If care about plans to build thousands of houses on the Green Belt read THIS...

[fortyplus]

The Government Office for the East of England is holding a 'Public Consultation' re: the proposed East of England Plan.

I'm not sure how it affects other parts of the South East, but as an example - my nearest town, Hemel Hemsptaed, currently consists of 68,000 homes and it is proposed to build another 12,000 over the next 15 years - necessitating a 'major review of the Green Belt'.

The South East is extremely congested already. Hemel Hempstead Hospital is earmarked for closure, 4 local primary schools are closing (presumably so that the land can be used for housing) and the local NHS Trust (Hertfordshire) has such massive debts that it is predicted that they will never be cleared without massive cuts in services.

THIS IS MADNESS! Why not use Government money to boost the economy in other parts of the country instead of cramming even more people into the South East?

Please use this link to make your comments GoEast Regional Planning Web Page

Please bump the thread from time to time to keep it active.

Thank you.

I think that new towns need to be built but not within commuting distance of London. The transport links/local amenities CANNOT cope now and to build new ones would need some sort of 30 year plan. There was an article in our local papaer about 8,000 more homes being built in Essex and leaving it like a ghost town as the house prices will be on a par with London and everyone will need to work in London to pay for them, causing more pressure on existing infrastructures.

Wasn't Milton Keynes built in a field and gone on to prosper into a large town?? Plus it built a new infrastructure ie hospitals schools without relying on existing ones.

Personally I think it needs to spread in all areas. If there were more people living in an area, it must generate more jobs, surely with internet and other facilities, it would be cheaper for companies to relocate to other areas.

'surely with internet and other facilities, it would be cheaper for companies to relocate to other areas. '

Not if they are still unwilling - or unable- to allow more telecommuting, work from home and flexible hours employment.

Hi everyone - first time I've had a chance to look at this thread since I started it yesterday morning.

I do agree that there is an immediate need for affordable homes - and by that I mean 'Social Housing for Rent'- not shared ownership, which as others have said does little to help the overal situation.

I also agree that proper family homes are needed - but the Govt. is imposing housing densities that mean that most new estates will consist mainly of 1 & 2 bed flats with an average across the development of 1.5 car parking spaces per dwelling - the idea being that by restricting the availability of car parking people will buy fewer cars.

In Hemel developers are usually allowed to get away with only 20% Affordable Housing on new developments - though some proposed Greenfield sites are earmarked for 35%.

Most new flats are bought as an investment and rented out to young couple who commute in to London. In fact a couple of members of my family have bought investment properties and are doing very nicely out of it. But it's WRONG imo that 40+ year olds like me can afford to buy 2 properties when there are so many people - especially young people with families - who are forced into paying huge chunks of their income on rent.

And as for not wanting to be saddled with a mortgage: yes it's a pain for years, but at least when I'm old & grey (or older and greyer!) my outgoings will be minimal and if I want to I can downsize and have spare cash.

But I'd still be happier if the Housing Market crashed by 30% like it did in 1990 - that way my kids will one day be able to afford a nice family home of their own - not some pokey flat.

I still can't understand how building thousands of new homes in the South East is going to help anyone - it's far too congested here already, but loads of people flock here because it's where the jobs are. Surely it would be better to help businesses relocate to 'poorer' areas where unemployment is higher? Then people would want to stay there

'Surely it would be better to help businesses relocate to 'poorer' areas where unemployment is higher? Then people would want to stay there '

I can't see business owners jumping over each other to do this, tbh.

Just think, higher insurance rates b/c the area has more crime, larger outlays for security, no one wants to go to work out there for fear - I'm not saying it's well-founded fear - of being mugged or their car being vandalised, etc.

Surely telecommuting and work from home for more of their employees may be a viable option, but the government hasn't suggested this at all.

Most of the housing stock here is 1 and 2 bed flats.

As a result, families are moving out in droves.

I lived in a very deprived area once.

Sure, I sound like a snob, but I couldn't wait to get out of there.

NO WAY would I 'want to stay there', w/my kids, b/c my work moved there.

I'd find a new job before I did that.

