Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
RichM

Tories Will Build On Green Belt To Aid First Time Buyers

Recommended Posts

Tories will build on green belt to aid first time buyers

Good job Dave! ;)

“I want the modern Conservative Party to become again the champion of affordable and sustainable homeownership,” he told a housing industry conference in South Wales. “I want us to look afresh at the planning system, and tackle the delays and obstruction that is damaging the the affordability of our housing.” He said that only 37 per cent of households could afford to buy their own home today, compared with 46 per cent in the late 1980s.

Tell it out George, Hallelujah! Can I get a witness!

Turning to the tax system, Mr Osborne said that the fourfold increase in stamp duty had damaged liquidity in the housing market. New shared equity schemes, though welcome, were mostly restricted to public sector workers. The Tories would introduce much more ambitious shared-equity plans for first-time buyers, he said.

Oh no!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tories will build on green belt to aid first time buyers

Good job Dave! ;)

Tell it out George, Hallelujah! Can I get a witness!

It is a great move on the part of the Tories to propose this (I am a lifelong Labour supporter by the way). The RTPI (Royal Town Planning Institute) have been pushing this for years.

Trouble is, the RTPI have been outgunned and outvoiced at every turn by the far more powerful pressure group the CPRE (Council for the Protection of Rural England). The two organisations and their bitter struggle over the green belt is quite interesting:

http://www.rtpi.org.uk/resources/press-rel.../pr20050924.pdf

I would love to believe that the Tories are truly signed up to this policy. Town planning has been badly neglected by New Labour. But, let's be honest, the Tory party's core constituency are people like the CPRE and other rich NIMBY homeowners. It ain't gonna happen.

frugalista

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS sake, read my lips: There is no shortage of housing.

What there is a shortage of is intelligence.

I think the answer is more mixed.

There is *some* shortage of housing in *some* areas. BUT I agree with you, most of the HPI we have is as a result of speculative demand, only a relatively small amount is due to supply shortages.

frugalista

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no shortage of shoddy 2 bed 'luxury apartments'. There is still a bit of a shortage of 3 bed or larger houses if you ask me. Which is where building on the green belt comes in....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stagnating population

at the same time theve been knocking down everything to build flats, and building on any bit of green in the populated areas.

its total crap ther is a housing shortage and infact if the did build houses in the greenbelt now what happens in 10-20 years when the very large baby boomer population starts moving into nursing homes or dying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stagnating population

at the same time theve been knocking down everything to build flats, and building on any bit of green in the populated areas.

its total crap ther is a housing shortage and infact if the did build houses in the greenbelt now what happens in 10-20 years when the very large baby boomer population starts moving into nursing homes or dying.

agreed - HPC is the natural and inevitable (but messy) solution - I don't know if the Tories know this, but if they do, it is clearly the medicine "that dare not speak its name".

It does make me wonder just how many influential figures do actually know what's round the corner but are keeping schtum for fear of being fingered as the cause in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CPRE, what a bunch of losers. I hope the "who owns britain" programme opened people's eye a bit - we are cramped in this country for no real reason. I am utterly surprised that New Labour hasn't developed more green field sites as they don't have many votes in the country as it is. But the Tories need to get votes in the cities - promising people cheaper homes and land is good for the whole economy, surely? When are the NIMBYs going to wake up???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When are the NIMBYs going to wake up???

not any time soon, judging from the reaction my (admittedly facetious) remark that "perhaps you'd prefer a nuclear plant there? or some firewood and candles?" gained when remonstrating with someone who tried to deliver a "say no to the windfarm" leaflet to my folks' house.

