Some much needed good news

MaizieD

^That I think is what Labour want to change^.

Changing it won't be any use without giving LAs more money. They just can't be selling enough houses under Right To Buy to be able to build replacements and, with their budgets cut to the bone, I'd assume that whatever they are getting from RTB is used immediately for other services.

This is where those silly 'fiscal rules' are going to scupper Labour.

But aren’t they releasing more grant money, by changing the rules - I thought that is what had been announced?

MaizieD

Callistemon21

Germanshepherdsmum

Councils could be given money to build their own houses (they already have money to buy and rent out existing houses - my local authority is currently buying some for Afghan refugees and the homeless). And the right to buy should be repealed. A disastrous piece of legislation.

Right to buy was disastrous because sometimes the houses were sold way below their value and also because there should have been provision put in place to ensure that Councils used that money to build new homes.

IIRC, Callistemon, councils weren't allowed to use the money to build new homes. It was all part of Thatcher's war on the State.

Yes, I know.

It was a disastrous policy.

That I think is what Labour want to change.

Changing it won't be any use without giving LAs more money. They just can't be selling enough houses under Right To Buy to be able to build replacements and, with their budgets cut to the bone, I'd assume that whatever they are getting from RTB is used immediately for other services.

This is where those silly 'fiscal rules' are going to scupper Labour.

MaizieD

Callistemon21

Germanshepherdsmum

Councils could be given money to build their own houses (they already have money to buy and rent out existing houses - my local authority is currently buying some for Afghan refugees and the homeless). And the right to buy should be repealed. A disastrous piece of legislation.

Right to buy was disastrous because sometimes the houses were sold way below their value and also because there should have been provision put in place to ensure that Councils used that money to build new homes.

IIRC, Callistemon, councils weren't allowed to use the money to build new homes. It was all part of Thatcher's war on the State.

That I think is what Labour want to change.

So you will be pleased to know that I’ve persuaded HQ to take down the offending thread as well as the vapour comment.

They seem reluctant to take down threads which I must say surprised me as I thought it happens not frequently but certainly not unknown?

Callistemon21

Germanshepherdsmum

Councils could be given money to build their own houses (they already have money to buy and rent out existing houses - my local authority is currently buying some for Afghan refugees and the homeless). And the right to buy should be repealed. A disastrous piece of legislation.

Right to buy was disastrous because sometimes the houses were sold way below their value and also because there should have been provision put in place to ensure that Councils used that money to build new homes.

IIRC, Callistemon, councils weren't allowed to use the money to build new homes. It was all part of Thatcher's war on the State.

Germanshepherdsmum

Councils could be given money to build their own houses (they already have money to buy and rent out existing houses - my local authority is currently buying some for Afghan refugees and the homeless). And the right to buy should be repealed. A disastrous piece of legislation.

Right to buy was disastrous because sometimes the houses were sold way below their value and also because there should have been provision put in place to ensure that Councils used that money to build new homes.

Legal work has to be contracted out to the right firms, not those who charge the least who will invariably turn out shoddy work. It’s false economy, exactly like people using cut-price conveyancers. You get what you pay for and a good lawyer can do a good job both quickly and profitably. Unfortunately when work is put out to tender the bottom line is usually what wins.

As regards what should be done - well, we need much more public sector rental housing, whether it be provided by councils or housing associations. They need to be given the funds to provide it. Very often the overriding local need is for affordable rented housing rather than shared ownership or low-cost market housing, but developers are reluctant to provide it amongst private housing because many have had their fingers burned by the antisocial behaviour of some renters and private purchasers don’t want to live next to them. I have seen some shocking misuse of brand new rented properties at first hand. So leave the public sector to provide and police rental accommodation, with developers providing cash for that purpose, which is always ringfenced and repayment can be demanded if it hasn’t been spent in a given period. Developers can still provide some shared ownership houses for housing associations (they get paid for them, the housing is by no means provided for free) but I believe the most urgent requirement is for public sector rented accommodation and the abolition of right to buy, which has been an unmitigated disaster save for those who have taken advantage of the ridiculously high discounts. We have placed too much reliance on private sector rentals for too long, and that situation will only get worse if private landlords are squeezed further.

gsm so given your legal knowledge, what and how do you think this crises can be resolved?

Re you idea about contracting out to private practice. I’m afraid my son (works for EA) would not agree. He oversees stuff produced by private contractors including legal stuff, and is always tearing his hair out at the shoddiness of the work for which the tax payer pays dearly.

I am quite certain there is good and bad in all of it.

The community infrastructure levy has been operating for years Enid. It was introduced in 2008 and works alongside s106.

County councils don’t deal with residential planning applications Dinahmo. Outside metropolitan boroughs, this is the responsibility of district councils. Local authority lawyers are not highly paid, as with most other public sector employees they are on pay scales. This doesn’t attract high calibre lawyers and my experience of working in a county council legal department is that they are very focused on working set hours rather than getting a job done. The money would be far better spent contracting work out to private practice, as is sometimes done, where the focus is on getting a job done quickly and efficiently.

