Labour wants to build huge amounts of new houses

[RudsyFarmer]

I’ve just been listening to it being discussed in the radio. The conservatives are not building enough to support the growing population.

i completely understand the need for millions of new homes but man I feel so sad for the loss of green space. Is it just me being ridiculous? Make me feel better about it as in my local area there is just continuous new housing every here. I can’t imagine that quadrupling year on. 900 houses in the next village alone. 5,000 homes have created a new town a few miles away. I want my kids to be able to live in a house but also want them to see the odd field.

companies won't go where there isn't talent - no talent in many parts due to lack of jobs and training.
Unless a company sets up a factory and ALSO builds the houses for its staff - which needs to be the type of houses the staff actually want to live in, and if you are moving them from eg the SE or a city there will only be the existing schools available which will not be high achieving as there isn't the population needed for that, there certainly won't be private schools for eg the CEO, there is no incentive for a company to move to a down at heel area.

You'd both have to show me where Labour have ever said this? they seem to have good ideas on tackling migration which is greater EU co operation on smashing the trafficking gangs, many of which are based in the UK & better return agreements.

The Tories Rwanda policy is now deemed illegal under international law, so will never happen.

Its under the Tories that the numbers of cross channel boats have become uncontrollable and its under the Tories that migration is at an all time high... yet all we hear is "...but Labour!

Unbelievable.

It does nothing for solar to not build houses does it?

And houses are only expensive because they're rare. People don't build expensive houses as such, they build quite normal everyday three bed houses which go for a fortune because there aren't enough, old houses also goes for loads of money! Building less will make houses more expensive, not less.

And of course people can afford them! That's what makes them so expensive! If no one could afford to buy or rent them, they'd be cheaper!

which is greater EU co operation on smashing the trafficking gangs, many of which are based in the UK & better return agreements.
This sounds hopeful but as far as I can see parts of the EU have much worse problems than us with illegal immigration and aren't managing to fix it.
And as the Tories feel stopping the boats is one of the things that might save them seats in parliament I suspect that smashing UK based trafficking gangs is already a top priority at the moment.

But they are not are they or we'd see numbers dropping and publicity on gangs being broken up and arrests made... none of which is happening, made by the UK now being outside of EU criminal databases because we refuse ECJ oversight of these but it limits our ability to fight crime!

On EU issues, they just signed a deal with Tunisia and are providing 1 billion euros to assist with their economy (which will mean migrants don't need to leave) and a further 110million euros to help them control their sea border, we aren't of any this now but will suffer the consequences if EU measures do not work.

Anyway, co op with EU on the channel/trafficking gangs is a separate issue, countries can do more than one thing at a time but the UK isn't doing this, its grand standing instead and i suspect what the Tory press will do, as we go into the next GE, is stop reporting migrants crossing the channel... problem solved!!!

This sounds hopeful but as far as I can see parts of the EU have much worse problems than us with illegal immigration and aren't managing to fix it.

True. Even those in the EU have big problems with trafficking gangs.

Perhaps if we weren't encouraging and facilitating the movement of near enough a million new residents to the UK every year then there might not be such a pressing need to build so many new houses?

We do need large numbers of new houses and especially lots of new social Council housing for rent. So-called affordable housing talked up by the Tories is out of reach for many families and developer-led housing is often not co-located with jobs or essential services. We need more centralised planning by the state, not less.

If it were up to me I'd build on all the golf courses ;) and the Duke of Beaufort's 50,000 acres.

With WFH and the growth of online retail now entrenched (Covid lockdowns having sped up processes that were already in train thanks to evolving technology), and since, as a recent thread pointed out, demolition of existing buildings can make sense in environmental terms, I'd be looking at replacing unused office space with affordable apartments and / or social housing. Lots of younger people in particular might prefer living in city centres as opposed to staying with their parents or in HMO's until they reach their 30s / 40's.

NB Ideally offices could be converted to living space, but often it isn't feasible due to lack of natural light in the centre of larger buildings.

NB Ideally offices could be converted to living space, but often it isn't feasible due to lack of natural light in the centre of larger buildings

It's expensive but can be done. In the end if government want to do it, they will. This is what happens when things are done on the cheap, i.e. deregulated:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/sep/27/housing-crisis-planning-converting-office-blocks-homes-catastrophe-jenrick

We’ve got lots near us, they are on business parks and industrial areas with little to no access to green space.
my heart breaks a little when I see children going in.

that’s before you look at the poor insulation etc they have

This isn't new.

It started about 9 years ago near me in London. Though where I was brought up in London it started in the late 90s, and as a result they have cladding issues.

In my area low rise office blocks, so up to 4 storeys high, that hadn't been used for over 10 years were given planning permission to turn into flats.

The number of parking spaces they had had to be a sufficient number so the flat dwellers didn't cause issues with street parking. They also had to make places for bike storage. (So depending on your exact address you can't get a permit to park on the road.)

Just before Covid they started turning taller office buildings into flats. Mainly as during those years they actually started building taller blocks which became hotels. The tall blocks tend to be clustered together.

Developers doing this avoided planning fights with residents. The new planning fights are where they want to turn waste land or old retail sites into tall blocks when there are existing homes on the next road.

You have the problem the wrong way round. Keen and able young people are having to move from areas of the country where they would prefer to stay and live because the jobs are all concentrated in areas where the housing is expensive and (partly as a result of the housing problem) the services are crap and resources like water overstretched. To please snotty CEOs (according to you).

Up here in the NW of England, there is cheaper housing, and the countryside is fantastic (and free). In large areas of the SE you have to rent a tiny house because that's all you can afford, you're miles from the countryside and it's often not very inspiring when you get there, and you're stretched to the limit financially. Up here you can buy a cheap house of your own, save, and upgrade over time. And the schools here are as good as anywhere. What do you mean by "will not be high achieving as there isn't the population needed for that" ? I can tell you this much too, I don't have to wait as long here for a doctor's appointment as I did where I lived further south. And we were able to get an NHS dentist within walking distance as soon as we wanted one after we moved here.