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.

FTB are a lot older now so maybe a 3 bed is a sensible choice for someone in their 30s.

Yep cousin just paid 600k for a 3 bed house as they are late 30s.

At the moment even housing developments in patently unacceptable locations get permitted due to this targets. I think there is a happy medium but I am tired of seeing large developments on greenfield sites miles from any public transport or facilities.

You cannot just object to a planning application and hope it will be refused permission. You have to have valid planning reasons and the development must not conform with the adopted Local Plan for the area. If you want to enact change you need to get involved in the planning process early on, not wait for applications to come along.

But there should be why should today generation accept poorer housing standards? Or we could reduce the population untill we can and stop cramming people onto this overpopulated island. Unfortunately mumsnetters love immigration so it won't be popular here.

We need to build new towns with full amenities, not just houses where you need a car to go anywhere.

Planners should read Jane Jacobs and build communities with 'eyes on the street'.

I immigrated here during the theresa may era. I remember that while i was getting married in Europe, i visited the UK with my then fiance (who was studying in Europe at that time) and was harassed on several occasions by border officials and questioned for an hour on my 'intentions on visiting the UK'. This was despite the fact that I dont require a visa to enter the UK. I was accused of being a benefits cheat. In the end the UKVI official got so confused that she accused my DH (who has a british passport) of not being a British citizen..

However, i have indefinite leave to remain today. And immigration numbers have only increased largely due to students (who then stay behind). If you want to dissuade students from coming, have a strong pound.

Also people don't need to live here to buy housing. They sell properties overseas and people don't even need to come here. Saying that everyone deserves a house with garden is not going to make it happen. yes in the 1950s t0 2000s, many people had houses with gardens and it was relatively affordable. That is only 50 years. The UK has a far longer history than that. my DH's great grandfather lived in a literal slum in the East End. I don't think there is a rule anywhere that our living standards are always meant to improve. If this is about justice, then surely it is fair enough our living standards drop since we had it so good for such a long time. I am not sure it matters whether you accept your living standards..short of voting for a different government, I am not sure what control you have over the housing situation.

@felulageller - this is why we need the local and national govt to plan it and be in charge of house building - like they built houses and hospitals post war; like they are building HS2. Spend more developing good quality housing with enough electric car charging points, solar panels, protection from flooding, fibre to the premises. Make these a mix of types and sell them at a small profit (larger profit for the larger, more luxurious houses). Plough the profits (can do if it is govt funded) into building more houses with facilities on brownfield sites. Repeat.

Accept smaller housing, but demand it at lower cost and WITH adequate facilities - solar panels, insulation, fire protection, schools, GP surgeries, fast internet, transport. These are a lot more important in my opinion than a private garden.

Agree with that but also we need to overhaul leasehold law. In itself living in an apartment is fine. What isn't fine is having to pay ground rent and spurious maintenance charges of thousands every year. No owner occupier wants to do that. A landlord who can pass the charges on to a tenant who oftentimes can claim at least the most unmanageable parts back through benefits doesn't worry about any of it. Again this is a deep rooted issue around buying and selling property in the UK and the various pots of public money it leaches off.

completely agree. I think we should make it much easier for residents to buy the freehold of the flats or even better convert all leases to common hold. Or the system in Scotland.

My DH is a director in the residents management company so I am not worried about the maintenance charges as he can see the accounts and the quotes.

Hope that continues to work for you.

A lot of newer developments specify that they are only available to investors and not owner occupiers. Of course this is a very good method of having a continual cash cow - the freeholder can charge as they please, the owner who doesn't live there just puts up rent, the occupier ponies up, gets out or claims benefits. Whichever way, the freehold title owner has a neverending supply of cash.

That is, apartment developments.

Although ofc we do now have the even more absurd situation where houses on new developments are being sold on a leasehold basis.

Developers get away with it because of the peculiarities of English land law, where all title ultimately belongs to the crown and there are only varying degrees of sub ownership available below that, including freehold. It's fucking feudal nonsense but it's being put to good use by modern multi asset owners.

How does that affect you?

