| Mandatory home building targets 11:12 - Jul 8 with 6668 views | Pinewoodblue |
Reeves first announcement, plus onshore wind farms.
Not sure how you force a builder not to slow down completions so supply doesn’t exceed demand. |  |
| |  |
| Mandatory home building targets on 13:49 - Jul 8 with 1618 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Mandatory home building targets on 13:32 - Jul 8 by Guthrum |
But what happens if the landscape does not change favourably for many years, or ever? Good building land is tied up and that money is effectively lost anyway.
The legislation could be tied to a streamlining of planning procedures - which would need to happen anyway if statutory quotas are in force. Plus permissions would be renewable, not gone for ever. Might cost a bit of time and money for the process, but that would be the quid quo pro for being able to protect profits. |
We could consider allowing local authorities to build new social housing , with a percentage available for sale at a full market rate, but suspect that would be too socialist for this government. | |
| |
| Mandatory home building targets on 13:49 - Jul 8 with 1617 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Mandatory home building targets on 11:26 - Jul 8 by chicoazul |
Building more houses in a country with so many empty or under used houses is completely deranged. But I am looking forwards to Labour voting TWTD becoming indignant over the next five years when they are ordered to have a wind turbine in their back garden. |
I’d love to have a wind turbine. They used to have info on domestic roof-mounted turbines in garden centres (the same type of places that always advertise conservatories these days). Micro renewable seems a no-brainer. A turbine would be going almost non-stop in this part of the world. |  |
| |
| Mandatory home building targets on 13:52 - Jul 8 with 1602 views | Mullet |
| Mandatory home building targets on 13:01 - Jul 8 by Leaky |
Communism on the march then good luck with that |
How is it communism? |  |
| |
| Mandatory home building targets on 13:55 - Jul 8 with 1596 views | Ewan_Oozami |
| Mandatory home building targets on 12:14 - Jul 8 by bluestandard |
This kind of thinking doesn't take any account of the risk that developers take, and the difficulty in obtaining planning permission. If getting permission was as easy as a simple letter asking for consent, then fair enough, but actually developers sink tens of thousands and years into obtaining these consents, during which time the landscape can significantly change (interest rates, economy etc). After going through all that, to then lose the permission because they don't want to build at a loss?! Good luck with that strategy. |
Would be interesting to see the breakdown of those construction figures between commercial building companies, companies converting business dwellings to housing and housebuilders on permissioned land... |  |
| |
| Mandatory home building targets on 14:06 - Jul 8 with 1574 views | GeoffSentence |
| Mandatory home building targets on 13:52 - Jul 8 by Mullet |
How is it communism? |
<whisper>I don't think Leaky knows what communism is<whsper off> |  |
| |
| Mandatory home building targets on 14:23 - Jul 8 with 1537 views | DJR |
I am not an expert on housing but I am sure I heard recently that one of the issues is a lack of infrastructure in the sense of things like gas, electricity, water and drainage. [Post edited 8 Jul 2024 14:28]
|  | | |
| Mandatory home building targets on 14:41 - Jul 8 with 1498 views | Ewan_Oozami |
| Mandatory home building targets on 14:23 - Jul 8 by DJR |
I am not an expert on housing but I am sure I heard recently that one of the issues is a lack of infrastructure in the sense of things like gas, electricity, water and drainage. [Post edited 8 Jul 2024 14:28]
|
Gas, electricity, water, drainage? What do they all have in common? | |
| |
| Mandatory home building targets on 15:07 - Jul 8 with 1439 views | DJR |
Interesting snippet from the Guardian.
Free market thinktanks, including Institute for Economic Affairs, praise Reeves's speech on easing planning controls
The Centre for Policy Studies is not the only rightwing, free market thinktank that has welcomed Rachel Reeves’ speech. (See 1.38pm.) The Institute for Economic Affairs, which was Liz Truss’ favourite thinktank, is also enthused by the plan to ease planning restrictions (although it would like Reeves to go further). It has released a statement saying:
Rachel Reeves is right to emphasise the importance of growth in tackling Britain’s challenges. Everything from funding public services to a higher quality of life is possible with more growth.
Undoubtedly, the most exciting part of the agenda is the government’s immediate plans to reform the planning system, including restoring housing targets, cutting red tape for major projects and ending the de facto ban on the on-shore wind. The emphasis on using powers to promote growth could unlock major opportunities. But this must be the floor, not the ceiling, of the government’s ambitions. Far more reform will necessary to be done to solve the housing crisis.
And the Adam Smith Institute also says Reeves is heading in the right direction.
Should we be worried? [Post edited 8 Jul 2024 15:07]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Mandatory home building targets on 15:12 - Jul 8 with 1411 views | bluestandard |
| Mandatory home building targets on 12:18 - Jul 8 by giant_stow |
Out of interest, what would be your solution to building more houses? |
I don't think there is one solution, but here are two big ones I would like to see:-
1) I would privatise the pre-application advice service, or at the very least fund it much more so that it works properly. Far too often, developers get one answer at pre-app and another when the application goes in. This just can't be right. Land owners often prioritise unconditional offers, which means the developer has to take a risk regarding whether planning permission will be granted. A clearer pre-app service, properly funded would give more certainty to developers. As it is, quite often, its quicker to put in a full application than a pre-app!
