kev-all-in Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 From the BBC Why can't the UK build 240,000 houses a year?"In 2007 the Labour government set a target for 240,000 homes to be built a year by 2016. The UK is nowhere near that. Why? For decades after World War Two the UK used to build more than 300,000 new homes a year. Recently it's managed about half that. The country is facing up to a housebuilding crisis. A decade ago, the Barker Review of Housing Supply noted that about 250,000 homes needed to be built every year to prevent spiralling house prices and a shortage of affordable homes. That target has been consistently missed" Pathetic list of feeble excuses, if it suited the nimby boomers we would be building 300 000+ homes a year, but as it doesn't suit them everybody else can go swivel - simple as that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wurzel Of Highbridge Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Is it the BBC telling us why we can't build the houses required, or is it a genuine study. I would click the link, but I don't watch the BBC state propaganda channel any more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) Sell people directly building plots for price of agriculture land and you will see 100,000s of houses pa. Edited January 13, 2015 by Damik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kev-all-in Posted January 13, 2015 Author Share Posted January 13, 2015 Is it the BBC telling us why we can't build the houses required, or is it a genuine study. I would click the link, but I don't watch the BBC state propaganda channel any more. It's the BBC basically telling us, with help from the usual vested interests of course. Lots of excuses. It completely fails to reach any conclusions as to why it was possible to build 350 000 houses a few years ago, yet is impossible now, nor does it suggest much in the way of solutions. It doesn't lay the blame at Liebours door, nor explain why the Cons have failed to do anything despite Michael Shapps identifying the problem 5 years ago. But it does at least acknowledge there is a massive problem. maybe worth a click to keep it in the most read section for a while. (although I fully understand if you don't want to have anything to do with pravdabbc) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
long time lurking Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Sell people directly building plots for price of agriculture land and you will see 100,000s of houses pa. It is as simple as that ^^^^ any land banks held by the cartel not built on within a year needs to be compulsory purchased and divided into single plots which could then be sold at cost for self build Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austin Allegro Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) It is as simple as that ^^^^ any land banks held by the cartel not built on within a year needs to be compulsory purchased and divided into single plots which could then be sold at cost for self build An even simpler expedient would be to allow the building of small separate residential dwellings in the gardens of existing properties, assuming said gardens were over a certain size and the new dwellings did not block out the light of neighbours - basically, allow 'beds in sheds' officially. It is ludicrous that a single person or a couple can move into a spare room in a house as lodgers, (and the property owner even gets a tax break for it) but if a separate dwelling is established in the garden of that house, it requires planning permission. This shows it's nothing to do with councils having to allocate public services (GPs, libraries etc) for new residents moving into the area, and all about nimbyism instead. Edited January 13, 2015 by Austin Allegro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) It's not "can we" but "should we"? Simple answer is "yes" since obviously you need enough houses for the population. Very short-termist. I simply can't get my head around people who think it makes no difference, and in any case keep it up for long enough even they'll start to notice the downside eventually. Edited January 13, 2015 by Riedquat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyres Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 For decades after World War Two the UK used to build more than 300,000 new homes a year. Recently it's managed about half that. I guess the technology has got a lot better now, but after the war 1.2 million new houses were built from 1945 to 1951, most concrete prefab housing, designed to last only 10 years... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 So a building spurt to replace ones lost in the war, then to replace those? Not something that should be held up as normal. That all said even I can't deny there's some utter craziness in the way of building sometimes. One place I looked at was nice except for the derelict mess behind it, just a bit of a scrap heap left after most of it burned down 10 years ago. And yet a bit of digging turns out that there's wrangling about building on that, and as far as I can tell it's not around some practical issue such as the land being contaminated. Even I think building on that would be an improvement (although in an ideal world it would be cleared and turned in to a field or woodland). Bonkers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EUBanana Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) Abolish planning permission, problem solved, simples. LVT for additional incentive perhaps. As the great landholders of the country run the government though, I guess that's unlikely to happen. Edited January 13, 2015 by EUBanana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samboy Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Scrap MMR and everything else in place to slow down banks lending and 250,000 mugs people will buy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Abolish planning permission, problem solved, simples. LVT for additional incentive perhaps. As the great landholders of the country run the government though, I guess that's unlikely to happen. Thankfully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Scrap MMR and everything else in place to slow down banks lending and 250,000 mugs people will buy. No MMR is IMO a good thing....it is not the availability of credit that is wrong it is the high cost of land and the restrictions placed on building.......you can't encourage millions more people and not provide for them, that goes for housing, schools,transport and health....fewer resources shared out to more people...... The price of the homes that they build have to be inline with the wages that people earn, in areas where the jobs are....and not sold to property speculators and overseas hoarders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austin Allegro Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Abolish planning permission, problem solved, simples. LVT for additional incentive perhaps. As the great landholders of the country run the government though, I guess that's unlikely to happen. Although I'm in favour of a small state, I do think there has to be some planning control. I lived in India for a while where there's effectively no planning restrictions. The house I lived in had beautiful views over a Himalayan valley. I say