A lot of private landlords in England are likely to sell up even with the current proposals wwm. It’s not realistic to expect them to be unable even to cover their costs,

Section 106 is due to be phased out and replaced by the Infrastructure Levy. There are concerns that this will reduce the number of affordable houses built.

Oreo

Interesting Germanshephersmum that makes sense when I see new developments near me with so few new terraced houses and so many detached ones.
What Labour could do is to make sure that there are small developments of council only houses built.Small as we all know that large council estates became no go areas sometimes.Small, as in some in every village and town, and not to be sold off either.

Developers don't want to do small developments of council houses - there's not enough money in it for them.

Re GermanShepherdsMum's comment about councils' legal departments - they may have those but they don't have the budget to pay many lawyers' fees. About 30 years ago a friend, who was a planning office had to deal with a man who had set up a gravel washing plant in a residential area. He also broke up cars. All this was illegal. As the dispute intensified, one of his colleagues, whilst in his car, was shot by a rifle capable of using deer pellets. Luckily the bullets went into the side of the seat and not into the person. In total 3 planning officers were involved. Two moved to other authorities and our friend remained. The council held a retirement party for the 3 of them which was featured in the local paper. The council promised that they would continue to prosecute the villain but they didn't. At that time their budget for lawyers fees was £250k for the whole year. Not enough for a county local authority.

GrannyGravy13

I think it was the

blue tie tied tight round Tory voters necks stopping the blood reaching their dead brains

comment that some are found offensive…

Well it is offensive. Many on here are quite happy to be vicious about anyone who dares vote Tory.

Germanshepherdsmum

As someone who has negotiated many s106 Agreements on behalf of developers, I can tell you that local authorities don’t need help with them. They have their own legal departments and if they have a red line they don’t budge from it. If provision of a certain level of affordable housing (or any other planning requirement) makes a development unviable a developer will not buy the site. Site acquisition is almost always undertaken via an option agreement or a contract conditional on the obtaining of a planning permission which is satisfactory to the developer - and the contract will list various planning requirements, such as provision of more than x affordable units, which will render a consent unsatisfactory.

Starmer is working on the basis that the vast majority of the public don’t know how these things actually work and will believe his ‘toughening up’ and ‘assistance’ rhetoric. Empty promises which will impress those who know no better.

I know that LAs have their own legal dept. And what you are saying makes sense.

I was talking to a Canadian friend yesterday, and it is clear that the Canadian government has much more draconian laws compared to the U.K. E.g. rent increase by private landlords, is held this year to 3% by the Canadian government, even though inflation is currently at 6+%.

It seems to me that if we want our housing crises to be resolved, much more stringent law has to come into force.

Thanks!

I rarely (never) rase my head above the parapet GSM, but I make a rare exception to say that I agree with every word you said.

Compulsory purchase is a very long winded process and wouldn’t keep costs down Maizie. If land is being purchased for development then usually the development value would be reflected in the price. However, land which is to be used for affordable housing but which would otherwise not be given permission for residential development (outside the village envelope or in the green belt for instance) can be deemed an ‘exception site’ and local authorities or housing associations can take advantage of that in order to buy land more cheaply.

On the plus side if they do, it will be a win win for our business.

I'm glad you've said that, GG13. A real life illustration of the potential power of the 'state' to boost private enterprise and thus the domestic economy.

I'm finding myself in some agreement with GSM (😱) and GG13.

The thing is, if Starmer were to commit to funding local authorities with enough to commission their own social housing programmes, including, perhaps, compulsory purchase of suitable sites to keep costs down, would there be a huge outcry about Labour profligracy?

It's absolutely clear that 'leaving it to the market' isn't anywhere near to satisfying the UK's housing needs.

Germanshepherdsmum

That’s excellent GG. It can and does happen. It’s probably a better way forward than relying on private developers to build. Some s106 Agreements require developers to give money to the local authority for provision of affordable housing off-site, rather than building them themselves. What Starmer is trying to impress the voters with relies on their being unaware of the reality - which is somewhat insulting.

Yes, any monies received from developers should be ring fenced for new council homes.

Germanshepherdsmum

That’s excellent GG. It can and does happen. It’s probably a better way forward than relying on private developers to build. Some s106 Agreements require developers to give money to the local authority for provision of affordable housing off-site, rather than building them themselves. What Starmer is trying to impress the voters with relies on their being unaware of the reality - which is somewhat insulting.

It has only happened since the Independents have had overall control of the council, up till then there was just continuous infighting between Labour & Conservative councillors.

That’s excellent GG. It can and does happen. It’s probably a better way forward than relying on private developers to build. Some s106 Agreements require developers to give money to the local authority for provision of affordable housing off-site, rather than building them themselves. What Starmer is trying to impress the voters with relies on their being unaware of the reality - which is somewhat insulting.

My local authority has done exactly that GSM bought the land engaged the developer with a flourish and lots of PR. The authority are now in £522m of debt due to this venture and other property acquisitions, they’ve just waived the S106 commitments for the first phase of building.