Needless to say the leaflet was subject to spin... the superimposed windmill must have been five times the size compared to the houses as it really will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Tories win the next election, it won't be until 2009 at the earliest - can't see Labour going to the polls early. While I'm not a 100% convinced that there'll be a crash in 2006, by 2009 I would guess that FTBers will no long be on anyone's sympathy list. In my opinion it'll all be about negative equite and repossessions, and why banks can't be more flexible in dealing with late mortgage payers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stagnating population

at the same time theve been knocking down everything to build flats, and building on any bit of green in the populated areas.

its total crap ther is a housing shortage and infact if the did build houses in the greenbelt now what happens in 10-20 years when the very large baby boomer population starts moving into nursing homes or dying.

I heard recently from an academic (politics) that he was unconcerned about the demographic situation. His belief was that it wouldn't be a problem as long as we have "sensible immigration policies". I wanted to probe him further, to see if he had an inside track on the likely direction of things, but it sounded like he thought mass immigration would smooth out the demographic humps and bumps.

p.s. I am not anti-immgration etc. but I do think that it is important to know the likely direction of this for the sake of future planning (from a personal point of view). Mass immigration or a lack thereof provide a dichotomy for decision making in many areas of life (financial, work, housing costs etc.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the answer is more mixed.

There is *some* shortage of housing in *some* areas. BUT I agree with you, most of the HPI we have is as a result of speculative demand, only a relatively small amount is due to supply shortages.

frugalista

I think there is a shortage in most areas but agree that more building will not affect house prices in the short to medium term........They simply couldn't build enough houses quick enough to affect the price.......

IMO new-build hotel-style flats in the cities are the exception to this..too many built at too a high an asking price.......They will lose 40-50% of their value even if the market for conventional homes plateaus........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CPRE, what a bunch of losers. I hope the "who owns britain" programme opened people's eye a bit - we are cramped in this country for no real reason. I am utterly surprised that New Labour hasn't developed more green field sites as they don't have many votes in the country as it is. But the Tories need to get votes in the cities - promising people cheaper homes and land is good for the whole economy, surely? When are the NIMBYs going to wake up???

I'm surprised there wasn't more outrage after the 'Who Owns Britain' program. Its outrageous that 99% of us are couped up in 5% of the land. I'd imagine the natural lobbying power of the large rural landowners to the Conservative party will prevent much greenbelt development in this case. Sound like empty words to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not any time soon, judging from the reaction my (admittedly facetious) remark that "perhaps you'd prefer a nuclear plant there? or some firewood and candles?" gained when remonstrating with someone who tried to deliver a "say no to the windfarm" leaflet to my folks' house.

Needless to say the leaflet was subject to spin... the superimposed windmill must have been five times the size compared to the houses as it really will be.

Good for you.

Do these people not ever look around them and see the issues coming up?

They just think that all can carry on with change not intruding upon their comfort zone.

They want the electricity on tap so long as the supply source is far away from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised there wasn't more outrage after the 'Who Owns Britain' program. Its outrageous that 99% of us are couped up in 5% of the land. I'd imagine the natural lobbying power of the large rural landowners to the Conservative party will prevent much greenbelt development in this case. Sound like empty words to me.

Having said that, a lot of votes in the country must be down to young families, farming industry, "locals" etc - all the out of towners coming in to buy up housing (how many of them are Lab/Lib Dem voters?) must really wind up your average family in Crinkley Bottom. A plan to allow rural communities to be more "sustainable", i.e. allow people to continue to live in their home town/village, might go down well for many folk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised there wasn't more outrage after the 'Who Owns Britain' program. Its outrageous that 99% of us are couped up in 5% of the land. I'd imagine the natural lobbying power of the large rural landowners to the Conservative party will prevent much greenbelt development in this case. Sound like empty words to me.

The major housebuilders have always had close ties with The Conservatives - I do not think they'll site idly by and watch the value of their landbanks decrease.

It is a disgrace though - free range animals now have more land allocated to them than most UK humans!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having said that, a lot of votes in the country must be down to young families, farming industry, "locals" etc - all the out of towners coming in to buy up housing (how many of them are Lab/Lib Dem voters?) must really wind up your average family in Crinkley Bottom. A plan to allow rural communities to be more "sustainable", i.e. allow people to continue to live in their home town/village, might go down well for many folk?

