Right to build initiative.

[Callisto]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10735506

I think this is an excellent idea. Having lived in a ghost-village that was made up of weekenders I think small housing estates of affordable housing is exactly what is needed. I would probably add a proviso that the houses must be occupied full-time and not used as weekend/holiday homes. The people living in the villages will ensure the developments are in the best place and that the buildings are attractive and well-built.

On the surface, this does look like a good plan, but if your ghost-village decides to build, say, 5 houses every two years, it won't be a village for much longer.

I'm really worried about this. I think it's really unfair that people born and bred in a place can't afford to live there. I also think it's intensely irritating that some villages are full of empty holiday homes, but I'm not sure this rtb initiative is the answer.

And imagine how angry people would feel, if local land-owners or developers persuaded the people to let them build on the land - and then sold the houses at prices local people could not afford. Is there anything in the rtb to prevent that happening?

I worry about building on green-field sites. We need to protect the countryside.

I understand that protecting the coutryside also means protecting the livelihood of the people who live there ... Maybe the village could agree on a limit to the number of new houses built?

it disgusts me the way this government is totally sidelining local government in every way..

if they don't like the way LEAs are running schools then CHANGE THE LEAs rather than 'free' schools from them.

if they don't like the planning criteria applied by local government then CHANGE THE PLANNING CRITERIA not make communities exempt! we've all seen the kind of monstrosities that can be built when planning is not enforced.

i am all for small community-led developments in areas with housing shortages for key workers or low-income local families but that is no excuse to abandon all planning principles.

i should have added more context to my post - i have worked in a related field and studied community development and i know that 'empowering communities' often means empowering the most powerful members of those communities, compounding inequalities in the community and enabling some individuals to bully the rest of the community.

i am concerned that this government seems to think that all 'communities' are these wonderfully democratic completely altruistic groups who need no regulation at all.

This is exactly what I am worried about, fluffles.

Plenty of monstrosities get built with planning and an awful lot (in my area at least) is all about who you know in the planning department.

I think that there is an inbuilt failsafe to this idea. There needs to be a big majority for any housing to be built and the people who live in the village are not going to want ugly, vast housing estates of huge 'excecutive' homes.

Fluffles, I disagree fundamentally with you on this. I think free schools are an excellent idea, a friend in Denmark set up just such a school because the alternative was dreadful. The school is excellent and thriving and her children got a great education. Why should we put up with shit school just because a good school in the area will make the shit school worse? There is also an EBD school in my area that is fantastic. I know the head and he hates the LEA here because they are skinflints and work against him.

As for local housing schemes, they will be far more democratic than the usual property developer led housing estates.

"There needs to be a big majority for any housing to be built and the people who live in the village are not going to want ugly, vast housing estates of huge 'excecutive' homes."

So a village is presented with two proposals.

First a small number of big homes that have been specially designed to fit in with the architecture of the village and built from specially sourced stone all of which are on a landscaped estate with a lot of greenery.

Second is a lot of smaller homes built as cheaply as possible out of modern materials.

What is more than likely going to get the most votes?

The scheme is only for starter homes, designed specifically to allow people to stay in the village they are born in. So the big homes scenario is not going to happen.

From the article: "The Right to Build initiative aims to provide small numbers of affordable homes in rural areas where high home prices are driving people away."

Maybe I am being cynical but the aims of the scheme could get forgotten in the developers' feeding frenzy.

"The Right to Build initiative aims to provide small numbers of affordable homes"

That might be it's aim but there's no detail yet about how they might actually be making that happen.

The details that have come out (here) say that villages could vote to "to build any type of property on Green Belt land" (note the use of the word "any", no mention of affordable only) and that the only safeguard is that a village can only grow by 10% a year.

That's it.

So if it's a choice between a small number of ill fitting low cost homes or a small number of "tasteful" expensive homes whose developer will also build a very nice village hall (and still make more profit than the affordable developer would) then who will get the votes?

"Maybe I am being cynical but the aims of the scheme could get forgotten in the developers' feeding frenzy."

I'm not sure that the stated "aim" is really that important to the plans at all.

In a few years once local villages have allowed all of their green belt to be built on with expensive luxury homes (oh but look at that nice village hall) and then complain that they've still not got anything affordable the Government will be able to turn around and say "well that's not our fault and it's not your Council's fault, you voted for those expensive houses".