2) Land tax - this has been discussed on the site before, and personally I am in favour. What I would hope for is that properly implemented, it would bring the value of land down, because land owners would have to offset the cost of sitting on land against the sale value. Whilst developers would lose out on their current land bank, they would gain in lower site values. This is key because land values are residual ie. the value is whats left after you've taken off all the costs of development. High values hamper developers, and if they have overpaid for a site, this is often what will cause developments to stall. |  | | |
| Mandatory home building targets on 15:15 - Jul 8 with 1407 views | bluestandard |
| Mandatory home building targets on 12:18 - Jul 8 by itfcjoe |
They shouldn't be allowed to stick footings in, and cover them up to keep permissions and keep their buildings in old regulations.
Too much having cake and eating it from the big boy developers |
IMO this thinking is just lazy and pandering to the anti-construction lobby. After years and money chasing a permission, why shouldn't you be able to keep that permission alive? Its about as far from having you cake and eating it as I can imagine. | | | |
| Mandatory home building targets on 15:19 - Jul 8 with 1402 views | bluestandard |
| Mandatory home building targets on 13:32 - Jul 8 by Guthrum |
But what happens if the landscape does not change favourably for many years, or ever? Good building land is tied up and that money is effectively lost anyway.
The legislation could be tied to a streamlining of planning procedures - which would need to happen anyway if statutory quotas are in force. Plus permissions would be renewable, not gone for ever. Might cost a bit of time and money for the process, but that would be the quid quo pro for being able to protect profits. |
Its not often that good building land gets tied up for many years.
Your point about permissions being renewable would be fine if the criteria was consistent, but as we've seen in the last 18 months, planning isn't just legal but political as well, and policy has changed with the wind. With the level of investment at stake in construction, this just doesn't work well. | | | |
| Mandatory home building targets on 15:23 - Jul 8 with 1393 views | itfcjoe |
| Mandatory home building targets on 15:07 - Jul 8 by DJR |
Interesting snippet from the Guardian.
Free market thinktanks, including Institute for Economic Affairs, praise Reeves's speech on easing planning controls
The Centre for Policy Studies is not the only rightwing, free market thinktank that has welcomed Rachel Reeves’ speech. (See 1.38pm.) The Institute for Economic Affairs, which was Liz Truss’ favourite thinktank, is also enthused by the plan to ease planning restrictions (although it would like Reeves to go further). It has released a statement saying:
Rachel Reeves is right to emphasise the importance of growth in tackling Britain’s challenges. Everything from funding public services to a higher quality of life is possible with more growth.
Undoubtedly, the most exciting part of the agenda is the government’s immediate plans to reform the planning system, including restoring housing targets, cutting red tape for major projects and ending the de facto ban on the on-shore wind. The emphasis on using powers to promote growth could unlock major opportunities. But this must be the floor, not the ceiling, of the government’s ambitions. Far more reform will necessary to be done to solve the housing crisis.
And the Adam Smith Institute also says Reeves is heading in the right direction.
Should we be worried? [Post edited 8 Jul 2024 15:07]
|
Even people you disagree with generally can have some correct points and think this is one of those occassions.
We all know what is needed in this country, it's planning regimes are not that of a serious country because local annoyances trump national needs too often. We just can't do big infrastructure any more and that has to change - some things that get rammed through will be the wrong things, it's inevitable but I'd rather see the wrong things happen for the right reasons than the current inertia we have |  |
| |
| Mandatory home building targets on 15:25 - Jul 8 with 1378 views | blueasfook |
| Mandatory home building targets on 12:51 - Jul 8 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
House building, and rail renationalisation all announced within a couple of days of the election…great stuff, and presumably disappointing for those who’ve been bashing Starmer without giving him a chance. |
He just needs to announce free broadband and he's gone full Corbyn
Never go full Corbyn, man. |  |
| |
| Mandatory home building targets on 15:25 - Jul 8 with 1381 views | itfcjoe |
| Mandatory home building targets on 15:15 - Jul 8 by bluestandard |
IMO this thinking is just lazy and pandering to the anti-construction lobby. After years and money chasing a permission, why shouldn't you be able to keep that permission alive? Its about as far from having you cake and eating it as I can imagine. |
I run a construction company so I wouldn't exactly put myself in the anti-construction-lobby.
Being able to keep permissions that aren't being used, keep them on the old regs which don't help towards future targets having often got the land at a song, and bashed away the likes of CIL as part of your application is definitely cakeism.
The big boys have everything their own way, and either need to shít or get off the pot re land banking | |
| |
| Mandatory home building targets on 15:29 - Jul 8 with 1372 views | bluestandard |
| Mandatory home building targets on 13:42 - Jul 8 by Zx1988 |
Developers are nowhere near that naive, though.
If the landscape changes during the course of a planning application, or even once permission has been granted, they are all too happy to request an amendment to the planning to construct more units, or to take out part of the affordable housing provision and, usually, councils are all too happy to allow the amendments for fear of losing the development in its entirety.
