Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Dave Beans

Regional House-Building Quotas Scrapped..

Recommended Posts

An excuse for even more back-handers within local government?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/houseprices/7874892/Regional-house-building-quotas-scrapped.html

The quotas, introduced under Labour in response to a shortage of homes, had proved unpopular because of fears Green Belt land would be sacrificed to meet the targets.

Communities Secretary Eric Pickles officially scrapped the ''Soviet'' targets today as he laid an order in Parliament revoking regional spatial strategies which, he said, had failed to increase house-building.

''Communities will no longer have to endure the previous government's failed Soviet tractor style top-down planning targets - they were a terrible, expensive, time-consuming way to impose house building and worst of all threatened the destruction of the Green Belt,'' he said.

Mr Pickles said that the Government would introduce ''powerful new incentives'' for communities to encourage support for the construction of new homes. Local people would be given ''direct rewards from the proceeds of growth to improve their local area'', he said.

In a statement to MPs, he said: ''Because we are committed to housing growth, introducing these incentives will be a priority and we aim to do so early in the spending review period.''

Chancellor George Osborne will be announcing his spending review in October, after which there will be a consultation about the details of the scheme.

Mr Osborne has suggested recently that incentives could be passed onto residents via council tax or business rates.

But the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) said the money would be used to help ensure more new homes were built for local people.

In his statement, Mr Pickles said: ''These incentives will encourage local authorities and communities to increase their aspirations for housing and economic growth, and to deliver sustainable development in a way that allows them to control the way in which their villages, towns and cities change.

''Our revisions to the planning system will also support renewable energy and a low carbon economy.''

The former Labour government's targets had been designed to get 3 million homes built nationally by 2020. However, officials said house-building was now facing its lowest peacetime levels since 1924 and that regional strategies had put at risk the greenbelt areas surrounding 30 towns.

Mr Pickles, who was speaking today at the Local Government Association's conference, told town hall leaders that councils would now be put back in charge of local planning.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) said regional targets had often been ''misused'' to impose housing on communities and encroach onto greenfield sites.

But Fiona Howie, head of planning for the CPRE, said regional spatial strategies had helped ensure consistent decision-making and that their abolition would leave a ''worrying gap''.

''These developments need a high level of cross authority working and the Government will need to outline a credible alternative to fill this void,'' she said.

''In line with the localism agenda, local authorities will be left to decide how many new homes they need and where they should be located.

''Our branches will be watching closely to see whether local authorities continue to protect green belt and other valuable green spaces in line with the new Government's intentions.

''We believe it is still vital to focus new home building on brownfield land driving regeneration, supporting vulnerable communities and protecting treasured green spaces in our towns and countryside.''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know. In theory i like the idea of taking control away from the nimbys. In practice none of liebours housing targets were met anyway, prompting Snot gobblers sudden change of view to "housing is essentially a private sector activity" (just as he was diverting hundreds of billions of public money away from services and into keeping housing unaffordable)

Stuff still got build before Nuliebour, afterall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuff still got build before Nuliebour, afterall.

Yes, shoebox houses with no infrastructure.

People would object less if they build estates the other way round. Build the roads first , and get them fully adopted, then build the schools and new doctors, then last of all build the houses. At the moment all you get is vague promises of something, that several years down the line turns out to be under budgeted and never happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, shoebox houses with no infrastructure.

People would object less if they build estates the other way round. Build the roads first , and get them fully adopted, then build the schools and new doctors, then last of all build the houses. At the moment all you get is vague promises of something, that several years down the line turns out to be under budgeted and never happens.

Far too sensible. Off with yer head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, shoebox houses with no infrastructure.

People would object less if they build estates the other way round. Build the roads first , and get them fully adopted, then build the schools and new doctors, then last of all build the houses. At the moment all you get is vague promises of something, that several years down the line turns out to be under budgeted and never happens.

