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?

*Trafalger

Only about 5.9% of England is actually built on! Additionally 2.5% is specified as green urban space,*

In the south-east this is far from the case and t of proportion is far higher.The national figure includes northern wilderness!

The CPR have done a lot of work on this matter and have proved this figure is misleading. And the amount of land not actually built on but that has been environmentally affected because of light pollution and new roads as a result of the new houses should also be factored in.

houses are getting smaller
quote from BBC
"And houses are getting smaller. The average UK home - including older and new-build properties is 85 sq m and has 5.2 rooms - with an average area of 16.3 sq m per room.

In comparison the average new home in the UK is 76 sq ms and has 4.8 rooms with an average area of 15.8 sq m per room."

for comparison the average size of a new home in the Netherlands is 115 sq m and in Denmark 130 sq m

the other problem is poorly designed homes with not enough storage using ideas from smaller/ tiny homes to create storage and dual function spaces could also help

The CPR have done a lot of work on this matter and have proved this figure is misleading. And the amount of land not actually built on but that has been environmentally affected because of light pollution and new roads as a result of the new houses should also be factored in.

Having happened to have visited a number of countries with similar land mass and much smaller populations than the UK in the past year, I find the UK astonishingly grim, badly developed, over developed, over crowded. Beautiful in parts, but significantly wounded by industrial scars.

NZ in particular stood out - population of 4 million. Department of Conservation responsible for 1/3 of the land mass. Continued engagement all through everything we saw with respect for the land, the environment, and a real sense that they are PART of the land, not the masters of it.

Plus I drove for 2500 miles without encountering a single traffic jam, or pot hole, and from what I've learned of their social system, a good handle on those issues too.

There are simply too many people here, and I think building extra homes is a sticking plaster.

We are overpopulated but one of the reasons for this is that we have an awful lot more elderly people now. Which is lovely--who wants to lose their parents before they have to? But it means more houses are occupied by people in their eighties and nineties, which used to be quite unusual.

These council houses are going to be more like 'townhouses' .
Really can't see them building proper sized houses as they did in the 60s, with a large garden.
New builds right now has tiny gardens and are shoddy, yet they want 500K for them!

There are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of new houses being built around my small northern city, all on green belt land and none of them social housing. I’ve no idea who can afford to live in these homes but they’re having a knock on effect on the value of older properties which people no longer want to pay decent money for and the waiting list for council houses just keeps on growing. I thoroughly welcome Labour’s plans to build social housing on brown belt land instead.

We are overpopulated but one of the reasons for this is that we have an awful lot more elderly people now. Which is lovely--who wants to lose their parents before they have to? But it means more houses are occupied by people in their eighties and nineties, which used to be quite unusual.

Soo....wait a few years and housing problem solved.

Also agree that the UK is overpopulated by about 40 million

If they are going to build new houses they need to improve the public transport infrastructure. Too often the only way to commute from these new estates is by car.

FB message on a local village site where a new estate had been built: Hi, I’ve just moved in with my husband and toddler. I needed to take my son to the doctor but the bus never turned up this morning. My husband takes our car to work.

The timetable hadn’t been removed from the stop but the bus service had stopped some months earlier. This young mother was not well-placed for life in a small village with no transport. She was in a new affordable house and nobody had pointed this out.

there is no way those houses could be built in a year, the construction industry is already stretched to breaking point.There's not enough trades people for a start, brick production is way below what's needed.

plus people shouldn't rely on government housing, it should be a last resort.

not enough trades people

The replacement buildings would also be an upgrade/gentrification of the area.

"Gentrification" often results in local people getting priced out of areas and the break-up of communities due to property prices and rents going up, so it's part of the problem if anything.

*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.*

The trouble is we don't have enough GPs, nurses, hospital staff. But I agree, our planning laws need to be tighter so casual promises of schools, medical centres etc should be held to. And too often developers get permission to build x 4 bed executive homes with y "affordable housing" and then come back later to the council to say their sums were wrong/they hadn''t costed in mitigation for decontamination or whatever so they can't build so many affordable houses. Or fit in the primary school or medical centre.

