Thursday, September 9, 2010

250 New Towns Club state their case

You and Yours

26 minutes 16 seconds in: Ian Abley of the 250 New Towns Club state their case for 500,000 new homes per annum on 250 new (greenfield) sites; Kate Henderson of TCPA and Housing Minister Grant Shaps respond. Googled the club and found them at: http://www.audacity.org/people.htm

Posted by greenmind @ 06:13 PM (2268 views)
Please complete the required fields.



16 thoughts on “250 New Towns Club state their case

  • Thanks for posting greenmind – very interesting. Unfortunately, I suspect that the planning restrictions on new homes are not going to go away anytime soon hence Audacity isn’t going to get traction. It appears that Audacity was launched a decade ago which makes me wonder how much chance they have if I’d never heard of them until today (http://www.audacity.org/BA-01.htm). Also, according to one source, Audacity has links with something called the ‘Living Marxism Group’ (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Audacity.org).

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • I’ve never heard of them either. Just goes to show anyone can set up a pressure group.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Well worth a listen.

    Grany Schapps claims to be favourable to their proposed 250 new towns and 500,000 new houses a year.

    Seriously, any government must realise that getting some building underway will help re-generate alot of local economies. Especially if they are on a smaller scale.

    These will obviously be funded privately, so no drain on the tax payer.

    It really makes absolute sense and know-one is really going to argue with a slogan like :-

    Building for the Next Generation

    or Building for the Young to Help the Economy.

    or Building a Better Future (maybe that one’s been done).

    But you get my drift, most ‘Boomers’ now realise that prices are hoplessly out of reach for their children.

    The solutions are, help them with equity (not that popular)

    Sell your houses to them for less (very unpopular)

    Let them build their own houses (Palatable)

    & If you’re a Nimby don’t worry, we’ll start a new New Town fa away from you. Then you can drive past and see what a good job we’ve done.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Bu33er

    Grant not Grany
    no-one not know-one
    far away not fa away

    and lots more I’m sure.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • The club makes a good arguement in a refreshing way – its long overdue that a counter voice to the prevailing nimby one was sounded. Its a positive approach looking to the future as oposed to looking back complaining about “the injustices done to us by the babyboomers”.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • str 2007 – you must surely be on titaniccaptains keyboard? (LOL)

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • 3. str 2007 said…’Building for the Next Generation.’

    That even inspired me (exhale),

    str 2007 said…’& If you’re a Nimby don’t worry, we’ll start a new New Town fa away from you. Then you can drive past and see what a

    good job we’ve done.’

    How sad a reflection of a generation, divided by forced greed by necessity or otherwise. Well said str 2007.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    Good for them! There are things on which libertarians and Marxists can agree, such as bank bail outs being a waste of money and new construction being, all things considered, a good thing.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Jack
    It must be the excitement of someone else other than me seeing housebuilding as a positive

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • MW,

    Having listened to what Grant Shapps said, do you still think the new government has an anti-development agenda?

    This proposal is pretty radical, yet Grant’s response could hardly have been more supportive.

    In fact, if you listen to the reaction of the guy making the proposal after Grant had said his piece, you can tell that he’d prepared his words in advance, expecting a broadly negative reaction, and was wrong-footed by the ministerial response..

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    UT, for the umpteenth time, I hope you are right but fear you are wrong.

    Let’s revisit this discussion in a year’s time to see whether the morbidly obese one at DCLG has managed to get new constructions down to a hundred year low (i.e. 100,000 or fewer new homes per year) or whether Shappsy (whose heart is in the right place, despite he doesn’t appear to have much of a brain) has managed to get new constructions anywhere near the rate of 2% which would be consistent with a wealthy, growing Western economy with a growing population (i.e. about 500,000 new homes per year).

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Uncle Tom,

    That wasn’t my take on the interview at all. Shapps expressed many warm feelings towards the idea but the reality is that the governments actions so far will make obtaining planning permission harder.

    Did you see Nimby heaven? A quote from the article referenced:
    “Housing minister, Grant Schapps, portrays the system as a positive freedom (he’s quoted as claiming, ‘Up and down the country there are entire communities eager to give the go-ahead for new developments in their area.’). Really? With any local vote requiring as much as 90% agreement before permissions’ granted, expect to hear more nays than yays.”

    I think Abley saw through the spin. Sadly, there is little in the interview to encourage anybody who wants more housebuilding in the UK.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Quiet Guy
    Agreed, note my use of the word ‘claimed’.

    But I do find it surprising that a government trying to get an economy moving and with a house price bubble to deal with hasn’t got new construction of houses underway. At present I really don’t see what harm it could do them.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Am I really hearing support for Shapps? It seems to me his every pronouncement is contradictory, ineffectual and ridden with Tim-but-dim right wing buzzwords, in particular his abandonment of the landlord registration scheme which would 1) do something at last about rogue landlords, which go largely untouched in the present unregulated, biased mayhem that passes for a rental system; and 2) increase the tax take by making a lot easier to identify the many many landlords getting away with not paying their taxes.

    The combination of Herr Schnapps and Fatty Beachball has got to be the worst pairing in government.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • montesquieu,

    What purpose would the landlord registration scheme really have served? Bureaucracies love creating lists and forms that serve no useful purpose; and at the end of the day, all it would have done would be to tie up resources that could otherwise be used to help the minority of tenants who have problem landlords. Moreover, the idea that it would improve tax colection is risible – since when has any branch of government ever managed to tie up two databases?

    Your gratuitous abuse reveals your immaturity and prejudice – try being a bit more constructive..

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • the number cruncher says:

    UT -14

    Landlord registration is probably the wrong approach, for the very good reasons you pointed out – what we need are environmental health officers with the power to refer bad landlords to the police for criminal prosecution – seizure of assets and some short prison sentences would focus their minds effectively with a new law about gaining income from substandard housing. poor quality housing can kill and in my mind is a serious offence.

    On the other hand I think it important that Housing Benefit is withheld from landlords who are poor, criminal or abusive and therefore I think the council should have a quality standard and HB recipients can shop their landlords to the council. The council could then withhold HB until the problems are fixed thus saving some money. A bureaucracy of inspectors with a finical incentive to correct poor landlords but not a registration system, obviously persistent offenders can be bared.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



Add a comment

  • Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
  • Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user´s views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>