Housing and development policies . AIBU to be thoroughly shocked ?

During the planning process negotiations between the developer and council take place
.
The granting of planning permission hugely inflates the value of the site and it is therefore reasonable that the developer makes a community contribution commensurate with this windfall in the shape of improvements to infrastructure or community facilities and the provision of affordable homes

If the deal does not stack up the developer can always walk away.

varian

During the planning process negotiations between the developer and council take place
.
The granting of planning permission hugely inflates the value of the site and it is therefore reasonable that the developer makes a community contribution commensurate with this windfall in the shape of improvements to infrastructure or community facilities and the provision of affordable homes

If the deal does not stack up the developer can always walk away.

“If the deal does not stack up the developer can always walk away.”

Not usually, he has already invested often millions and just sits on it until a different plan becomes financially viable. Maybe he can afford the interest on that investment, maybe he sells the rights to someone else

What can you expect from a Tory Party funded by big housebuilders and other fat cats? We need a policy to build many more Council houses where people need them. The same goes for houses for sale. Too many houses are built on green field sites despite the objections of local people because they provide more profit than brown field sites. Labour should compulsorily purchase land for housing in places where employees need homes, not on the outskirts of large cities which involves long commutes, fuel costs, pollution, etc.

“Labour should compulsorily purchase land for housing in places where employees need homes, not on the outskirts of large cities which involves long commutes, fuel costs, pollution, etc.”

Agreed.

Oh but there is a Green Belt that some say is sacred

The whole idea of dropping any restrictions for extensions is frightening - can you just imagine what some will be doing to cut corners for profit? Building regulations and building inspectors are there for a purpose, and are needed - I worked for a local authority planning department years ago, and some of the stunts pulled by builders both amateur and 'professional' were alarming, not to mention dangerous. Even the big building companies need to be closely watched; there was a report recently of joists resting on only plasterboard, on a new housing development. Lifting restrictions is madness.

growstuff

Planning regulations need a thorough root and branch sort-out anyway. At the moment, they benefit landowners, speculators, landlords and NIMBYs and are failing to provide the housing people need. The state needs to take more control, not leave housing to the "market".

The state does have ultimate control. In our area we have often successfully fought off planning applications which are totally unsuitable for the environment, infrastructure and the protection of the green belt and the developer just goes through the appeals until the Government Inspector is involved. Hey presto, the developer gets exactly what he wants.

icanhandthemback

growstuff

Planning regulations need a thorough root and branch sort-out anyway. At the moment, they benefit landowners, speculators, landlords and NIMBYs and are failing to provide the housing people need. The state needs to take more control, not leave housing to the "market".

The state does have ultimate control. In our area we have often successfully fought off planning applications which are totally unsuitable for the environment, infrastructure and the protection of the green belt and the developer just goes through the appeals until the Government Inspector is involved. Hey presto, the developer gets exactly what he wants.

The state needs to look at the bigger picture, which might sometimes involve upsetting locals.

Katie59

It’s awful but that’s the way it’s always been done, is the Labour Party proposing to take over land and build more social housing

No they are not, because they know they would not be able to find the money to do it.

Yet, here are the Tories finding money for tax cuts.

The real shocker here for me is the total lack of commitment to affordable housing which even as it has stood for some years, is lamentably inadequate, hence our massive homeless problem; families living in B&Bs, poor outcomes for children fuelling societal instability and inequality etc. As someone who used to work as a volunteer for a homelessness charity, I have seen the consequences of successive governments lack of interest in righting this great wrong. Fuel has been added to the fire by mass and uncontrolled immigration. It is about time that ministers and the wealthy in their luxurious homes, put an end to this disgraceful state of affairs, build the homes we do desperately need and stop shaming this country of ours which they dare to call ‘great’.

growstuff Thu 13-Oct-22 12:11:53

Of course they do but when the schools are over subscribed, the Dr's unable to give appointments (not even telephone ones), flooding regularly, the sewage being pumped into the sea because the system can't cope, gridlock on the roads, the sewers still being from the Victorian Age and not designed for such large numbers of housing and plenty of brown fields available for redeveloping, the Government obviously aren't looking at the bigger picture.

Ah! You mean the popular schools are oversubscribed? What's the point of having more GPs, when the real problem is staffing the surgeries we have? So where do you think people should live? On the streets? On sofas? Too many NIMBYs are more concerned about their own house prices and countryside they haven't paid for than genuine environmental issues or other people not so fortunate as they are.

The state needs to take control of people having more than one house , UNLESS they’re renting that house out to other people …thereby providing a home to someone else.They need to stop people owning g property that is just sitting empty ..year on year …just to make profit!! Compulsory purchase any property that is not being lived in’ or used for something useful , after its lain empty fir two years. Stop pulling down perfectly good ‘brown site’ housing to build new builds for only the rich… start re-developing ‘brown site’ stop all this awful waste of bricks and mortar .