@Tensixtysix

Exactly, we are building those houses already and people are paying over the odds for them as second or third homes or buy to let at overpriced rents, instead of them going to the people who actually need them

Lala do you think everyone should own their own home or private rent with 0 security?

The Queen yes, I think that should be everyone’s goal. I don’t think people should rely on social housing for life.

Capitalism doesn't work like that. It needs to keep many people poor so the few can be mega rich.
Seriously what about people with a disability?
What about low incomes?

@spacepyramid
Affordable housing (council/social, which is what is being discussed here) is always a mix with the majority being smaller. They obviously need some larger homes for larger families.

@Maryberryslayers
I picked a town at random - Hemel Hempstead - and looked on Rightmove for houses for sale. There are currently 429 houses on the market excluding SSTC.

Of those I looked at the first 3 pages, I don't have all night. Not many affordable 3 bed homes are there? Where are the 2 bed starter houses?

3 bed: 13
4 bed: 35
5 bed: 19
6 bed: 5
7 bed: 2
8 bed: 1

We really don't need any more tower blocks if it can be helped.
And no more so called 'affordable ' housing. This should all be social, whether council or housing association run.

@TheQueef

It's alright we aren't really people and our children aren't either, so we don't need proper homes, didn't you know?

You are spot on. Capitalism needs us. We are the broken backs to climb on and the necessary scapegoats for all societies ills. Without the bottom there is no middle or top. We are entirely necessary. On mass we are indispensable, but individually we are insignificant. So we cannot topple the tower separated, which is how they want us, only when we work together. That's what this government and media do they chip away and weaken our community bonds and ties and isolate us powerless, they do not want us to realise the power of the collective, that there is strength in numbers. So we are told to hate migrants and the EU and benefits claimants and single mums, they get us tied in knots hating each other instead of joining together and fighting them. But if you point it out you are a crazy Marxist who doesn't believe in business and progress. I believe wholeheartedly in hard work, and being working class, I know it, I see it, generations of grafting as well as my own I swear I can feel it in my bones. The weight and wear of a society that needs people like me and yet tells me to work myself into an early Grave in slum conditions paying extortionate rents earning a pittance at the mercy of my 0 hours contact and buy to let landlord and be grateful for the food bank parcel and not to have had my kids taken away by social services for the crime of not being middle class like them. Thank you.

I'll get off my soap box now. Here every night between the hours of 7pm when the kids get sent to bed and whatever ungodly hour my neighbours decide to stop arguing at. Donations are always welcome but please don't get a mob to beat me to death if I don't spend them on worthy items and take them to the off license for booze, chocolate, scratch cards and cigarettes instead. I'll be the one with the malnourished kids and the fat muzzled dog.

My local council seem very happy to take most areas of green belt land out of being green belt instead of using brownfield sites.
Beautiful green belt areas have been completely destroyed for yet more and more houses with absolutely no thought for basic things such as school places (everywhere is full) and a&e department (which my large town no longer has)
And yes, green belt land is very special.

@spacepyramid you wouldn't find affordable homes on Rightmove, they are distributed through affordable housing providers.

On the contrary, you do find affordable housing on Rightmove. I've often seen it:

My point is (which you conveniently ignored) the numbers of 4-5 bedroomed houses greatly outweighs the smaller properties. Most families do not have more than 2 children.

For example:
www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-83622590.html
www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-85360373.html

Arf at the 900 sq ft comment, we've got 890 in a Victorian 3 bed. That's stupid talk.

I think there are plenty of houses. There just aren’t enough affordable houses.

So something needs to be done to create more movement of houses within the population and reduce house prices.

Otherwise we keep building affordable homes and ridiculously expensive ones.

In London, for example, so so many new builds are bought by foreign property investors. This drives up prices and makes things worse.