Concerned about Labour’s plans to build more houses

[Dongdingdong]

First of all - I’m in broad support of Labour’s manifesto and am very happy to hear that they want to build hundreds of thousands of council houses if they win the election.

BUT I’m concerned about WHERE these homes will be built. I don’t want to see wildlife destroyed and swathes of green land concreted over and covered in ugly roads and houses.

If Corbyn commits to building these homes on brownfield sites within towns, cities and industrial sites then I will 100% support that and then some.

But they shouldn’t be built at the expense of the environment.

AIBU?

There is loads of empty space in the UK and we desperately need more housing. Labours plans barely begin to address the problem of years of under investment in housing

Labours plans barely begin to address the problem of years of under investment in housing

Why do you say that? According to the BBC “Labour’s manifesto includes a pledge to be building 100,000 council houses and at least 50,000 affordable homes through housing associations a year by the end of the Parliament.”

Given there are around 320,000 homeless people in the UK, it sounds like Labour’s plans would actually go a very long way to solving the housing crisis.

KnowBetterDoBetter. That’s really shite and I’m genuinely sorry for your situation. The lack of housing is shameful. I sometimes go into London and homelessness has definitely increased over the last few years. We need to get houses built for the people who live in the UK now and we need to release all those houses that are currently not occupied. Taxes need to be increased to do this. But we really cannot allow our population to keep increasing at the current rate. Our wildlife is important. Once it’s gone, it’s gone.

I think we need to build proper social housing for older people who live in larger council houses to move into which is local to their present homes. many older folk remain in these larger homes because their social infrastructure (family, friends & neighbours etc) is in that area, Either we look at larger council houses with big gardens (many of the really old ones have enormous gardens) as they become empty, financial encourage people to move to smaller homes & than recycle the land & increase density (especially within towns) to try & do this. ditto with low rise but supported & decently sized flats purely for this age group that are fully accessible & near facilities such as doctors & shops. I have seen examples of this. Also unused flats & factories & possibly even shops - if it is done properly. But unlike Harlow, I would be very careful about placing needy & vulnerable people with others who maybe involved with criminal or drug habits, or at very least making a safe environment with good social supports. This is not meant to be a sweeping judgement or generalisation -but what happened in the temporary housing & some permanent housing elsewhere is a cause for concern for the most vulnerable. Frequently people are moved from one expensive housing area (ie London) to a poorer area without any support & this needs to be dealt with as I can see this happening if they are not careful.

KnowBetterDoBetter. That’s really shite and I’m genuinely sorry for your situation. The lack of housing is shameful. I sometimes go into London and homelessness has definitely increased over the last few years. We need to get houses built for the people who live in the UK now and we need to release all those houses that are currently not occupied. Taxes need to be increased to do this. But we really cannot allow our population to keep increasing at the current rate. Our wildlife is important. Once it’s gone, it’s gone.

Thank you for your kind reply, and I apologise for being snippy. You're right - if there is another way to both tackle the housing issue, and protect wildlife and the environment, then I'm absolutely all for it.

There’s a word for people who’d like to stop much-needed genuinely affordable housing being built: NIMBY. The new social homes we need are unlikely be built on top of our beloved newts and lizards. It’s the private house builders who’ve been fuelling the crazy housing market who most want to build on greenfield sites. Councils would be much more willing than them to develop brownfield sites.

I realise they aren't in it for profit but it's still wildly expensive to build on some brownfield sites. If an ailing council is offered a lovely Greenfield or a shitty brownfield one to build on, surely even they are going to choose the greenfield?
I'm also unsure just HOW they are going to do it, employ their own teams, surveyors, site managers, architects etc or sub the whole lot out which means adding a main contractor's OH&P to the costs.
I totally agree it's needed (with lots of covenants on right to buy, sub letting, tenancies being handed down etc) but I think it's a very bold claim at this stage.

(Btw, I am a labour voter too, in case it appears I'm not!)

I recognise that greenfield is easier to build on that brownfield. But people in my town deserve green spaces. I am in the North. This is a working class leave voting Labour area with shit snarled up pinch points of traffic that take an age to get through. And schools and hospitals already rammed. It's a nightmare trying to get a go appointment. Adding 2000 homes to that is fucking madness.
At present, you can walk from the centre of town to a green space in about 15 minutes.
Don't Northern working class people deserve green spaces any more?

I think we need to be savvy about how we use existing housing stock, and we need to think carefully about where/what we build.

Building on greenfield sites does have a lot of negative environmental consequences - for example, increasing the amounts of concrete/tarmac in an area increases the risk/worsens the impact of flooding. There isn't any point in building new homes that people will have to regularly evacuate.

There are lots of empty/second homes in the UK. There are lots of homes where one or two people occupy a 4/5 bed property. I think we should also be considering how we can use this housing stock more efficiently.

However, it may be that in some areas new housing stock is needed, and if this is carefully planned and has all the amenities people need, then in some cases this may need to be built on greenfield land.

I also agree that Labour will be far better for the environment than the Conservatives.