I think (as a bit of a sweeping generalization) even with the copious political leapfrogging of recent years it is still the case that :

Urban/suburban poor : Labour

Urban/suburban middle class: mixed Tory and Labour

Urban/suburban rich : Tory

Rural poor: Tory

Rural middle class: Tory

Rural rich: Tory

BTW Remember rural people are a rather small proportion of the population as are rich people.

Urban rich buying up second homes in the countryside is a Tory vs. Tory struggle.

Building new houses on the greenbelt for suburban poor/middle class is a pretty much classic Labour vs. Tory issue with Labour on the side of building more houses. That's why the Tories were dead against Prescott's housebuilding plans until very recently.

frugalista

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think (as a bit of a sweeping generalization) even with the copious political leapfrogging of recent years it is still the case that :

Urban/suburban poor : Labour

Urban/suburban middle class: mixed Tory and Labour

Urban/suburban rich : Tory

Rural poor: Tory

Rural middle class: Tory

Rural rich: Tory

BTW Remember rural people are a rather small proportion of the population as are rich people.

Urban rich buying up second homes in the countryside is a Tory vs. Tory struggle.

Building new houses on the greenbelt for suburban poor/middle class is a pretty much classic Labour vs. Tory issue with Labour on the side of building more houses. That's why the Tories were dead against Prescott's housebuilding plans until very recently.

frugalista

Pass the aspic.

Edited by Mushroom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Building new houses on the greenbelt for suburban poor/middle class is a pretty much classic Labour vs. Tory issue with Labour on the side of building more houses. That's why the Tories were dead against Prescott's housebuilding plans until very recently.

I don't buy it, Prescott has gone along with the CPRE's calls for sub-cattle grade density targets and has given priority to brown field development on your average toxic wastedump above all else, and we now face the consequences, thousands of horrible overpriced urban flats now being pushed with shared ownership schemes. Their brown field policy also has the unintended consequence of increased suburban infill in many older (and more Tory) areas.

We forget that many deep greens are Guardianistas, their anti-car, anti-development basically anti-everything outlook conveniently dovetails with the NIMBY reactionaries of the right. It's a match made in heaven, the old school patrician types and the new establishment in the form of aging 60's hippies are singing from the same hymm sheet in perfect harmony, who'd have thought it back in the day.

It's a perfect melding of green dogma and the rightwing drawbridge mentality of maintaining values, so I wouldn't say this is a party political thing at all, sadly it's a generational issue, which is nasty because we all know where the voting and political influence lies in this country when it comes to volume of votes and propensity to enage in the political process.

It's an amazing turn around, political parties used to pride themselves years ago on how many new homes they were building. Tory's would proudly boast that they're building record numbers of homes and new towns, this was Macmillan's central plank.

In short, anyone under 30 is pretty much rubber-ducked in today's Britain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't buy it, Prescott has gone along with the CPRE's calls for sub-cattle grade density targets and has given priority to brown field development on your average toxic wastedump above all else, and we now face the consequences, thousands of horrible overpriced urban flats now being pushed with shared ownership schemes. Their brown field policy also has the unintended consequence of increased suburban infill in many older (and more Tory) areas.

We forget that many deep greens are Guardianistas, their anti-car, anti-development basically anti-everything outlook conveniently dovetails with the NIMBY reactionaries of the right. It's a match made in heaven, the old school patrician types and the new establishment in the form of aging 60's hippies are singing from the same hymm sheet in perfect harmony, who'd have thought it back in the day.

It's a perfect melding of green dogma and the rightwing drawbridge mentality of maintaining values, so I wouldn't say this is a party political thing at all, sadly it's a generational issue, which is nasty because we all know where the voting and political influence lies in this country when it comes to volume of votes and propensity to enage in the political process.