Sorry, i hadnt noticed the vast improvement in newbuilds post-1997.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pretty pleased about this as the "central government regional quotas" were being used as an excuse by our local council planners to agree to "green belt" (green belt meaning the two spare small fields next to the playground) developments in an area that was already over-capacity (sewage so over-capacity that it is flooding people's homes and being let out into the streams, no school places, chronic traffic jams, no public transport lines).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regional housing quotas scrapped.

Planning decisions to be turned over to communities (i.e. nimbys)

Gardens no longer classified as brownfield, making garden-grabbing more difficult.

These will squeeze new housing development, possibly driving up prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a green field in a town near here (Hereford/Glos borders) that has had a Barratt's sign up for nearly 2 years - you know the kind of thing - coming soon an exclusive development of executive homes etc".

I wonder how many others there are around the country where planning permission has been given but nothing built (or fully built). It would be interesting to know how many houses could be built if developers actually acted on permissions given. Perhaps there should be some incentive for them to do the building, like a time limit after which the land can never ever get planning permission again, or a monthly charge to keep planning permission valid set at a level which encourages them to either get on with it or sell the land to someone who will.

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a green field in a town near here (Hereford/Glos borders) that has had a Barratt's sign up for nearly 2 years - you know the kind of thing - coming soon an exclusive development of executive homes etc".

I wonder how many others there are around the country where planning permission has been given but nothing built (or fully built). It would be interesting to know how many houses could be built if developers actually acted on permissions given. Perhaps there should be some incentive for them to do the building, like a time limit after which the land can never ever get planning permission again, or a monthly charge to keep planning permission valid set at a level which encourages them to either get on with it or sell the land to someone who will.

Y

There's a moderately large plot of land outside a nearby town (roughly for around 800 houses)..it was granted outline planning permission nearly four years ago, but still nothing..they put it down to legal wranglings over the S106 agreements, but I'm sceptical..Moreover, there's at least 5000 ppl (if not more) on the council house waiting list, and I believe 30% of the housing will be allocated for HAs.

Councils do put time-limts on permissions (usually 3-5 years) and the "client" has to apply for an extension if its running out..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real disaster was the imposition on local authorities of PPG3 by John Prescott in 2000. PPG3 was a government diktat for very high density housing – at least 30 dwellings per hectare. The result was a massive switch from family homes with gardens to 1 and 2 bedroom “executive apartments” (aka jerry-built shoe boxes) crammed into to every spare piece of land within existing towns and villages, overloading the infrastructure and increasing congestion. This was madness born of left-wing social engineering in an unholy alliance with the wealthy country set (and their pressure groups) who wanted to prevent the oiks soiling their environment. This policy will be looked back on in years to come with the same disdain as we now look back on the tower blocks thrown up in the 60s.

Unfortunately we are brainwashed into swallowing the lie that the countryside is sacrosanct. Yet only 7% to 8% of the UK land mass is built on, leaving the other 92% in the hands of the few. I recommend reading this book if you want to find out just who owns Britain’s land – a real eye-opener:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0862419123/ref=cm_cr_dp_orig_subj/203-2103245-3759912

Perhaps if we allowed more spread-out housing in the countryside, say 2 to 3 dwellings per hectare, we would not only find there is plenty land to meet demand (so forcing down land prices) but this could result in more environmentally friendly housing (with a 1 acre plot there would be plenty of space for things like ground source heat pumps, rainwater harvesting, growing your own food, etc). If you look at many countries in Europe, you see houses dotted all round the countryside which are within the reach of working people. In Britain, and certainly in the South, the price of even small houses in the countryside are only affordable by the wealthy.