I reckon I'm not alone in that sentiment.

Business relocation is actually very hard, and to a large extent it is the fault of working women.
FX:Ducks

In the "good old days". The man was the main wage earner, and the wife (no cohabitation thankyou), either didn't work or had a job to make "pin money".
Thus he could easily move with his job, and the wife could find another little job or not.

The idea that a husband would follow his wife's job was quite absurd for most people. And because many women did low skill jobs they could easily be replaced by locals.

That's not true any more, often the woman is the larger wage earner, and in the sort of "proper" job that is hard to move. Even today, most men would not move if their wife's job did.

Our transport system is crap, but it's centre is London, meaning that you can often change jobs without altering your home life at all.

But if you're in a specialist job in less economically active areas, there may literally be no other job at all for you without a serious house move.

Thus London cannot help but be a magnet for skilled jobs. There is no good reason for the ad industry or publishing in general to be in London, except that is where the staff are, but in an economy dominated by services that is quite critical.

The education system makes this worse of course. I cannot think of any plausible threat or incentive that would make me shift my kids schooling at the wrong time.
To make it worse, moving to cheaper areas is done, on the cheap. Most staff issue can be solved by money, but instead the "business logic" is to "normalise" pay to local levels determined by the HR department. And yes, this often means freezing pay until inflation makes you "normal" for the area.

Many staff aren't that critical to the business and can often be replaced, but of course there is a strong correlation between being very useful to the firm and being able to leave get a job that doesn't mean rows with your other half, screwing your kids schooling, the stress of moving (with little help from the firm), and a pay freeze for the next 5 years. (Oh yes, and covering for the people who left)

expatinscotland - think I've told you before that dh is a Geordie - flew south when he was a wee lad of 22 - met the girl of his dreams... me!! ha ha.
Most of his pals have moved south - those that still live in the north east can't get'proper jobs' - they do things like manning the security cameras at the Metro Centre, bar work etc - bits and pieces that add up to enough to live on.
The only times I've ever had my car broken into were once in Edinburgh and once in the Metro Centre car park. I used to travel all over the country - once I was stupid enough to leave my car all day in a West End car park with the rear windows open and a Burberry mac on the back seat - it was still there when I got back at 8pm. I spent a lot of time in dodgy areas of London and Leeds and never once had a problem. So maybe you're right - some cities have a big problem and companies wouldn't want to move there. How sad that this should be the case.
I remember you saying that you once lived somewhere that was like 'Trainspotting'. And I agree with you - I wouldn't want to perform some sort of social experiment on my kids by bringing them up somewhere like that. So you're not a snob in my book.

I imagine that the houses are being planned for the South East because that is where the employment is?

DominiConnor - you sound as though you must be the same age as me! Do you remember 'Fare's fare' when 'REd Ken' ran the GLC? Buses in London were 5p a trip. Even allowing for inflation - what would that be today? 50p maybe. Same in Edinburgh - the in laws lived there in the 80's - when we went to visit we left the car at their house and went everywhere by bus as they were so cheap and reliable.
I don't know what the answer is - some people will blame immigration - but we need the skills and the boost to the economy bacause without young immigrants the existing aging population won't have anyone to pay their pensions, apparently.
I just think that Blair, Brown and Prescott have done a pretty good job of wrecking this country. I was ecstatic when Labour came to power in 1997, but frankly I'd bring back Maggie rather than the bunch of tossers we've got running the country now.

Bubble99 - of course - but it's a never ending spiral - prosperous area = people move there for jobs = more houses needed = more prosperity = people move there for jobs etc etc.
I don't have any answers to the problem other than how do you stop the necessity to cram all the jobs into the south east? How to improve the prosperity of other regions? I know so many people who have moved here from the west country and the north. They live in the most beautiful parts of Britain but have to move to urban areas and the south east in particular.

Am going to read all replies before I post I think.

It is really nice to think that although people are up in arms about new developments, there is a recognition that there are big problems in the society New Labour has created.

