River pollution. Michael Gove latest plans .

Mass housebuilders have acquired enormous amounts of land but are only using it slowly so as to restrict housebuilding to keep up their profits. 'Affordable housing' is beyond the reach of most families. We need a massive Council house building programme and a legal requirement for land banks to be used within three years or face compulsory purchase.

Some affordable housing built by developers for HAs is required to be affordable rented accommodation.

25Avalon

GSM there may be price reductions for higher priced housing but the plain fact is that most affordable housing is not affordable.

Affordable is what ever the buyer is willing to pay, if the buyer had not got the cash he/she could not buy.
Houses ARE being sold so buyers can “afford” them.

It’s rents that are far too high it’s not possible to save for a deposit, the “right to buy” is a major reason for that, reducing the rental stock.

MaizieD

Jaxjacky

The developers should be forced to use the land banks they’re sitting on, enough for a million homes.

The land the developers are sitting on already has planning permission. So what is stopping them building?

www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-englands-million-missing-homes

Usually mortgages, developers with a large site build section by section, selling off sections over a period of time, we have a large site near us that seems to be building 50 houses a year. Another I have seen the plans for is set to expand until 2035 and beyond, providing jobs along the way for new home owners.

Affordable housing is almost always managed by housing associations. Developers build it to the HAs’ specifications and transfer it to them for an agreed price. What the HAs charge for shared ownership is not up to the developers. The only affordable housing sold by developers is for a percentage of open market value stipulated by the planning authority.

GSM there may be price reductions for higher priced housing but the plain fact is that most affordable housing is not affordable.

Planning permissions are always time-limited. A great deal has to be done before construction can commence - there will be many pre-conditions to be cleared, as well as building regulations consent being obtained. The permission may be outline only, meaning full details of the development having to be worked up for full consent. Having purchased land, it is not in developers’ financial interests to delay building unless the market is very slow, as it is now. No point in building houses which will remain unsold unless you want to invite bankruptcy . I have been watching a number of developments where nothing is selling despite price reductions and various incentives.

Jaxjacky

The developers should be forced to use the land banks they’re sitting on, enough for a million homes.

The land the developers are sitting on already has planning permission. So what is stopping them building?

www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-englands-million-missing-homes

Surely it should not be beyond this country to have adequate housing and clean rivers.What is the problem ? They have the technology and the ability so why not. I think we should expect it, rather than make excuses for the developers.
Where I live in greater london there is a lot of building going on, mostly high rise blocks of flats. A lot of these are expensive and marketed in the far east as investments. So much for affordable housing !

Dire, not fire. God, my IPad has gone nuts...🙄

South not Douth.

We need more affordable housing. I'm not sure how everything will pan out, but the housing situation, especially in London and the Douth is fire.🙁

👀

RSPB England 🌍
@RSPBEngland
·
3h
LIARS!

@RishiSunak @michaelgove @theresecoffey you said you wouldn’t weaken environmental protections.

And yet that’s just what you are doing.

You lie, and you lie, and you lie again.

And we’ve had enough. 🧵

I don't know the details of Gove's 'relaxations', but I have seen it pointed out that relaxation of anti pollution controls might also cover highly polluted brownfield sites...

Trouble is, our government has decided to LOWER our standards, not improve them.

Regarding new developments, it’s entirely possible to separate run off water in heavy rainfall conditions from waste water that goes to the sewage works where it can be treated. So it shouldn’t be new developments that contribute to sewage discharge its older systems that don’t separate flood water from waste effectively.

It’s the governments responsibility to decide what are acceptable standards for water discharges and fund any improvements, then decide wether the cost is passed on the waste producer be it householder or business.

We live in the most nature depleted country on the planet. Are we proud of this ? As for crowing that Brexit has enabled us to lower our standards even more- it’s disgusting. Have all brownfield sites been used? No.

DiamondLily:

'We do need much more affordable housing, so not sure what the answer is.'

Boats?

You can have both houses and clean rivers and wetlands. It just needs government to turn the screw on the water companies to invest in more treatment plants to treat sewage and remove phosphates and to press the developers to use the land banks they have built up. The government's present scheme is clearly to shift costs into the taxpayer and keep up the profits of their biggest donors: disgraceful. And if course not building social housing.

The developers should be forced to use the land banks they’re sitting on, enough for a million homes.

Germanshepherdsmum

No Casdon, I don’t buy Chinese products because of the economic impact on the UK and their human rights and animal welfare records, not because of environmental issues. Developers have deep pockets, believe me. Look at the bonuses their senior executives receive (always somewhat galling to me when negotiating fees). Why should the government (the taxpayer) subsidise the cost of complying with planning conditions to protect the environment? That cost will be borne by the landowner selling the site to them. I have no problem with that, having seen how much landowners pocket when selling development land.

I agree, developers do have deep pockets. That’s why they can work within the existing regulations, they will still make a profit.

Germanshepherdsmum

No Casdon, I don’t buy Chinese products because of the economic impact on the UK and their human rights and animal welfare records, not because of environmental issues. Developers have deep pockets, believe me. Look at the bonuses their senior executives receive (always somewhat galling to me when negotiating fees). Why should the government (the taxpayer) subsidise the cost of complying with planning conditions to protect the environment? That cost will be borne by the landowner selling the site to them. I have no problem with that, having seen how much landowners pocket when selling development land.

The amount landowners get is too high but that’s a product of the planning system restricting supply of land. Which in turn is restricted by pressure groups objecting to proposals, every development in this area is fought tooth and nail, most go to
public enquiry. The one development that didn’t is at a standstill because of demands for road improvements far in excess of expected provision.

eazybee

Totally agree, GSM.
Everything the government tries to do is thwarted by a different pressure group, none of which has a sensible alternative to offer.

There are very sensible alternatives suggested on this thread.

What is NOT sensible is to pollute our rivers with chemicals etc. which is what Gove at a stroke of his poison pen has allowed.

Today we walked along the river Avon south of Salisbury/Fordingbridge and watched children paddling, “swimming” and generally enjoying themselves in the shallow waters.

For how long?

There is prime building land upstream and if Gove has his way will be built on without any consideration for the filth drained into the river waters.

The majority want more affordable homes wether rented or owner occupied, gransnet does not represent the majority. The proportion of take home pay spent on housing is far too high.

No Casdon, I don’t buy Chinese products because of the economic impact on the UK and their human rights and animal welfare records, not because of environmental issues. Developers have deep pockets, believe me. Look at the bonuses their senior executives receive (always somewhat galling to me when negotiating fees). Why should the government (the taxpayer) subsidise the cost of complying with planning conditions to protect the environment? That cost will be borne by the landowner selling the site to them. I have no problem with that, having seen how much landowners pocket when selling development land.