New Planning Policy Statement 3 - Housing

[Timm]

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/pps3housing

Well, they kept that under the radar! I suspect the changes are pretty minor - will read it later today.

[bomberbrown]

Looks like more of the same ****** that we've had for the past 13 years to me.

Strategic housing policy objectives

9. The Government’s key housing policy goal is to ensure that everyone has the

opportunity of living in a decent home, which they can afford, in a community where they

want to live.

Well, I can't see much of a problem there. I shouldn't imagine that there's that many people that would like a nice Georgian house for £150 a week just off the Kings Road road, and thats for starters.

Feckwits!

[Timm]

Looks like more of the same ****** that we've had for the past 13 years to me.

(...)

Yes indeed, it's really just the same document with a couple of changes.

The other change I notice is the scapping of minimum density targets, which once again raises the issue of quite exactly where all these 4 bedroom detached family homes are going to go? Not on back gardens, not on the green belt or parks or allotments, and not where local people don't want them: So where?

I really hope they have an answer to this, or the whole thing is going to descend into farce.

[Executive Sadman]

Yes indeed, it's really just the same document with a couple of changes.

The other change I notice is the scapping of minimum density targets, which once again raises the issue of quite exactly where all these 4 bedroom detached family homes are going to go? Not on back gardens, not on the green belt or parks or allotments, and not where local people don't want them: So where?

I really hope they have an answer to this, or the whole thing is going to descend into farce.

New towns, probably. Less opposition if theyre not in peoples views.

[ChumpusRex]

One point is the removal of the 'rabbit hutch mandate' which specified the minimum number of homes per acre (min 25 households per acre including all roads and space for infrastructure)

[ChumpusRex]

One point is the removal of the 'rabbit hutch mandate' which specified the minimum number of homes per acre (min 25 households per acre including all roads and space for infrastructure)

[Planner]

The headline changes are:

1) Gardens no longer classed as 'brownfield land';

2) Minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare removed; and

3) Persumption that all 'brownfield land' is suitable for housing, removed.

[camem']

The headline changes are:

1) Gardens no longer classed as 'brownfield land';

2) Minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare removed; and

3) Persumption that all 'brownfield land' is suitable for housing, removed.

Is that IT ? We vote a new government in and they change 3 lines out of 1590 ?

some questions for the helpful public sectors types out there :

a. how can you implement the same policy with 20% less staff ?

b. why isn't it (much more) different to the last government's policy

c. what with moving control to local councils, am I right in thinking oh shit, they're never going to build any houses are they

I only hope this is a late release that was due to get out before the last election, and they thought they would release it anyway while they have a good old think about what they actually want to change ? Is that likely ?

Edited June 10, 2010 by camem'

[Stars]

Is that IT ? We vote a new government in and they change 3 lines out of 1590 ?

I talked to a conservative before the election, he informed me that real estate / housing wasn't an issue....well not an issue the conservatives were going to do anything radical about.

He suggested that I stand for parliament myself if i wanted anything done about it--

I took that as a cue that he had finished with the conversation

Edited June 10, 2010 by Stars

[non frog]

.... am I right in thinking oh shit, they're never going to build any houses are they

...

Let's hope not. We don't need any.

[camem']

Let's hope not. We don't need any.

Splendid, glad we sorted that one out. Home for tea and medals it is.

"This presents a particular problem, given the impact of demographic changes on

projections for household growth. According to the central scenario of the HFFL-

based projections, there will be an average of HKH,GFF new households looking to

form per year in the period leading up to HFIG. This is not merely a result of

population growth – a main factor is the continued reduction in average

household size, which is projected fall from H.IH to H.GI persons over that time."

homes and communities government thing

[Guest sillybear2]

The headline changes are:

1) Gardens no longer classed as 'brownfield land';

2) Minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare removed; and

3) Persumption that all 'brownfield land' is suitable for housing, removed.

Thank f**k for that, if new homes can be seen a better product than the old stock, just as spacious, more energy efficient, set in the right locations, then old housing will have to be priced accordingly, i.e. as an inferior product priced at a steep discount. It's interesting that the government recently decreed that any car older than 10 years is an inefficient banger, yet people scramble for >100 year housing because the product produced over the last decade has been such utter crap.

They just need to find a space to put these homes.

[HPC001]

Everyone? Like they managed that before

Even with 5 kids in tow my friend (a widow) was waiting a year for somewhere to live (while stuck in a B&B with shared facilities)...

[Tonkers]

Everyone? Like they managed that before

Even with 5 kids in tow my friend (a widow) was waiting a year for somewhere to live (while stuck in a B&B with shared facilities)...

A year? Nothing. I lived in one room with my dad and two brother for two, the shared facilities where with a lot of families from India. It was a great experience looking back. In those days I was not given any reason to feel shame. I had a good time.