I think Northern cities are regenerating, and in most of them you actually now can't buy a cheap house any more. I think the general problem everywhere is that inadequate housing has been built since 1997 to cope with the increase in the number of households nationwide, with this particularly acute in some regions. This would have happened even with no immigration, but clearly the unexpectedly high level of immigration has added pressure on housing.

The level of unemployment isn't really that high in most Northern cities, although that masks the fact that the best jobs are still to be found in the South.

I think that people are increasingly prepared to move for jobs and for a better quality of life, and that is the root of the 'problem' compared to the 'old days' where most people would take on local jobs and remain near their roots.

Fortyplus, I do recall "Fare's Fair", the last mindlessly stupid socialist tokenist policy to be foisted upon the British people.
Rather than spend money on desparately needed extra capacity, Livingstone decide to buy vote and grab headlines by wasting it on subsidies.

Also, (and you'll just have to believe this on tyrust), it was government policy to "discourage" growth in London by not developing transport.

Given the timescales involved in sorting out mass transport, this is why we have a world city with infrastructure that Russians sneer at.

I was reading an article at work today that bemoaned the problems caused by the lack of good quality social housing built over the past 20 years. Govt policy calls for 'pepperpotting' - the social housing should be 'invisible' ie of exactly the same quality as the private housing and spread throughout the development so that no one can tell the tenure of a particular property just by looking at it. But the Housing Associations oppose this on the basis that it's hard to maintain - better for them to build big block of flats at the back of a development and maximise their profits when selling the private housing to finance the development.

There is a small % of people who can't make decent choices for themselves, and a decent society should shelter these people, putting them where they need to be put.

"Social housing" is just some dumb cross between low grade accountancy and socialism.

What poor people need is money, not being told they have to live in dingy flats or pepperpots, or even in leafy suburban homes like mine. They need to choose so as to fit in with their jobs, schools, and physical needs like access for disabled. Disabled people tend to be poorer, and it's stupid and cruel to have a one size fits all policy.

We do not have a viable mechanism to give poor people decent housing but a badly run "tax" on development. It sounds more Guardian-reader friendly to call it SH, and by not calling it a tax makes it sound as if it were free.

If you want poor poeple to have decent houses, then you are going to have to pay for it. Maybe there is a case for a tax on development, but it should be money not some regression to a barter economy.
Shared ownership, subsidised from taxation would allow poor people to make better choices about where they live. It would allow homes to be adapted for the disabled, and would get rid of the clear corruption that we see where planning permission is only granted if the developer gives a bung to the council so that it can pretend to be lady bountiful without taxation.
Either a development is a good idea, or it ain't. The idea of giving local councils or housing association the power to dictate where poorer people live is awful.

Govt plans will force the social sector to increase rents in line with the private sector. The thinking behind this is that about 60% of those in social housing receive Housing Benefit to pay their rent. The remainder could afford to move but don't at present because the rents are so low. (eg in the town where I live the same house would be £59 per week from the council or approx £850 per month to rent privately).
So if the rents are similar, those who can afford to will take advantage of the greater flexibility and mobility in the private sector. The homes that they vacate will then become available to those who really need them.

My dad lives near a new developement where the social housing is divided from the privately-owned by a huge fence with massive locked gates.

I can see the logic that has brought them to that policy fortyplus, but isn't that just going to penalise the 40% who don't get housing benefit, possibly throwing them into the benefits trap too, or into crappy private renting and the associated uncertainty? The main benefit of council housing isn't just the lower rent, but the security of tenure compared to a private landlord who can evict at 2 months notice.

ALthough you could argue that because so little social housing is available for young families who need cheaper rent, the current situation is unfair on them anyway?

I think cheaper housing for all is the only way of addressing poverty, rather than more expensive.

I blame the Building Societies - 40 years ago you could only borrow a quarter of one salary.
Gradually over the years this has crept up - we bought our 1st house in 1987 when you could borrow 2.5x one salary plus 1x the 2nd salary. Interest rate was 11.5%.
Now you can get 5x joint salary. If people couldn't borrow these huge multiples then no one could pay the higher prices so the market would never have taken off in the way that it has.
God help those who've borrowed 5x salary if rates ever hit double figures - prices will crash and the days of negative equity will be back.