Well, it's not great for climate change or the natural environment.

I'm not a nimby, I live in a developed area. These are applications I am aware of through my work.

And that is precisely the attitude I am talking about.

I've heard it all before. We must build houses.

Did you ever stop and think about the issues being raised? Shall I repeat the issues we face where I live? Or is that all just more NIMBYism to you?

Rural B roads gridlocked because of the very real and seemingly insurmountable (because nobody will pay out millions to build a new bridge) issues with a single river crossing, roads that simply cannot take an increase in traffic. That alone should have given developers, planners etc pause for thought. But no! Because people like you shrug, assume that's all hyperbole and don't ever come out and see it for yourselves.

As I said, local planners gave permission for a total road closure for road resurfacing, because it is only a B road. When residents, hauliers etc raised a query we were all told that there was no other way. So we got our MP involved and there was a traffic census which revealed that the traffic load was 2 - 3 times greater than expected, much higher than the nearest A routes that were acknowledged routes between motorways. And again, the geography of the place meant that the roads chosen for the original diversion were utterly unsuitable for larger vehicles and often added 20 - 30 miles to a daily commute - down single lane tracks!

Nobody listens because everyone involved finds the "NIMBYS/What about our kids?" excuses work very effectively!

Building houses in such areas causes untold issues, all of which are highlighted again and again by locals. Many of who here are now suffering from floods of river and sewage water because of new builds on river plains, water meadows. They too were told that their protest were NIMBYisms and that eventually, at some unspecified time on the future, when all the developments are complete, their will be adequate provision for the removal of water from the development sites. Not reassuring when your house, previously never flooded in its 2 - 300 year existence, has been flooded multiple times since development began and the phrase "from the development sites" could mean you house, again and again!

But hey! You've often heard all of that before and, in short, who cares? We must build houses for our kiddies!

As I said, you proved my point quite adequately!

I have typed up quite a few words that explain how it affects me and the thousands of people who lice in each of the towns around me. Real time, real life negative issues compounded by a lack of anyone being willing to acknowledge the reality of the situation!

Oh, we'll spend a few million on the roundabouts. But nothing will change the traffic flow across that one river crossing, that suddenly has a single carriageway because previously someone penny pinched across a flood plain.

Oh, we need to build 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,000 houses out there to meet the county needs. Out here is quite literally full. Due to the road, the two rivers and a fucking great forest! Build a bridge. Then build a 'new town' around the bridge head. Nobody would be complaining then! And yes, they can afford the infrastructure. They've just built a new town, medical centre, university campus etc etc... all of which feeds into the existing, already overused infrastructure.

But I suppose I am still NIMBYing!

And in areas where there has long been, quite deliberately, no Local Plan? Where the one currently being worked on (and yes I am involved) cannot/will not be completed in time to prevent the building of up to 10,000 new homes in areas that are often unsuitable for obvious reasons?

This is the reality out here in the green and pleasant, currently filling with water, hinterlands so beloved by delvelopers!

There have been huge numbers of houses and flats built near where I live, the traffic is terrible. The UK has had massive immigration, causing demand, hedge funds and financial institutions are allowed to buy numerous properties as are foreign investors.

Law should be changed to protect locals, but won’t. Although many holiday locations are now introducing restrictions on short term holiday let’s.

we need countryside for growing food

Lots of new houses and flats have also been built near to me most of them are empty cos no one can afford to live in them, meanwhile there are a lot of people living in vans around here
What's going to happen to all these new houses and flats that are standing empty, will the people in vans break in and squat in them??

A perhaps stupid question from an outsider:
Can the UK afford to build single family homes on potentially arable land?
What about food production?

Don't ask. Farmers are after all rich, land grabbing bastards who get loads of subsidies not to grow food. Etc etc.

Or into cruel animal husbandry, as proven by film and farming practices of anywhere other than the UK and anywhere other than now.

Until Covid farmland was secondary to housing needs. Now, with Russia's blockade etc? It now may have gained temporary import. But we don't have enough to be self sustaining, it's too expensive, it's cheaper to import out of season green beans from Kenya etc etc.