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 should be better management of council properties. They are there for people in need, except currently once it's yours, it's yours for life. I know people who have worked hard and still live in their council property. They are getting mortgages to own their own buy-to-let. They are no longer in need at this point, tenancies really should be reviewed say every decade.
Building new estates is great, but how many are snapped up straight away by landlords increasing their property portfolio? They're not renting out at prices the homeless can afford. Rental prices are crazy!

Council properties aren't for people in need Kiki they are for everyone.
Because there is a shortage only those in need stand any chance.
The main purpose of SH was to give affordable stability (lifetime tenancy) so people can settle.

Everyone's house was built on a field ! We desperatley need more housing but at the same time we have to minimise the amount of people we have moving to this country whilst we sort the housing shortage or we will be on a hiding to nothing

Very concerned here too. We are in an area where hundreds and hundreds of houses have been built, the local schools are full to bursting, traffic's a nightmare, GP surgeries full.... And we're not even in the south east of England where things are worse!

The local council has a "consultation" on the green belt at present and there's a huge campaign to preserve it as it is. There are other options. We are constantly being told that town centres are dying. So relax planning laws to allow developers to buy an old Mothercare or BHS and put flats in its place. Or convert old office blocks in town centres. Or have a concerted campaign to redevelop unoccupied houses - there are apparently 12,000 houses in the UK which have been empty for 10 years or more.

All pie in the sky anyway because I don't think they'll get in.

I love the great outdoors but I would rather not live in it

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.

Oh, trust me, that’s way beyond the comprehension of our useless politicians in this country

Rather than building new houses, I'd rather see all the empty and disused ones across the country renovated and brought back into use as a first step. I believe there are about half a million of those, so you can house a lot of people in them.

Secondly consider other land use and brown field sites in the areas where there is most pressure for houses - can they be repurposed/built on to provide affordable homes (and not the 5 bed "exec" houses - properly affordable).

As an absolute last resort, green field sites, but if steps one and two are taken, you shouldn't need to build on green field sites.

Housing is also very poor quality in the UK and building regs need to be brought up to German standards in my view.

Also if they really do introduce decent broadband everywhere (not sure it needs to be free) people don't necessarily need to live close to the main employment centres as they can work from home/local co-working centres some of the week.

Where I live office blocks have been renovated and turned into flats, but some people don't like that because they say it removes workspaces (I disagree, there's loads of office space left) and also if you build a new green field site developers have to contribute to local amenities. So change the law so all developers have to make a contribution, not just for the new housing estates.

So relax planning laws to allow developers to buy an old Mothercare or BHS and put flats in its place.

That’s a possibility, although we have to be careful that towns and cities don’t just become huge areas of housing with no amenities or shops. Living in London, one of the things that makes my area a nice place to live is having a little high street - it does so much to build community.

Rather than building new houses, I'd rather see all the empty and disused ones across the country renovated and brought back into use as a first step. I believe there are about half a million of those, so you can house a lot of people in them.

Secondly consider other land use and brown field sites in the areas where there is most pressure for houses - can they be repurposed/built on to provide affordable homes (and not the 5 bed "exec" houses - properly affordable).

As an absolute last resort, green field sites, but if steps one and two are taken, you shouldn't need to build on green field sites.

Housing is also very poor quality in the UK and building regs need to be brought up to German standards in my view.

Amen!

It's absolute bullshit.

Homes England want to deliver 300,000 homes a year and are failing and that's with a combination of funding options and a small element of 'affordable' housing on each site.

It is quite simply an impossible task, as are most of the other bullshit Corbyn policies.

My husband flies as a hobby and believe me, when you are up there, you realise that it is literally a fraction of land that is built on. And I live on the borders of east london and essex.
I actually dont agree that more should be built on in towns...its suffocating. There should be more small areas built on, with amenities, yes expensive, but why shouldn't everyone have somewhere to call home?
I feel sad that fields may need to be sacrificed, but surely that's better than people in co trainer homes and filthy b and bs.