[The Preacherman]

I talked to a conservative before the election, he informed me that real estate / housing wasn't an issue....well not an issue the conservatives were going to do anything radical about.

He suggested that I stand for parliament myself if i wanted anything done about it--

I took that as a cue that he had finished with the conversation

He's right the supply of housing is not an issue. There are scores of empty properties up and down the country, even in London.

There rise in house prices was a demand side problem of speculation fuelled by cheap and easy credit not a supply one. Why should we rip up the countryside and gardens when supply is not the issue.

[Ash4781]

With the schemes also running out of cash and if prices start falling again it's risky strategy. Potentially continued falls in volume as other posters have said. IMO The builders will be unlikely to merge and acquisition due to decades of land supply on the balance sheet. Zombies!

http://www.google.co.uk/finance?client=ob&q=LON:BDEV

[Tired of Waiting]

He's right the supply of housing is not an issue. There are scores of empty properties up and down the country, even in London.

There rise in house prices was a demand side problem of speculation fuelled by cheap and easy credit not a supply one. Why should we rip up the countryside and gardens when supply is not the issue.

We have about 60 million people in Britain, and some 20 million residential dwellings.

According to that new green conservative MP, Zac Goldsmith, we have some 600,000 empty properties. And I heard on Radio 4 that we have some 200,000 second properties. So, a total of 800,000 - or 4% of the total.

That is not much. It would help, of course, but it won't be enough.

And we don't have to "rip up the countryside and gardens". You are distorting reality. Less than 1% of available and under used land (pastures for instance) would be much more than enough to build a million new, spacious homes, in green, garden suburbs - with much more biodiversity than pastures.

[Executive Sadman]

I talked to a conservative before the election, he informed me that real estate / housing wasn't an issue....well not an issue the conservatives were going to do anything radical about.

He suggested that I stand for parliament myself if i wanted anything done about it--

I took that as a cue that he had finished with the conversation

He sounds almost as Tory as Gordon Brown himself

On Friday Jeremy Paxman got the most revealing answer I’ve yet heard from a politician. He asked Gordon Brown in his Newsnight interview: ‘What about the housing budget, are going to cut that?’

‘Housing is essentially a private sector activity. Let’s be honest about this, Jeremy. Housing is essentially a private sector activity.

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/community/blog/chopping-block/6509660.blog

TRANSLATION: We've completely fucked up housing and credit over the last 13 years, so now we'll blame it on the housebuilders (who managed to build family homes for under £70k as late as 1995-97)

Wonder what NuLab 2.0 will bring to the table?

[piece of paper]

We have about 60 million people in Britain, and some 20 million residential dwellings.

According to that new green conservative MP, Zac Goldsmith, we have some 600,000 empty properties. And I heard on Radio 4 that we have some 200,000 second properties. So, a total of 800,000 - or 4% of the total.

That is not much. It would help, of course, but it won't be enough.

And we don't have to "rip up the countryside and gardens". You are distorting reality. Less than 1% of available and under used land (pastures for instance) would be much more than enough to build a million new, spacious homes, in green, garden suburbs - with much more biodiversity than pastures.

Is this newspeak for the immigrant population?

p-o-p

[Executive Sadman]

There may well be a million empty homes, just not were they are needed.

We should move all government functions en masse to Middlesborough, sell off all prison land and build a single penal colony for hundreds of thousands of inmates high up in the Pennines just west of Middlesborough. That should sort out some of the shortage around London.

[non frog]

.....

"This presents a particular problem, given the impact of demographic changes on

projections for household growth.

... blah blah....

a main factor is the continued reduction in average

household size, .....

....blah blah.....

homes and communities government thing

This is an interesting statistical trend. I wonder how they work that out? If I have a place here in France, a pied a terre in London and a nice place in the country the persons per household for me and the missus is 0.75 people per property? The Blairs have one and a half houses each don't they?

Maybe the trend in having more houses than you need is the issue? Just a thought

(In the interests of honesty and accuracy I must reveal I sold up all the stuff in the UK at what I - wrongly - thought was peak in 2007 and only have the French place now)

Edited June 13, 2010 by non frog

[Wayo]

We have about 60 million people in Britain, and some 20 million residential dwellings.

According to that new green conservative MP, Zac Goldsmith, we have some 600,000 empty properties. And I heard on Radio 4 that we have some 200,000 second properties. So, a total of 800,000 - or 4% of the total.

That is not much. It would help, of course, but it won't be enough.

We also have a huge number of buildings that are only used for a few hours a day, or half of the year. or both.

Schools, hospitals, universities, hotels, nightclubs, shops etc.... We spend a few hours in similar functional buildings, then set the alarms, kill the lights (or not) abandon that neighbourhood, and move across town to do different things in different buildings.

[Tin Foil Hat]

Have they removed the requirement to put doleys in with the payers in the great social mix experiment?