Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
fru-gal

Newham To Build 20,000 New Homes

Recommended Posts

Newham’s housing programme will deliver 60 homes in 2013/14. There are 24,000 people on the borough’s housing waiting list.

Watch what I do, not what I say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They spent £111 million on new council offices three years ago, which they just announced that they're thinking of moving out of because they don't actually need the space, but they can only build 60 council houses a year?

Don't get me wrong, it would be great if they built more housing, but, honestly, given their track record, I'm not holding my breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Newham’s plans: in numbers

20,000

number of homes Newham Council hopes to build

24,000

number of people on the borough’s housing waiting list

£544 million

amount the government gave Newham in self-financing reforms last April

So did they spend that lot already?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Newham's plans: in numbers

20,000

number of homes Newham Council hopes to build

24,000

number of people on the borough's housing waiting list

£544 million

amount the government gave Newham in self-financing reforms last April

So did they spend that lot already?

Newham are pretty proactive when it comes to housing. They are the only council to have introduced compulsory landlord registration and their mayor seems to be a genuine "man of the people" who can actually see what high housing costs are doing in his borough.

Also, reducing the housing list to 4,000 by building 20,000 council houses would have a big impact on the local PRS which at the moment is crazy.

All the London councils have been nagging Boris/the Government about raising the borrowing cap so that they can use it to finance more house building. Osborne has not done this until now and he has only raised the cap by £300 million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Newham are pretty proactive when it comes to housing. They are the only council to have introduced compulsory landlord registration and their mayor seems to be a genuine "man of the people" who can actually see what high housing costs are doing in his borough.

Also, reducing the housing list to 4,000 by building 20,000 council houses would have a big impact on the local PRS which at the moment is crazy.

All the London councils have been nagging Boris/the Government about raising the borrowing cap so that they can use it to finance more house building. Osborne has not done this until now and he has only raised the cap by £300 million.

Of course, they could have just granted planning permission for the private sector to build new houses over the past decade, but then that would simply have solved the problem and underlined the uselessness of the council. Local councils block development and create the problem, and then turn around and claim that the only solution is to give the council more money. The council offices are the perfect example of what happens to that money.

Edited by richc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, they could have just granted planning permission for the private sector to build new houses over the past decade, but then that would simply have solved the problem and underlined the uselessness of the council.

Depends what sort of houses they build.

Oldham councillors want to build 'big aspirational homes' - not for huge families but for people who want a big house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends what sort of houses they build.

Oldham councillors want to build 'big aspirational homes' - not for huge families but for people who want a big house.

This is the problem with the built environment in the UK. If the government bans the construction of nice houses, then, there are no nice houses. What passes for 'big aspirational homes' in the UK would be laughed at in most other developed countries. They're tiny, poorly insulated, rabbit hutches.

Housing is fungible. If Newham, or any other council, only built "luxury" houses, then that would free up other housing which becomes "affordable" housing. But as is, the council only allows "affordable", i.e. low-quality housing, which isn't economically viable and is just cr@p, such that very little housing actually gets built and that which does probably shouldn't have been.

Edited by richc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the problem with the built environment in the UK. If the government bans the construction of nice houses, then, there are no nice houses. What passes for 'big aspirational homes' in the UK would be laughed at in most other developed countries. They're tiny, poorly insulated, rabbit hutches.

Housing is fungible. If Newham, or any other council, only built "luxury" houses, then that would free up other housing which becomes "affordable" housing. But as is, the council only allows "affordable", i.e. low-quality housing, which isn't economically viable and is just cr@p, such that very little housing actually gets built and that which does probably shouldn't have been.

http://www.contourhomes.co.uk/files/2012/09/St-Marys-3.3.1e.pdf

£15.4 M

52 social rent

41 rent to home buy (Whatever that is)

Symphony Housing Group is on site with four Code 6 properties

and we are negotiating to build four passivhaus homes

Are these aspirational?

Are they "just houses"

Is there a whiff of "no social housing" in the idea of building an estate that is "aspirational"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends what sort of houses they build.

Oldham councillors want to build 'big aspirational homes' - not for huge families but for people who want a big house.

Same here this side of the Pennines. Even those are opposed by boomers lacking dog pooping land. If someone suggested social housing they would have heart failure.

So we get the usual 'executive developments'..which usually end up occupied by boomers, because thats the only thing that gets passed and is the only thing financially viable on scarce overpriced land.

Edited by aSecureTenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not actually sure where they'd build them. It's not like Newham has loads of undeveloped space.

The cost of the council buildings is utterly disgraceful. One of the poorest boroughs in the country with one of the highest paid CEOs and probably most expensive council buildings.

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:   203 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.