into the neighbouring areas. But that housing stock was taken up by 'move ins' many who are mobile, could live anywhere, but came here because it was comparatively cheap. Now the housing stick is limited, expensive and not for locals. We have 3 sheltered housing complexes, 4 independent care suppliers in town. Because care work pays a pittance and is not for everyone they are always short staffed. Young people move away, or stay at home with mum and dad. Few get handouts. Well, few locals.

Are they all supposed to rent rooms from the older home owners? What if they have families? Do you know, it's really odd, but actually, many people do actually rent family homes from other people!

I would love there to be more flats and houses in my London suburb but if we did that, we may actually have to get rid of our local woods as well as demolish whole streets. There isn't any space.

Oh, so not your woods, but our forest is fair game?

You have no space, but rural areas have plenty, regardless of infrastructure. Issues you have resolutely ignored in previous posts!

I am a bit lost what point you are trying to make

but my own experience of nurses and HCAs - be interesting to see some stats? - is that they are c40, with families, looking for the security etc that comes with the NHS jib at the mo.

you seem to have some bizarre fixed ideas about what type of person "should" do what type of job.

what are you trying to say?

we have an overpopulation problem and lack of social housing. Building big houses on green spaces isn't going to help either of those is it?

I'm glad if this latest news causes a pause in building, though as others have said, it will really pause because it's becoming more expensive for the building companies.

OK.

Better solution.

Stop all green belt building. Each LA dusts off it's housing stock folder, look anew at long term empty properties, brown spaces, empty office blocks etc and chooses to redevelop properly. Central living areas with small shops, cafes, gyms etc surrounded by a satellite of work, leisure, major shopping areas. Infill all brown sites, safeguard all green spaces, build more open spaces. Make best use of urban areas.

Let small towns and villages do the same. Respond to need, develop locally, organically. Stop developers building land banks and building shoddy houses.

That's my skeletal wishlist... town planners can flesh it out.

I wouldn't want to demolish your woods, but a featureless field opposite a railway station isn't quite the same. We already have flat blocks opposite our station next to the woods.

My area was a 'rural' village 100 years ago but it isn't anymore. it got absorbed into London. And a good thing it was too! Infrastructure just has to grow with the local population. I mean in London we barely have enough infrastructure but I would say that anyone from anywhere in the world is welcome here :)

One of the interesting points in Gove’s letter to MPs was about giving the power to planning authorities to penalise developers who skew housing provision rates by getting planning permissions but not building out. So those developers with a record of poor build rate could be refused consent. I hate Gove but this is a good direction to go in, to stop hoarding sites for future profit.

Likewise his point about not putting an unfair burden on those LPAs with a good track record of new housing numbers

OP "My area was a 'rural' village 100 years ago but it isn't anymore. it got absorbed into London."

you think older people protest about development to protect the value of their houses. I've been protesting about local development since my 20s, because lovely outer London areas just turned into overcrowded inner city type spaces.

The field by the railway line IS the nature many of us want to preserve - old, young, rich, poor.

my main point is that:

1. People in rural areas and towns want to maintain their house prices so oppose any house building.
2. The house value is maintained; so the only people who can afford to live there are people who are generally already on the housing ladder or who have quite a lot of money
3. Public sector jobs do not tend to pay well so generally the people who work for them would not be able to afford high housing prices; they may have to commute from further away.this has a negative impact on local services if commuting is expensive or unworkable particularly with long shifts.
4. Even homeowners depend on local services particularly the elderly. in any case, everyone would become elderly one day through the natural passage of time (hence why it does not benefit anyone if the young do not have access to affordable housing and hence cannot work in certain areas).

Infrastructure just has to grow with the local population. So you REALLY aren't reading what has been posted!

Infrastructure here, the most needed on, CANNOT be built. There is no just about it. That's the point I have been making. Nobody cares. Developers develop, get knocked back they wait a while and go again. And the wider community just has to live with the egregiously harmed fall out.

There are better solutions. They just aren't as cheap for the developers.

People in rural areas and towns want to maintain their house prices so oppose any house building. As I said. You have no idea. Where are you thinking of? Because it isn't where I live, which is pretty far from London, industrial past with a national forest to protect too!

The house value is maintained; so the only people who can afford to live there are people who are generally already on the housing ladder or who have quite a lot of money
Rich people will always exist. What you are talking about again is older people. Many of whom are housing their adult kids. It really isn't that they don't want more houses.

Public sector jobs do not tend to pay well so generally the people who work for them would not be able to afford high housing prices; they may have to commute from further away.this has a negative impact on local services if commuting is expensive or unworkable particularly with long shifts.
Yes, we know that. That''s why we are losing more and more of those services. But satellite housing estates do not solve that issue. For you that is a thought, a premise, something to ponder, to spout, it is the reality where I live.

Even homeowners depend on local services particularly the elderly. in any case, everyone would become elderly one day through the natural passage of time (hence why it does not benefit anyone if the young do not have access to affordable housing and hence cannot work in certain areas).

Again, we know. That is our lived reality. What you seem to think will resolve that issue is seen, from over here, as the very cause of it!

Thanks for clarifying

I think people want to keep their areas nicely, I'm not aware of a service crisis rurally but I daresay people are wise enough to make their own choices.

like pp say, mostly objections get ignored so what you're worried about isn't happening. Lots of small villages across the country have been turned into, or encircled by, new towns.

you've just reminded me to do a donation to a trust who are keeping hold of a patch of land I'm very fond of...in order to protect it from developers. It has nothing to do with the price of my flat, it's about 20 miles away. But I really don't want to lose any more green space. I only know of it because an ex lived near it.

a pp also mentioned that people have had enough of this....I really hope so. It's beyond a joke how overdeveloped we are, it will be growing food in laboratories next.

Or Logan's Run, Soylent Green will be reinvented and passed into legislation.

Hush my mouth....

@SamphiretheTervosaurReturneth

I would say you are the one who is lacking the ability to listen to others.

The first priority should be that people can afford housing. How lovely that my neighbors get to see horses in a field from their window…while we have people with no or limited secure housing.

Also OP, your statement "even homeowners depend on local services". Things like libraries and leisure centres are cut because the government wants to cut them. Many people campaigned to keep them and had no luck, and staff were made redundant.

You seem to have muddled up a lot of issues, seemingly in search of a simple solution to a problem you perceive.

Also nothing to do with what OP is saying. Tony Blair deciding to turn London into Monte Carlo is a huge ongoing problem, I agree.

I hear you. See also "Idiocracy".

I am actually thinking of Amersham and Chesham. I don't support the tories at all but they lost there in a by election to the Lib Dems over planning. It definitely had something to do with house prices. That is an expensive area (and where Londoners move when they want to start families). It is also very small.

it is also very well connected, end of the Met Line and connected via tube. They were planning to build flats there which would have been great for priced out londoners but apparently the locals did not want the london yobs in their backyard, only people who can afford their big houses.