Fwiw a lot of wildlife loss in the UK is more related to intensive farming practices, pollution, over exploitation, invasive species etc - it's too simplistic to blame it just on building.

If you reduce net migration then you won't need to build as many more homes.

As per normal, no party is looking at controlling the demand side of the equation. You can build all the houses you want but if you're doing nothing about controlling population growth it's a sticking plaster, nothing more.

Developers don’t want to build on brownfield sites. It costs more and the resulting homes are less desirable and sell for less. They want to build on nice pristine green fields and make the maximum profit.

This, absolutely. Costs of demolition/decontamination can be high and there are huge economies of scale in building big developments (hundred or more) rather than small, piecemeal developments*.

I am totally up for building loads more houses (12 years working with the homeless kind of does that to you [grin)], but I'd like to see a comprehensive assessment of all urban land, and any possible brownfield sites identified for housing. Then I'd stop developers building on greenfield sites until they're all used up. (I might concede a trade-off - if they build 10 properties on a brownfield site, allow them to build the same number on a greenfield site).

I also think there should be a lot more assessment of flood risk when developing sites. Several hundred homes and a lot of the lower part of my town centre were flooded a few years ago, because a retail park and industrial estate had been built on the watermeadows that held excess water from autumn to spring.

*Having said this, a developer is currently building 7 flats and 4 or 5 4-storey houses in what was formerly part of our office car park. The houses will sell for over a million, and people will buy them, even though our HR and finance departments will have a grandstand view of everything that goes in in the rooms at the front (only 3 car lengths between the buildings at one end). Housing in the SE is just absurd.

If you reduce net migration then you won't need to build as many more homes.

If you reduce net migration you won't have anyone to build them anyway, or do an awful lot of essential jobs. The UK birth rate is barely at replacement level and with people living longer and longer we need more people working to meet their needs and to pay the tax that funds their pensions/care costs/essential public services.

Increasing longevity means the oldies are still clogging up homes that our grandchildren need to live in. Relationship breakdown also increases housing need because the number of lone occupiers goes up. For every couple that splits (unless they immediately shack up with a new partner), another home is needed.

We moved from Bedfordshire which has a higher number than average of new builds sprawling out across fields. But none of them are empty and all of them are needed.

@LakieLady absolutely agree. You only have to visit the average building site to see how much the UK construction industry is being propped up by workers from other countries

It’s Christmas. I find it bazaar that so many Christians are so happy to turn away the destitute, homeless and dispossessed. A good number of your children will have been the “Innkeeper”, and found room for those in need in the nativity play. Even more of you will have watched it. It’s a very simple idea. “Don’t sit in your warm safe house and turn away those in need.”

We have room and we can do this, let’s get on with it.

It's one of the few labour policies I agree with. It needs to be wholly social housing. It needs to be not in green belt. The developers need to provide the infrastructure required at the same time so as not to stretch to breaking point the existing local infrastructure. I suspect Labour's costing plans havent adequately addressed the latter but it's still a policy I support.

@LakieLady That's a flawed model. At some point you have to stop increasing the population in order to support the elderly. Better to do it now then 10, 20, 30 years down the line when the situation will be much worse. Not an easy conundrum though.

Do we think that over the coming years there is going it be a change to agriculture because of climate change? So might that free up some land?

The market with flats and apartments needs a radical change. Flats with only leasehold and not freehold need to be abolished. As do flats with enormous and punitive service charges with dodgy management agents. As does ground rent. I’m looking to downsize from a two-bed house and would be happy with a flat, but I won’t consider anything with such unknowable and increasing charges that a flat owner has no control over.

I think it's naive to assume that homeless people simply need more houses.

I'd support a government who is able to display a clear plan to inject cash and sustain a comprehensive mental health programme starting at the grass roots - young people.

People imo are on the streets because of mental health issues.

Nor do I want a “luxury” flat with 24-hour concierge, on-site gym and no storage space.

Uni city here.
If the last five years of building here had been family homes it could have wiped 1/3 off the SH waiting lists.
As it is they built a glut of city centre apartments for students which sit empty or temp occupied.
We have a decent stock of SH (unlike many places) but with house prices as they are we need more.
True Social Housing too not this bastardised poor housing but Social that benefits society not a housing association with share holders.

In the Netherlands where I am from schools and doctors surgeries are taken into account when planning permission is granted, in fact they often get built at the same time.

Same with shops, dental surgeries, daycares etc.

It's not rocket science.

In the Labour run London borough I live in the housing situation is scandalous - they have sold off lots of council owned land (think grass verges between busy roads and houses or land between what were pleasant social housing blocks) to a separate company to meet their current London Plan housing targets.
Not only have these developers massively overbuilt (e.g. 30 flats + 5 houses on what was 2 pairs of 3-bed semi's!! - and there are many examples.) but they are all classified as "affordable", no social at all. Meaning the cheapest smallest shoebox is over £300k.
I understand Corbyn's proposals includes council properties but he really needs to nail that down otherwise what we continue to get is crazily expensive "affordable" housing which benefits no one built in spaces which it really shouldn't be.