Governments new housing targets

Anybody looked at the maps? I am missing something, they have stated they want to build on low quality green belt in areas where housing is currently unaffordable, yet most of London has had its target for new houses reduced, but its one the worst effected areas of the UK for affordability and availability.
North Yorks looks like its target has gone up 100%, with 2 National parks in the county I wouldn't say it had much low quality green belt land.

 

We can all generalise but its probably best to assess on a case-by-case basis as things crop up. There's also the issue of undermining local democracy /accountability. I'm in no way arguing nimbys are correct but local authorities sometimes do know best for their communities. Its also incumbent on the government to get the right kind of build. Big houses rather than small flats/maisonnetes looks like it might be default at the moment. Its complex of course but this is yet another thing that Labour need to get right or they'll get hammered in 4 years time.

 

It's a farce, the Tories had already set house building targets beyond what Councils can reach... generally speaking Councils, since Austerity, have no money with which to build houses, having to rely on developers to do the job, easy in and around London, not so easy up here where they can't get super inflated prices.
Blair fetched in a system called the Section 106 Contribution, whereby the developer has to pay a Council a percentage to mitigate for damage done to, or loss of green spaces, or to build or extend facilities to accommodate the extra people...ie road changes, extra school or doctor facilities. What often happens now is that the Developer gets Planning Permission with an agreed S106 Contribution... but doesn't build but comes back a couple of years or so later and claims that, due to the current state of the housing market the old plan is no longer possible ...but they will build without making the S106 Contribution. My own area have passed several times more sites for building than the Govt targets, but they can't force them to build.
We should be using Brownfield sites first ( from any Green or Climate change point of view) but the developers like Greenbelt as they don't need to spend a penny on making the land safe for people to live, Brownfield sites need a lot of work..and cost to make them suitable.
One thing to also remember are the words " affordable housing"....just try and find an actual price for an ' affordable house' from a developer or politician.
The Govt...and the Tories before them are trying to implement a London solution on the rest of the country.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...welling-stock-estimates-england-31-march-2022

There’s 25 million houses in the UK, for a population of 68 million, meaning there’s enough housing if an average house size of 2.7

There are three main issues:
- The population is growing faster than housing supply, with most population growth from immigration or recent generation immigrant families
- Typical household size is falling, with society becoming more atomised and many relationships and families breaking down necessitating multiple homes for what was previously a single household
- Profiteering by landlords and investors seeing houses an asset to be hoarded rather than as homes to be lived in

The government needs to address the causes, not just accept the consequences

 

The previous government allowed net migration of +782,000 in 2023, while only building 231,000 houses. I'm sure you can do the Maths...

 

Exactly another reason why net migration needs getting under control. I have no faith that it will.

 

How many of those are in the building trade?

 

Buy to let it’s what’s causing the issue that presents itself today. Rent that is high so people have little to no chance of buying a house with high inflation and sky high house prices.

 

That last lot had meant to be tougher on it and then ended up with the highest net migration figure ever.

 

Where I live we have had quite a lot of cheap housing come up for sale over the last few years...unfortunately a lot has gone to auction and been snapped up by absentee landlords from London but also abroad. Had it not been for Austerity the Council could have purchased these at knock down prices to add to the council housing stock.

 

They need to be building 28000 a month to meet the election promise…..won’t happen…..the last lot failed with this as well…..just stick to achievable targets

 

House builders are ones responsible for driving prices up the buy to let market is a drop in the ocean in comparison and has next to no impact on the affordability of buying houses.

 

Same round here, though a lot of it is just sitting on the market. Several houses I'd happily buy to live in but they're mostly tenanted until at least the summer. Massively frustrating.

 

Those figures mean all the houses built were needed just to deal with the incoming migrant population. I think most people would accept controlling immigration has to be part of the solution. Perhaps not all politicians - they seem keener on blaming the public for highlighting how they're impacted.

Personally I think significant disincentives for landlords, or even outright restrictions on foreign/multiple property ownership have to be part of the discussion.

 

Get them built and use clay drainage from a local firm

 

In 43 and half years time we will be saying but the last lot didn't build enough affordable homes either.. but the last lot didn't get net migration down either...

 

I wonder, out of interest how many student blocks have been built to accommodate the never ending growth in foreign students? 1/2 million non-eu students, mostly living in brand new accommodation of the type we need the most for the growing demand.

 

Impact on economy would be huge if you stopped the foreign multiple property ownership , over the last 20 years majority of major projects in London have been funded that way and to a lesser extent other major cites like Leeds & Manchester.

 

Majority of student accommodation purpose built is paid for by the individual Universities so impact wouldn’t affect non students looking for accommodation in fact the opposite as they are encouraging students to stay in the purpose built ones and not in privately owned multiple occupancy private lets.