I agree that credit has been loosened to a ridiculous extent, but all that has done really is level the playing field a bit between first time buyers and other investors who have large savings/equity.

I know that to some extent prices are a chicken and egg situation, but if building societies hadn't allowed larger mortgages and multiples, there was a realistic prospect of even more of the housing stock going to existing homeowners as either second homes or buy to lets.

The same is true of shared ownership. It may have supported house prices or boosted them, but at least it has allowed some people access to a secure tenure of property.

Where will it all end?

I hear what you say about loosening of credit, but the previous situation was worse. I suspect that I'm older than you, and was from a social stratum that stood zero chance of getting credit from any financial institution.
It was grim.

Although the BBC with "financial" correspondents with arts degrees obsess about the salary multiples, the main issue is the ratio of house prices to average wages.
It's pointless to talk of ratios without taking into account equity in the property.

Defaults are very rare, because of this lump of money. Have ever seen equity mentioned even once in a newspaper of BBC "economics" piece ? Yet it's critical to modelling default, and yes I've done this as part of my work.

If there is a discontinuity it will be from a collapse in liquidity.

The main problem with the loosening of credit will come if interest rates do end up going up, say in 5 years time.

Because of low inflation, mortgages are not being 'eaten away' like they were in the past, and so people taking out huge mortgages now based on the 'value' of a house may find themselves with an unmanageable debt.

But the alternative over the past 5 years has been to sit by and watch house prices spiralling ever higher and further out of reach.

I agree that because the vast majority of homeowners have a substantial amount of equity, they are nowhere near as much affected by high prices. However, first time buyers who don't have a big cushion of equity need to beware.

It's interesting that inflation may be seen as a good thing...
The consensus sees heavy inflation pressure of the the next 5-10 years. Not just energy, but the effect of defective countries like China and India wising up a little has been goods decreasing in cost. That ain't gonna last.

Also, there is considerable financial engineering to allow people with equity to keep their homes. What the BBC will never ever tell you is that Britain is the class act in that game. There will be pain, but it will be diffuse and not affect the economy in a structual way.

I agree about early first time buyers. They provide much of the liquidity in the market, and demographics may combine with rates to make the market hard to sell into.

Low liquidity means that people who have to sell will get a much worse price. This is to a large extent self correcting. Large, well funded outfits are ready and wating to act asw market makers. They will buy up mispriced properties and sell when the fog clears.
Competition amongst them will mean that the pain will be reduced.
The nighmare scenario is the government trying to "help". Some of the lenders have extremely poor risk management. A Blairite government (even one run by Brown) is simply incapable of saying "you fuck up, you go bust".
Easily the best thing John Major did was allow those chinless wonders of Barings to go bust. The signal was sent that the UK government would not fish you out of the shit just because your Managing Director went to the right school. Such backbone is alien to New Labour.

DC - I agree with much of what you say but have to disagree with ' "Social housing" is just some dumb cross between low grade accountancy and socialism.'
I'm lucky enough to live in pleasant area in a lovely 4 bed Edwardian house, BUT...
Where I live the average salary is £23,000 - someone unskilled will be on £18-19K. A bed sit costs over £100K - the cheapest 3 bed ex Council hose in this week's paper is on for £189,950.
Also... anyone whose marriage/relationship breaks down will be unlikely to afford 2 mortgages or 2 lots of private rent.
So it's not just 'poor people' who need social housing.

Cloudhopper - I'm not sure about property going existing homeowners as 2nd properties if Building Societies hadn't loosened restrictions on credit. Surely if prices had stayed lower it would be preferable? The only reason I could afford a second property is that we now have so much equity in our original home and can borrow against it. If prices had stayed lower this wouldn't be the case. In fact I think inflation is driven by people remortgaging their properties and cashing in on their increased equity so they can buy new cars, new kitchens etc. One friend of mine bought her mil's ex council property for £13k in 1986 under the 'right to buy' scheme. She sold it long ago, but today it would be worth nearly £200k - that's a lot of money to spend for doing nothing.