Agree, BadgersPaw. The more I hear about this Big Society, the more I fear it ...

I just can't see that happening, certainly not around here anyway. If anything there will be votes on no development at all.

I think you underestimate the level of community spirit in small villages, and also the actual benefit to the villagers. None of the villagers are going to get pay-offs from the 'developer feeding frenzy' and most won't want executive-sized homes to be built anyway.

There are some speeches from the Housing Minister that give a bit more of a clue as to what he's got in mind:
www.shapps.com/reports/Home-Truths-final.pdf

On this Right To Build he says:

"Local Housing Trusts will give villages all over the country the right... the power to go out and do it for themselves. They'll take back power from regional quangos, giving it back to local people... They'll give local people the authority to grant themselves planning permission... They'll let villagers control exactly where, how and for whom new homes are built""

So there won't be some higher body telling each village to build affordable houses and it's up to each village to decide "for whom" the new developments will be for.

So yes they could build for hard up local residents.

Or they could build for rich business people looking for a holiday home.

And as said which Developer is going to offer the best deal to the village?

"I think you underestimate the level of community spirit in small villages, and also the actual benefit to the villagers. None of the villagers are going to get pay-offs from the 'developer feeding frenzy' and most won't want executive-sized homes to be built anyway."

There may not be "pay-offs" as such but there could easily be things such as a developer including a new village hall in their scheme.

And the developer may also source a certain amount of their suppliers/sub-contractors locally. And which scheme is going to get them the most business?

Finally what about villages that are particularly badly hit by wealthy weekend occupiers? They may very well feel different to the "true" locals. The part timers may want their picture postcard weekend village home and it will be the old fashioned looking stone (expsensive) cottages that get their vote and not the small (cheap) flats of modern materials that the locals had in mind. And if there are already more part time residents than full time ones then the village is in real trouble.

There's not going to be any overseeing power to stop villages cashing in their greenbelt for yet more expensive houses.

How are the larger proterty developers reacting to this? If the power really was going to be removed from them and put in the hands of local people, wouldn't they be jumping up and down and frantically lobbying against it?

"If the power really was going to be removed from them and put in the hands of local people, wouldn't they be jumping up and down and frantically lobbying against it?"

They're not loosing any powers and they might be gaining the opportunity to build some very profitable houses on greenbelt land.

The people loosing power are the planning sections of local Governments.

Exactly. It's true, though, isn't it, what Callisto says: 'Plenty of monstrosities get built with planning and an awful lot (in my area at least) is all about who you know in the planning department.'

At the moment local people have precious little say in what buildings are going to be foisted on them. But this rtb scheme will make it worse, imo, because it will set neighbours against each other if one neighbour stands to gain from something which impacts upon the quality of life of the other.

"At the moment local people have precious little say in what buildings are going to be foisted on them."

This plan isn't really setting out to tackle things that are built.

Rather it's setting out to make it easier for more things to be built.

The carrot is that those things "could" be "Affordable homes for young families", "Sheltered accommodation for the elderly" or "Even shops and local businesses".

The reality is that it will be whatever local communities vote for, after some undoubtedly nice incentives from property developers.

And as said who can offer the best incentives? Charities building affordable homes? Or a Supermarket?

Agree, BadgersPaws.

So what should be done about ghost-villages and holiday homes?

There is also another problem.

This particular problem happened in a picturesque Welsh village I saw on TV.

The local authority got money to build affordable homes just outside the old village as so many outsiders were coming in pushing up prices beyond the reach of young people who were born in the area who wanted to starta family.

Unfortunatley, young people who were born there did not get a look in. No young people got the new houses. They could not afford to outbid the local late middle age people without children who had cashed in the equity in their existing picturesque home in the old village. The late mdlde age locals bought all the new homes as cheap modern retirement homes and then wealthy outsiders moved in to their old picturesque houses in the old village.

What a shame. But how can something like that be avoided?

Unfortunatley, there is no way of segregating the housing market into 'affordable' and 'normal' homes. It is a continuum of prices from low to high.

The only way of rally doing it is to have 'tied housing' like the old farm workers cottages that could only be lived in by farm workers. Factories used to have housing for their workers. Nurses used to have blocks of flats near hospitals tied to the hospital. There are 'key worker' schemes now but it is not the same.