Container homes

the right to buy systems which are a mixtures shared ownership & the ones that give government grants mean that house prices are overpriced in the same development you can see total mortgage/ownership flats going for less its quite "clever" of the developers -(sarcasm) but plans are made but not built whilst the developer holds onto the land. Old factories (some - not all - will need cleaning up of land - perhaps gov funding for this?) but mostly minimum standards for room size etc & local gov need to check & inspect & sign off all quality of building - for safety, structure, environment & quality - & for goodness sake get the drainage sorted out & deal with long term issues of possible flood prevention. By the way brown fields also covers in filling such as building in back gardens not just re using factories or offices. I cant help but wonder where all the money is coming from - will we land up with inflation? (this happened in the 70's under Labour & unemployment increased)

I would rather they built humane housing on green spaces. It’s no wonder that children of poor parents often go on to become a burden on society when they are raised in squalor. If you are going to house people then do it properly rather than expecting a family of four to squeeze into 900sqf

I would rather they built humane housing on green spaces. It’s no wonder that children of poor parents often go on to become a burden on society when they are raised in squalor. If you are going to house people then do it properly rather than expecting a family of four to squeeze into 900sqf
Well said.

Social housing was created because the soldiers we sent to fight WW1 were in such a state because of the slum/poverty life they had.
It was widely recognised then the massive impact these conditions have.
We know what happens when communities are left to rot but it's only the financial consideration that people care about.
Oh and the propaganda that someone else is getting more or something free, that's worked a charm.

All the people saying that old/disused/derelict houses need to be repurposed - have you considered WHY they are in that state in the first place?

Also, as hard as it is to believe, in a vast majority of cases, it is more cost effective to knock down and rebuild.

There is no point bringing empty properties back into use if there are no jobs in those communities.

You would be surprised how much land councils already own, there is a site next to where I live that was a primary school until the council closed it & flattened the buildings, it has been empty for over 10 years without being sold, it has outline planning permission for 65 houses to be built on it. It is ideal as it is already in the middle of a council estate. If Labour win the election I really hope that they will fund building on sites like this.

There is no point bringing empty properties back into use if there are no jobs in those communities.

Exactly - that's why house-building needs more careful planning than simply "let's fling up 5000 houses here and that'll solve the problem".

then do it properly rather than expecting a family of four to squeeze into 900sqf

Eh? 900-950 sq ft is standard size for an average Victorian/Edwardian terrace in London. I've lived in several and it's a perfectly good amount of space.

If it has to be built, tower blocks in existing cities would be the better option, as they would make more efficient use of brownfield sites

We currently house 60 odd million people on a tiny %age of the uk

If we increased that by a percent or 2 at a consistent density we could house millions and millions more

This country is something like 90% not built on

I would like to see private compulsory purchase to redevelop existing land. I think a developer wondering around some of the less attractive parts of inner East London would see lots of buildings that could be replaced by tower blocks of flats, the utility/economic value of which would far exceed that of the buildings replaced. The replacement buildings would also be an upgrade/gentrification of the area.

(For those who don't know the area, in a few different places in Tower Hamlets where the overall planning allows tall buildings, such as near the CIty of London or Canary Wharf, huge numbers of towers have gone up in recent years. I'm simply talking about expanding from these bases to a wider area. Note we are talking about tens of thousand of new flats near some of the highest paying jobs in the country, so there will be plenty of demand. And the people who move in will vacate property elsewhere, the ripple effect mean this doesn't just create available housing where you build.)

Developer should be able to go to local council with an outline plan of what he wants to do, council will tell him what public facilities (schools, playgrounds, public green space etc.) he needs to include in his plan, once done the approved plan is rubber-stamped by council and compulsory purchase of several adjacent properties commences. Possibly the current owners get 125% of what the market value would have been, in the absence of redevelopment, with the extra 25% to compensate them for inconvenience.

The law in the UK allows land to be subdivided, but without compulsory purchase I don't think there is any way for land to be aggregated to facilitate a large project. (I think simply buying the land at market prices won't work because sellers can try and hold developer to ransom, demanding more than their portion is worth, knowing the developer can't go ahead without them.)

It would be a good start for the homes we already have to be used, the number empty is staggering. I often see properties which say they cannot rent to somebody in my situation (it's changed many times but I've always been poor and a bad bet in one way or another) yet the properties remain empty month after month.

900sqft is huge for a family. We are in a two-bed Victorian house with three children, now teens, semi-grown up. The children share one room. There’s one bathroom, no utility room, no playroom - things that I sometimes see mentioned as essential for family homes. But we have room, we have storage space. Many modern built flats are too small for families.