It's an amazing turn around, political parties used to pride themselves years ago on how many new homes they were building. Tory's would proudly boast that they're building record numbers of homes and new towns, this was Macmillan's central plank.

In short, anyone under 30 is pretty much rubber-ducked in today's Britain.

I think you have an interesting point, especially about where the volume of votes is. A "dictatorship of the middle-aged"? I agree that Labour have massively screwed up town planning by not addressing this. However, I think it is down to their lack of awareness and focus rather than any conspiratorial intention to cosy up to the "deep greens".

The deep greens. Are they numerous? Do they live in marginal constituencies? Are they floating voters, likely to vote Tory if New Labour fail to meet their expectations? I doubt it. But many people feeling the housing squeeze can tick all these boxes. These are the people who would benefit from housebuilding. Reaching out to them might help Labour through the looming economic storm ahead (though personally I doubt they can survive).

frugalista

Pass the aspic.

Explain!

frugalista

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The deep greens. Are they numerous? Do they live in marginal constituencies? Are they floating voters, likely to vote Tory if New Labour fail to meet their expectations? I doubt it. But many people feeling the housing squeeze can tick all these boxes. These are the people who would benefit from housebuilding. Reaching out to them might help Labour through the looming economic storm ahead (though personally I doubt they can survive).

They're influential, they basically wrote the last three energy reviews for the government, now we've actually facing problems that can't be solved by fanciful nonsense the government is now having to conduct a further two real reviews. I'm not sure if they've toned down, but there's still some corkers like demands we should be "Investigating importing electricity from large-scale solar power plants in the Sahara" and "Create tidal lagoons" which will clearly make up for north sea production dropping off a cliff.

As for the influence on development many seem to be in cahoots, these groups are very good at lobbying and making themselves known to establishment figures.

For example the following is what this friendly FoE group want done :-

- an urban area much the same size

- build only high density apartments in the centre on brownfield sites

- cast the greenbelt in stone (sic)

- new house building is confined to brownfield sites within the urban area

- new house building is sustainable...

- - high density (apartments: population growth is going to be predominantly single person households)

- ensure no new road building

- stop further airport expansion

But they concede "We accept that some growth will take place (after all, if we envisage a lovely place to live in, other folks will definately want to join us here!)."

Great, is this cave taken or should I move onto the next?

But they have also set strict population ceilings, I'm not sure if they prefer forced expulsions or something more extreme.

Now lets have a look what our other friends want done :-

- Create more affordable housing (they mean shared ownership)

- Better use of brownfield land

- More efficient use of land

We need to make efficient use of land by getting design and density right. We need good quality, well designed new homes — including enough family homes with gardens. We can do this at densities of around 50 homes per hectare. There's been welcome progress recently in raising average densities of new homes (this has reached 40 homes per hectare)

- Encourage urban regeneration

We need stronger policies for urban regeneration, so that more people will want to live in our cities (rather than quit them for smaller towns and villages)

- Lowering the speculative demand for housing

And finally, we need to look at whether we can lower the demand for housing — instead of concentrating only on its supply. Are we too obsessed with home ownership

Well those who currently own seem to be.

The FoE are lefty tree huggers and the latter are reactionary nimbies but the message is exactly the same, both demonstrate a drawbridge mentality and an antipathy towards other people and wider society. In fact they appear to actively resent development that has already occured, this includes existing infrastructure that our economy relies on whether we like it or not, it seems its mere existence, let alone expansion, is already too much to bare.

Environmentalism is more of a state of mind isn't it, very convenient if it doesn't adversely affect you, if lots of 40-50 year olds were homeless no doubt this would be esculated to full scale 'crisis' status then it would all be about "fairness" and promoting "social justice".

I'm basically saying existing political groupings aren't much use eitherway, their different leanings equate to very little practical difference.

Edited by BuyingBear

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.

  • 301 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.