had, because a few years after it was built someone came along and built another house right in front of it, leaving about 2' of space and a brick wall in front of the beautiful view! My point is that existing laws in the UK allow 1. the erection of structures in gardens, 2. tax breaks for renting out a spare room to lodgers, but if you try to put a lodger in a structure in the garden, you need planning permission. Crazy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wurzel Of Highbridge Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 But it does at least acknowledge there is a massive problem. No, not at all. It's the VI's creating an artificial problem then telling the 99% via the BBC that there is a problem. Shortage of land, not enough mortgages, to many foreigners etc. You name it, the VI's come out and use the BBC to broadcast their propaganda. The real problem lies in issuing building permits/ planning permission, which is tightly controlled by the VI's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 No MMR is IMO a good thing....it is not the availability of credit that is wrong it is the high cost of land and the restrictions placed on building.......you can't encourage millions more people and not provide for them, that goes for housing, schools,transport and health....fewer resources shared out to more people......Then the solution should be stop encouraging millions more people (and remove some of them if it's possible and ethical to do so). No more population increase means no more demand for increasing housing stock, everyone happy. Well, not quite, you'll still need to build some more to adequately house what we've already got but that would be a one-off and not a continual increase so rather more palatable. Clamouring to support the endless increase and not concentrating on the cause is just depressing.Prices are more to do with availability of credit than lack of availability of housing though (not that the latter doesn't contribute of course). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Prices are more to do with availability of credit than lack of availability of housing though (not that the latter doesn't contribute of course). Lots of easy cheap money makes housing more expensive......give someone a million and they will spend a million, well many would....give people free stuff and they will travel to take up on the offer, human nature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Exactly, I read you statement that "it's not the availablity of credit that is wrong" as meaning you thought the opposite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samboy Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 No MMR is IMO a good thing....it is not the availability of credit that is wrong it is the high cost of land and the restrictions placed on building.......you can't encourage millions more people and not provide for them, that goes for housing, schools,transport and health....fewer resources shared out to more people...... The price of the homes that they build have to be inline with the wages that people earn, in areas where the jobs are....and not sold to property speculators and overseas hoarders. This bubble needed to inflate to epic proportions with endless amounts of tossers buying into it, and there would be no amount of people buying so long as the credit was available to them no matter what the price. At which point when the day of reckoning eventually comes the bang of the burst would have been far greater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 An even simpler expedient would be to allow the building of small separate residential dwellings in the gardens of existing properties, assuming said gardens were over a certain size and the new dwellings did not block out the light of neighbours - basically, allow 'beds in sheds' officially. It is ludicrous that a single person or a couple can move into a spare room in a house as lodgers, (and the property owner even gets a tax break for it) but if a separate dwelling is established in the garden of that house, it requires planning permission. This shows it's nothing to do with councils having to allocate public services (GPs, libraries etc) for new residents moving into the area, and all about nimbyism instead. It's because it's an insane idea allowing people to live in substandard sheds. To add an extra bedroom via an extension means building regs, and generally ensuring the provision of a parking spaces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
long time lurking Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I guess the technology has got a lot better now, but after the war 1.2 million new houses were built from 1945 to 1951, most concrete prefab housing, designed to last only 10 years... Many of these`s houses are still in use today right across the country Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samboy Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Builders also shouldn't have to be building a percentage of houses in a development for so affordable housing scam. Id imagine if i was a builder id shake my head at the parasite that is the local council looking to extract endless amounts of money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Many of these`s houses are still in use today right across the country Some are unmortageble until they've had remedial work done on them. http://www.reallymoving.com/property-professors/surveying/what-is-a-prc-%28prefabricated-reinforced-concrete%29 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy soy Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 An even simpler expedient would be to allow the building of small separate residential dwellings in the gardens of existing properties, assuming said gardens were over a certain size and the new dwellings did not block out the light of neighbours - basically, allow 'beds in sheds' officially. It is ludicrous that a single person or a couple can move into a spare room in a house as lodgers, (and the property owner even gets a tax break for it) but if a separate dwelling is established in the garden of that house, it requires planning permission. This shows it's nothing to do with councils having to allocate public services (GPs, libraries etc) for new residents moving into the area, and all about nimbyism instead. Nimby ism is rife in this country. Found out my father in laws neighbours are all NIMBYS when a McCarthy developer built a small development of houses next to his property after buying and knocking down a couple of houses on the street. The attitude of the NIMBYS was that they deserved a cash compensation because they would have to see houses being built 100ft away from their windows. Another wanted the entire development halted because a blackberry bush in his 90ft long garden would be in the shade at certain times of the day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 So people don't want more houses built, and they aren't getting built. Sounds perfectly reasonable. Put the blame on those adding to the population and hence the need for more housing. Only if it's the same people doing both then complain about them. This idea that you can make something a bit less pleasant for them and get worked up when they're not happy about that is weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.