Same around here, and asking for more to be built... not just a few but hundred's, mixing private with affordable housing, only they couldn't sell the private homes on these sprawling estates so the Council bought them back and are charging high rents for them which no-one can afford..it's all mad !! Why build large 4 bedroomed private housing next door to Social ones ??

You would think that, as MP for Middlesbrough, Simon Clarke would recognise the need for affordable housing. I don’t think he’s fighting in the best interests of one of the poorest areas in the country.

The lack of social housing is appalling. So many people are at the mercy of unscrupulous landlords. I know not all landlords are bad, but the security of tenure you get with ‘council’ housing is so precious.

I, too, see good arable land going to vast housing estates. What is it with this country, that everyone seems to want a garden? And many these days don't even have the time to keep it tidy.

I understand that home ownership is not usual in continental countries, and that they build flats with proper soundproofing, and put children's playgrounds within sight of the apartment windows so parents can keep an eye on them. More suitable family apartments and a piece of green space would be much better than all the houses.

Saggi

The state needs to take control of people having more than one house , UNLESS they’re renting that house out to other people …thereby providing a home to someone else.They need to stop people owning g property that is just sitting empty ..year on year …just to make profit!! Compulsory purchase any property that is not being lived in’ or used for something useful , after its lain empty fir two years. Stop pulling down perfectly good ‘brown site’ housing to build new builds for only the rich… start re-developing ‘brown site’ stop all this awful waste of bricks and mortar .

Saggi Compulsory purchase any property that is not being lived in’ or used for something useful, after its lain empty fir two years.

We don't live in a communist state.

Who should decide what was useful?

Garages and sheds are useful. Turning an old home into storage may be useful to some. Renovating an old home for rental may be useful to some.

Whitenancy

I, too, see good arable land going to vast housing estates. What is it with this country, that everyone seems to want a garden? And many these days don't even have the time to keep it tidy.

I understand that home ownership is not usual in continental countries, and that they build flats with proper soundproofing, and put children's playgrounds within sight of the apartment windows so parents can keep an eye on them. More suitable family apartments and a piece of green space would be much better than all the houses.

I'm assuming you're not a parent, Whitenancy.

growstuff, in answer to your post on Thu 13-Oct-22 13:18:48, no I meant all schools in our area are over subscribed, even the ones that used to be the schools which were less popular. One of our primary schools has had 2 major building programmes to cope with the extra influx but has no more room on which to build. Neither do the other schools in the are have room to build further classrooms. One of the popular Secondary schools in the next County were so over subscribed so they stopped taking from our area. Now our schools are oversubscribed and having difficulty recruiting sufficient teachers to cope with the number of children and lessons.

Similarly our GP Surgery has now become the most unpopular surgery in the area because they can't cope with the increased number of people and can't recruit. They have also extended several times but have nowhere further to extend. The promises made in the planning applications soon get changed once the building starts. The Council seem toothless to chase the developers on the things they should be doing.
Nobody wants people being homeless but we need to sort out all the issues that go with building so many new houses.

Millions of empty houses in this country and speculators have bought up land just to wait until they can quadruple their investment. Sickening.

Before new large developments are started the relevant resources eg schools, health facilities, community hubs should be identified and built at the same time as the first phase of building houses commences. Just read only last week of a building project of 800 houses about a 3rd akready done yet there is no definite decision on access roads. Site is adjacent to an A road and Council, local residents and builders still arguing about plans. Schooling, medical needs to be absorbed into existing facilities. The mind boggles at how this can be allowed yet if you tried building a habitable shed in your garden you'd be in Court fir ignoring planning laws.

Everything crossed this will be abandoned, as yet another set of
Would be PMs and Chancellors are forced on us.

When a new development is proposed and gets “outline”planning consent the LA say what infrastructure improvements are needed and work cannot start until these are met. At that stage the improvements have not been costed, that is what hold up building, developers are not going to start a project that will make a loss.

I have one very close for 3000 houses, road improvements alone have spiraled to £120m, way more than the site can afford.

Lucca

And what about the proposal to allow no fault evictions ? Benefitting the landlords of course.

They're stopping no faults.its been in place for donkeys years and dreadful, a licence to sling folks out on the street , quicker it's stopped the better.

icanhandthemback I don't know where you live, but I did some work on school places a few years ago. I showed that there are enough school places, but not necessarily the ones that parents want for their own children. The situation is particularly acute in London because schools are within commuting distance. Pupils can cross borough boundaries with ease and savvy parents play the "game". Initiatives to encourage schools to compete with each other have exacerbated the problem, but the underlying issue isn't an absolute shortage of places.