we all agree on the need for more houses but just not here !!

[billysboy]

As title really , everyone seems to agree on the need for more houses regardless of type but doesnt want them here ,
Green belt is supposed to ring fence existing settlements , I like the idea mooted this morning about Wild Belts to encourage wildlife etc ,
I cannot see how this government or any other hopes to build there way out of a crisis where in a lot of places it seems to be 10 x income to get a foot on the ladder
Ultimately it would seem lower house prices would be good for everyone apart from those in negative equity or using housing as an investment rather than a place to call home and the only way to achieve this is to oversupply the market causing prices to remain static whilst wages / income catch up
I thinks its unreasonable how long planning can take on a small domestic extension let alone 300k + house s needed per annum so cannot see how Angela Raynor thinks she will achieve this

No easy answer on this one

No - i'm very pro EU and the UK s part in Europe inc trade, education and always have been.

The main reason we are bringing in soooo many people from SE Asia and Africa is down to Brexit - but unlike EU citizens, they'll never go back.

Immigration is the reason we are building houses, no other reason, our birth rates of white british is falling.

I don't understand the plan to build new estates and new towns. We have dying town centres right across Britain. Why build miles from them, when we all know they won't provide frequent and reliable improved public transport or create new health and education infrastructures. So everyone has to get in their cars if they have them, if they want or need to go anywhere, or be stranded in a poorly served newbuild wasteland. And we all know how those places deteriorate fast.

Way better to repurpose the heart of towns and cities. Empty office blocks can come down if necessary and new homes built near to the schools and hospitals and shops and offices where people actually work. Shorter commutes, walking distance to amenities, reinvigorates the town centres.

A town near us has done this recently and it is transformed. There are loads of new flats right by the main high street. What was boarded up wasteland for decades is now thriving. It makes sense.

The only reason houses don't sell is because they're priced stupidly, a house will sell in weeks if the price is low enough (but that might be a lot lower than what someone thinks of as "market rate")

They were talking about this earlier and the reason given for not being able to convert town centre shops etc is EPC has to be a C level by 2030 and you can't do it in these properties . Developers will therefore look to green land as it's cheaper . Even brownfield could cost £££& in decontamination costs if petrol stations / car parks etc .

@Eeeeeeeeeekohno maybe true in the SE but not everywhere. This house is reasonably priced for it's size at £340k. Other very similar ones in the surrounding area also linger. I only know because I've been watching the market locally for a couple of years as we plan to move.

If taxation acted as a deterrent against second home ownership, we wouldn’t be needing to build so many new homes on greenbelt.

There are currently homes being built on fertile agricultural land that we need to be growing food on, for the UK’s food security.

I don't want our countryside built on. We need to protect the environment for everyone. We need trees and grassland and wildlife habitats.

I am not against immigration in an anti-immigrant way (I think well-managed immigration is hugely positive for a country) but I don't see how the current level is sustainable. We don't have the infrastructure to support that level of influx.

My solutions would be:
-get rid of stamp duty (preferably altogether but at least if the home you are buying is cheaper than the one you are selling) to encourage downsizing
-very high property taxes on empty properties
-very high property taxes on second homes

Not true . People could hold onto second properties due to high tax costs of selling .
The need is surely driven by the demographic shift to many more people living alone , marrying later , divorce , longer living , singletons . And immigration.

Its very difficult to get to an EPC of C in any older property, you re looking at heat pumps, underfloor insulation, solar ie 10k to 20k.

A friend of mine bought a house for a close relative to live in, as she'd been evicted, its a D atm but costs to bring it up to a C are huge, she will have to evict her and sell...

this will see private rents sky rocket.

Well done whoever dreamt up that rule in Westminster #outoftouch

If its not a requirement for a home owner, why should it be a much higher level for a rented property?

The town I live in has literally doubled in size in the last 10 years. The infrastructure of the town hasn't changed at all. The doctors, dentist, schools are absolutely fit to burst. The roads are gridlocked at school run/rush hour time.

It's great to build housing but these developers must be made to improve the infrastructure of the towns they are building in.

There is enough housing in the UK if they took proper care of 2nd homes and crappy holiday let markets like AirBnb. We don't need any more being built but people in this country have a misguided idea that property is the best investment to have and they are entitled to keep it...

So where are you going to become an immigrant and change the makeup of the country, and not for the better?

@louddumpernoise

I have a Victorian flat that I rent out and it's a C rating . I was astonished tbh but the assessor said it helped that it's ground floor with a basement flat below and 1st floor above .

Agreed

Immigration seems to be coming up a lot on the thread
to build these 1.5 million homes we are going to need the trades to enable this
I feel it’s a shame that we have a lack of youngsters coming into the industry as they are looked down on by their peers for not going to university
if we are not willing to train and encourage our youngsters then immigration will be inevitable
Labour saying they are going to recruit 300 more planners is a drop in the ocean they need more like 3000 to make a real difference
there are lots of facets to this crisis

I also think colleges don’t support or advertise alternative routes anymore. They want more of their students to go to uni for their figures.

You shouldn’t be so greedy in the first place HTH.

And here we are; the first post to blame immigration
Didn't take long

Our town with a population of just under 10k now has a new housing estate of 265 3/4/5 bedroomed houses being built. The estate will probably house an extra 800 plus new residents. There are no plans for school places, increased GP capacity, the new estate has one entrance /exit route on to a busy road so commuter rush hour is going to be fun.

If smaller estates were slotted into existing towns and villages, using brownfield sites and underutilised high streets, perhaps the impact could be mitigated.

The outskirts of Edinburgh have been swamped by huge estates of cheaply built boxes with narrow roads, no garden boundaries, no community, no amenities. The estates all have names like Bluebell Meadows, Woodland Way, Beechwood, Green Lea, but the natural features they're named after have all been subsumed by the behemoth estates.

First port of call should be to bring all empty housing stock up to standard and back into circulation and to stop overseas investors buying off plan and sitting on empty properties. Then thought should be given to building communities, not just houses.

I thinks its unreasonable how long planning can take on a small domestic extension let alone 300k + house s needed per annum so cannot see how Angela Raynor thinks she will achieve this

On this final point on the OP. Angela Rayner is a government minister in a government with a majority of over 150. If they want to the government can pass legislation changing the planning rules, abolishing them entirely, or skipping them for a group of new towns.

The planning rules were all created by previous government legislation and court rulings interpreting those laws. They can be changed. They're not a fixed thing.

I don't think the planning rule changes have gone far enough . If they really want to get growth going they should include situations like change of use for business ideas , if there are existing buildings they should be able to be converted eg you can convert a barn if a cow lived in it but not a horse . What nonsense .
The whole housing arena in this country is fucked . Much housing is inhabitable ( listen to Martin Hewitts podcast . Cladding hasn't been resolved . Leasehold hasn't been resolved . Empty housing empty shops . It's not going to be solved by just building new poor quality houses .

Do you struggle with math?

What part of population growth adding pressure to housing do you not understand?

Do you think immigrants bring their houses with them?

I am not American, so don't use the term math
And you are being disingenuous, we needed housing etc, long before the immigration 'issue'. Selling off council houses was the worst policy ever and landed all local authorities in shit

I will stop using the word math when you start using punctuation.

Also you do realize, selling a house doesn’t take it out circulation? The houses are still there.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Oh, it's playtime!