The folly of ever more town cramming must come to an end now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<br />The real disaster was the imposition on local authorities of PPG3 by John Prescott in 2000. PPG3 was a government diktat for very high density housing – at least 30 dwellings per hectare. The result was a massive switch from family homes with gardens to 1 and 2 bedroom "executive apartments" (aka jerry-built shoe boxes) crammed into to every spare piece of land within existing towns and villages, overloading the infrastructure and increasing congestion. This was madness born of left-wing social engineering in an unholy alliance with the wealthy country set (and their pressure groups) who wanted to prevent the oiks soiling their environment. This policy will be looked back on in years to come with the same disdain as we now look back on the tower blocks thrown up in the 60s. <br /><br />Unfortunately we are brainwashed into swallowing the lie that the countryside is sacrosanct. Yet only 7% to 8% of the UK land mass is built on, leaving the other 92% in the hands of the few. I recommend reading this book if you want to find out just who owns Britain's land – a real eye-opener:<br /><br /><a href='http://www.amazon.co...2103245-3759912</a><br /><br />Perhaps if we allowed more spread-out housing in the countryside, say 2 to 3 dwellings per hectare, we would not only find there is plenty land to meet demand (so forcing down land prices) but this could result in more environmentally friendly housing (with a 1 acre plot there would be plenty of space for things like ground source heat pumps, rainwater harvesting, growing your own food, etc). If you look at many countries in Europe, you see houses dotted all round the countryside which are within the reach of working people. In Britain, and certainly in the South, the price of even small houses in the countryside are only affordable by the wealthy.<br /><br />The folly of ever more town cramming must come to an end now.<br />
<br /><br /><br />

Good link but needs serious updating!

Tate & Lyle for instance are the biggest receiver of farming subsidies in the UK; therefore they own 100's thousands of acres not even mentioned there!

This is how the knobs now hide their land accumulation/ownership - faceless as major shareholders/owners of huge private ltd farming companies, which buy out all the small farmers steadily going out of business or retiring (their kids not interested coz of amount work vs remuneration on small holding/smaller farms)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately we are brainwashed into swallowing the lie that the countryside is sacrosanct. Yet only 7% to 8% of the UK land mass is built on, leaving the other 92% in the hands of the few. I recommend reading this book if you want to find out just who owns Britains land a real eye-opener:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0862419123/ref=cm_cr_dp_orig_subj/203-2103245-3759912

Perhaps if we allowed more spread-out housing in the countryside, say 2 to 3 dwellings per hectare, we would not only find there is plenty land to meet demand (so forcing down land prices) but this could result in more environmentally friendly housing (with a 1 acre plot there would be plenty of space for things like ground source heat pumps, rainwater harvesting, growing your own food, etc). If you look at many countries in Europe, you see houses dotted all round the countryside which are within the reach of working people. In Britain, and certainly in the South, the price of even small houses in the countryside are only affordable by the wealthy.

The folly of ever more town cramming must come to an end now.

The only comparable countries in Europe to the South East's population density are The Netherlands and Belgium. I think you'll find that the price of small houses in the countryside in those countries is pretty steep too..... unfortunately. The real folly of NewLabour was to let the population boom :rolleyes: then reduce building standards to house them in

Edited by skomer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately we are brainwashed into swallowing the lie that the countryside is sacrosanct. Yet only 7% to 8% of the UK land mass is built on, leaving the other 92% in the hands of the few. I recommend reading this book if you want to find out just who owns Britains land a real eye-opener:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0862419123/ref=cm_cr_dp_orig_subj/203-2103245-3759912

Perhaps if we allowed more spread-out housing in the countryside, say 2 to 3 dwellings per hectare, we would not only find there is plenty land to meet demand (so forcing down land prices) but this could result in more environmentally friendly housing (with a 1 acre plot there would be plenty of space for things like ground source heat pumps, rainwater harvesting, growing your own food, etc). If you look at many countries in Europe, you see houses dotted all round the countryside which are within the reach of working people. In Britain, and certainly in the South, the price of even small houses in the countryside are only affordable by the wealthy.

The folly of ever more town cramming must come to an end now.

duplicate post

Edited by skomer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

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.