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.

Jesus wept! What part of what I wrote said that!?!

READ me. My words, not those ascribed to 'people like me' according to @socialmedia23

I am telling OP, and anyone else who blithely trots out that "There is a lot of countryside out there" that there are some contentious issues that have bugger all to do with house prices.

You can choose to join the ever lengthening line of people who see rural areas and think they are a waste of space and build on them or you can stop and actually listen to those of us who live out here in The Boonies and hear what our objections really are.

As I have posted sometimes the local opinion is right!

Sure services are cut due to lack of government funding. I didn't say that was the only cause. There are many issues involved. The point I was trying to make is that we are all affected by the housing crisis. There is no simple solution.

But decent affordable housing is not only a right but an essential in order for people to survive, let alone thrive. Substandard overcrowded housing causes health problems and lots of other social problems which would end up on our backyard sooner or later.

I am actually thinking of Amersham and Chesham Then maybe consider being honest, specific about that. Instead of your broad brush stroke application of perspective.

Because you seem to have closed your ears and mind to those of us who live in NotLondon.

OP "The point I was trying to make is that we are all affected by the housing crisis."

we're all affected by overpopulation.

one of my biggest problems at the mo is the volume of home building in my local area. It wasn't designed to hold this many people and the resulting low quality of life drives away essential workers.

good for the folk of A&C. They will become victim eventually but they've probably delayed it, hence buying themselves a bit more time having quality of life.

OP "Substandard overcrowded housing causes health problems and lots of other social problems which would end up on our backyard sooner or later."

yes, but that's what they build so why blame A&C for that?

Lol at op, London doesn't have much infrastructure? OK then.

Them not building properties that people could have bought means that a lot of professionals are still in rentals. This means that poor people are competing with them for private rentals, which they can I'll afford. It means poorer households end up in temporary housing with their children.

If we do not build, many families would become homeless in the immediate population.

The Plan led system is a good system. The council produces a Local Plan with policies and site allocations. It consults the public and developers and works out the best places to build the development that is needed. Working together shapes the places in which we live.

I wish the government and the public didn't view planners as the bad guys. We try to make places better.

I know.

I am sat here thinking, but we don't have properly fast broadband, Uber or any other taxi services, we have just lost 70% of our bus service, no Deliveroo.

And then, no police presence for most of the time. Nearest hospital is 11.5 miles away, rural roads, 1 medical centre, no medical Walk In, no bank, post office is closing, none of the other bells and whistles most people seem to be upset over losing at the moment.

We do have great local services like the library. Community charities for people, cats and dogs. Bloody great potholes, broken sewers, traffic jams because of the roads, resurfaced 2 year ago, being dug up for facilities to new build developments. Half finished development where they tried to sneak in 2 additional house. Been left so long the eyesore, rotting houses, has been given permission just to resolve the issue. That's the 3rd time that developer has pulled that trick and got away with it - this time he built on part of a nature reserve!

It used to be possible to live here and not need to go elsewhere. But the loss of banks made a huge difference. Cash was preferred here. Tapping for payment was not possible, our wifi around town is unreliable - as are all mobile phone services. Shops now have to pay full price for a card services that are unreliable, even after the minor upgrade - and nobody is putting better in here, though the developments around us are having all sorts of upgrades. Which we can see, they form part of the traffic jams we are stuck in. No amount of asking, lobbying etc has made any difference. Those upgrades will not be making a left turn into the town centre any time soon!

Things nobody who doesn't live rurally would unertsand or believe!

The council produces a Local Plan with policies and site allocations I am involved with ours. Or I was. It is really hard to work your ay through the small mindedness of some people.

Locally there wasn't a LP, so District LA could say yes or no without too much oversight. Building a LP has shone bright lights on all sorts of small town meanness of thought! But then our Town Council has members who have been in place for more than 30 years!

It means poorer households end up in temporary housing with their children.

Would you send them all here? To a place and life that they have no connection to, would have nothing n commo with?

I refer you to the clearances of Everton, the building of Corby and many other social housing experiments that ended in misery!

no preferably they should be housed locally. But if they did not need to compete with long term renters for housing, that would be better. And if we could convert some long term renters to potential home buyers in other parts of the country (that they may prefer anyway since many british people dream of living rurally), that would be preferable.

As in your post, living rurally is challenging. For people who can't afford to run a car or who work shifts, they may be better off in a city where there is a 24 hour bus so they can get around more easily. Someone with more disposable income might be fine and even enjoy living rurally.

???? Madness. Absolutely bobbins. Cities for the poor, green rural lovely cleanliness for the wealthy. Presumably there will some housing for the servants, the healthcare workers rich old people will require?

I assume you haven't looked at what happened to the people who were uprooted and moved, say Scottish steelworkers to Corby?

Or the destruction of communities, scattering of families when Everton was cleared? Oh and the realities of the housing they were moved into - concrete fatigue, The Piggeries etc.

Such social manipulation has to be very carefully undertaken, It rarely, if ever, works well when not a natural process.

since many british people dream of living rurally

But you said there wouldn't be the jobs. They would need to work on farms, pick fruit, wipe rich old arses!

Boating "I wish the government and the public didn't view planners as the bad guys. We try to make places better."

the govt hire developers?

I see them as problematic because they tend to be all blue sky and no realism. They think a new open space can be made of concrete, benches and improve wellbeing. They don't want to know when locals predict it will be another area to avoid en route home from the station because it's just another area for dealers.

Samphire tells the story from her side - I can imagine no one listens to those problems. They wanted to split up the bus stops here, so the end of waiting in one covered area for a choice of buses going the same way for commuters.

This was about 10 years ago and one actually said "you sound like you're in your 80s" because I don't have a bus app. Even if I did, the buses being together under a roof is so helpful....that TFL stopped the planners!

i've been involved in a few consultations and while the planners are usually nice enough, they aren't employed to help the area. They are employed to push an agenda.

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).

I think this is the best option for young people with the means. Not great for those left behind particularly with the fact we are ageing!

We also have services that are at capacity, including GPs, schools

London schools will be facing a surplus of places soon, not enough kids!

Ludicrous isn't it?

We should ship our rural urchins into the Big Smoke. Let them Oliver about Town for a few years. Get a real education!!

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.

Yep, there was an article about the fact there isn't enough suitable housing for the elderly

People need a roof over their heads and it’s better for the economy overall for housing to be affordable.

yep but think so many have been placated by their house being worth X that they've not cared so much about wage stagnation or savings loosing value.

its not the case where i live. the catchment for the local secondary for my postcode is 0.2 miles. i think it probably is the case in places like camden and westminster where the families who can afford to stay there can afford private education. I don't think the prep schools in London are undersubscribed for example

For those born, working, living rurally this causes no end of issues. Mostly being priced out of properties, buying or rentin

tbf many of these people will have been born in a place where housing costs have pushed them out.

That's happening though isn't it? Those retirement blocks of flats where the management company buys back when you die. Keeps the prices relatively low. We have 2 of those in our small town. All 'move ins' (I love that expression, its so dismissive!). They have released precisely 0 local homes to local people. But are cheaper than those in nearby more affluent areas, so even there, local people are being priced out!

we have an overpopulation problem

largely because people are living longer, so many don't seem to understand this & the impact it's going to have.

It is/was a thing though

www.ft.com/content/b557a784-e1e1-4625-a237-14d435723200