Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Joey Buttafueco Jr

Uk Homebuilding 2006-2026

Recommended Posts

Was going to post this on our Elmbridge thread, but decided to post here as some others may have experiences of their areas

Went to this the other evening

http://www.weybridgesociety.org.uk/Events/Town_Forum

where various people were speaking about housebuilding over the next twenty years. First to speak was the chap from the planning department - he was discussing this

http://www.elmbridge.gov.uk/planning/policy/cspafo.htm

Basically the current Government decide how many homes need to be built in the country between now and 2026, and this is broken down until it reaches borough level. Weybridge has to build a minimum of ~250pa houses between 2006 and 2026 - since 2006 we have been averaging ~400pa. The vast majority of this in infill development, with a popular approach to be to knock down detached houses and build semis.

The planning departments need to prove to the Goverment that they will be able to build these new homes - if their report is not credible they will have to start again.

Part 1 of Elmbridge's document is here

http://www.elmbridge.gov.uk/documents/deta..._document=12859

the plan for this area is to try to avoid using greenbelt - infill should suffice. Approximately 10% (minimum) extra homes will be built between now and 2026.

Some areas are off limits for building such as

http://www.surreyheath.gov.uk/planning/pla...mesBasinSPA.htm

Philip Hammond then came up to speak

http://www.elmbridge.gov.uk/council/elections/mps.htm

and said that if the Tories get into power, they will abandon the top down approach and let the council make their own decisions - if they don't build they get less payout from the Government - so maybe a trade off between higher council tax or higher population

Finally, residents voiced their concerns. One pointed out that the population of Weybridge has grown by around 40% since the early 90s - much higher than the rest of the country - what will keep housebuilding close to the minimum targets?

Affordable housing was mentioned (house prices are expensive round here) - apparently if a developer build less than 15 homes he doesn't have to include affordable housing element, and if he does build affordable housing, he has to contribute less to infrastructure.

Would be interested to know if anyone has attended meetings in their areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting post.

The plans for Elmbridge look quite measured and sensible, but I can understand residents concerns at the gradual urbanisation of areas like this by replacing detached houses with semis, semis with flats etc.

I live up the road in Kingston/Surbiton which is an area absolutely transformed by this type of development over the years. 100 years ago, this was an area quite distinct from London, and although a lot of it was already urban a good proportion of the area was made up of large houses in large gardens.

With the exception of a few estates, a lot of these houses have either been razed to make way for smaller houses and flats, or converted into flats themselves. The area has definitely made the transition from Surrey town to London suburb during that time. Not necessarily a bad thing for some, but probably a concern to Elmbridge residents who like their area the way it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting post.

The plans for Elmbridge look quite measured and sensible, but I can understand residents concerns at the gradual urbanisation of areas like this by replacing detached houses with semis, semis with flats etc.

I live up the road in Kingston/Surbiton which is an area absolutely transformed by this type of development over the years. 100 years ago, this was an area quite distinct from London, and although a lot of it was already urban a good proportion of the area was made up of large houses in large gardens.

With the exception of a few estates, a lot of these houses have either been razed to make way for smaller houses and flats, or converted into flats themselves. The area has definitely made the transition from Surrey town to London suburb during that time. Not necessarily a bad thing for some, but probably a concern to Elmbridge residents who like their area the way it is.

One of the resident's comments was something along the lines of "you can't extrapolate past trends to the future" - basically saying that the downturn in the city might have a knock on effect on population in our area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven't attened a similar meeting as such but..........

it's safe to say local and national govt have no real clue as to local housing needs.My experience of local govt is that it's a VI that's doing very nicely thank you,and that if it gets given money they find a way to spend it.

near me there's been an eco town planned because the govt said we needed 15,000 more houses.we didn't and we won't.there are already a million plus empty houses in the UK.these 15,000 hosues came with no jobs,no transport etc etc.

I also think it's rather naieve to think that local govt officials -who,let's be honest,are hardly some of the most switched on individuals on the planet-can project what the local economy will be like in twenty years.you only need to lose one large local employer and the whole town/city could suffer.

in the next few years we will find out how much of the hosuing stock built in the last ten years was built to satisfy investor demand rather than provide places to live.

"it's safe to say local and national govt have no real clue as to local housing needs.My experience of local govt is that it's a VI that's doing very nicely thank you,and that if it gets given money they find a way to spend it."

I think they are incentivised from the money they get from S106 contributions

"in the next few years we will find out how much of the hosuing stock built in the last ten years was built to satisfy investor demand rather than provide places to live."

This is an interesting one, and I wonder how different areas will suffer. My plan is to either

a) Stick it out where I am and get the biggest house/plot I can - something that should retain value in area of growing population - although not if city continues to suffer.

B). Move to a greenbelt where population will grow much more slowly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the resident's comments was something along the lines of "you can't extrapolate past trends to the future" - basically saying that the downturn in the city might have a knock on effect on population in our area.

The only effect that the downturn will have on Elmbridge is a possible decline in price. It is one of the most desirable stockbroker belt type areas and will remain so. Even if the City halve the number of employees, there will still be enough to buy all of the large houses in areas like this.

However, the planners should be mindful of why bankers buy houses in an area like this - the housing stock itself. Elmbridge is not exactly awash with facilities, and rail connections to the city are not nearly as good as, say, Sevenoaks. Bankers are attracted here because of the large houses and reasonable amount of open green space.

By building semis and reducing the amount of green space, the planners could well be discouraging the bankers from moving there. This could create a problem, as not many other people can afford to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone else think the whole NIMBY thing is actually just about house prices?

Im not getting into whether we need more homes or not, but in my area there seems to be an outcry over even small housing developments ruining views and open spaces, yet numerous huge industrial units and large farm warehouses seem to spring up unopposed, far more ugly than any housing developments ive seen. Its almost like people will welcome the extra jobs, but want to strangle supply of homes to keep prices high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone else think the whole NIMBY thing is actually just about house prices?

Im not getting into whether we need more homes or not, but in my area there seems to be an outcry over even small housing developments ruining views and open spaces, yet numerous huge industrial units and large farm warehouses seem to spring up unopposed, far more ugly than any housing developments ive seen. Its almost like people will welcome the extra jobs, but want to strangle supply of homes to keep prices high.

I think it is partly house prices, but I also think it is that people buy a house for a particular reason, maybe that it is quiet or they are on a road of nice houses. I am sure that one of the reasons for not wanting to have their neighbours' houses knocked down to make way for flats is that their quality of life will suffer as a result, not least because their neighbour's house will be a building site for a few months.

Of course that won't stop them talking to the builder to see if they are interested in their house, while he is at it. ;)

Edited by bobthe~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   291 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.