If a development is at risk of not being profitable enough (and the general rule of thumb is that developers should make 15%-20% profit from a development), developers will happily salami-slice the less profitable bits (affordable housing, community facilities, etc.,) until they're able to build it for a suitable return. |
You're talking about viability assessments. Whilst I agree this was abused in the past (often by developers overpaying for sites), its an example of how developers would actually rather bring developments forward than sit on them indefinitely and tie up capital. Also, Councils are now much more savvy when assessing them (as they should be). | | | |
| Mandatory home building targets on 15:31 - Jul 8 with 1369 views | DJR |
| Mandatory home building targets on 15:23 - Jul 8 by itfcjoe |
Even people you disagree with generally can have some correct points and think this is one of those occassions.
We all know what is needed in this country, it's planning regimes are not that of a serious country because local annoyances trump national needs too often. We just can't do big infrastructure any more and that has to change - some things that get rammed through will be the wrong things, it's inevitable but I'd rather see the wrong things happen for the right reasons than the current inertia we have |
I suppose I was teasing in part, but these were the organisations which brought us Liz Truss.
For my own part, I think the real issue may be a lack of determination to build properly affordable homes (ie social housing at reasonable rents).
As it is the Guardian article went on to say.
It has been harder to find reaction to the speech from leftwing thinktanks. But the New Economics Foundation has issued a statement criticising Reeves’ decision to rule out raising money for the Treasury by cutting interest payments paid to banks that hold money with the Bank of England (see 11.05am). Hannah Peaker, director of policy at the NEF, said:
If we want to see decent growth again, our new government can’t be afraid to spend. A new government has plenty of ways to raise money, from borrowing responsibly to taxing the wealthiest to scrapping stealth subsidies to banks.
Remaining wedded to outdated and arbitrary fiscal rules will hold our economy back. Our fiscal rules aren’t an accurate measure of how much a government can responsibly borrow — and the chancellor could choose to replace them with the wave of a pen. [Post edited 8 Jul 2024 15:32]
| | | |
| Mandatory home building targets on 15:36 - Jul 8 with 1346 views | bluestandard |
| Mandatory home building targets on 15:25 - Jul 8 by itfcjoe |
I run a construction company so I wouldn't exactly put myself in the anti-construction-lobby.
Being able to keep permissions that aren't being used, keep them on the old regs which don't help towards future targets having often got the land at a song, and bashed away the likes of CIL as part of your application is definitely cakeism.
The big boys have everything their own way, and either need to shít or get off the pot re land banking |
OK, so you're worried about the scenario where:-
a) a permission is kept alive
b) the developer purchased the land cheaply
c) the developer also managed to avoid payments for CIL and other obligations
Lol, being in construction I'm sure you know this is not the norm. It doesn't even make sense. Purchasing land cheaply means its more likely to be developed rather than mothballed. Developers normally try to get out of CIL etc when they've overpaid for a site and these attempts are increasingly being rebuffed at appeal (have you read any recent planning appeals on viability?). | | | |
| Mandatory home building targets on 15:41 - Jul 8 with 1334 views | giant_stow |
| Mandatory home building targets on 15:12 - Jul 8 by bluestandard |
I don't think there is one solution, but here are two big ones I would like to see:-
1) I would privatise the pre-application advice service, or at the very least fund it much more so that it works properly. Far too often, developers get one answer at pre-app and another when the application goes in. This just can't be right. Land owners often prioritise unconditional offers, which means the developer has to take a risk regarding whether planning permission will be granted. A clearer pre-app service, properly funded would give more certainty to developers. As it is, quite often, its quicker to put in a full application than a pre-app!
2) Land tax - this has been discussed on the site before, and personally I am in favour. What I would hope for is that properly implemented, it would bring the value of land down, because land owners would have to offset the cost of sitting on land against the sale value. Whilst developers would lose out on their current land bank, they would gain in lower site values. This is key because land values are residual ie. the value is whats left after you've taken off all the costs of development. High values hamper developers, and if they have overpaid for a site, this is often what will cause developments to stall. |
Thanks for the answer - interesting, although slightly over my head tbh. |  |
| |
| Mandatory home building targets on 15:45 - Jul 8 with 1329 views | itfcjoe |
| Mandatory home building targets on 15:36 - Jul 8 by bluestandard |
OK, so you're worried about the scenario where:-
a) a permission is kept alive
b) the developer purchased the land cheaply
c) the developer also managed to avoid payments for CIL and other obligations
Lol, being in construction I'm sure you know this is not the norm. It doesn't even make sense. Purchasing land cheaply means its more likely to be developed rather than mothballed. Developers normally try to get out of CIL etc when they've overpaid for a site and these attempts are increasingly being rebuffed at appeal (have you read any recent planning appeals on viability?). |
It does make sense at the times when the firms are so big that they can control the drip feed of properties into the market to keep prices inflated and the like - maybe permissions when they have been able to get councils over a barrel should have some timelines in place which need to be looked after.
Look at the Brightwell site at the moment behind BT - masses of infrastructure gone in for it but conditions not that favourable at the moment so it's just on the go slow | |
| |
| Mandatory home building targets on 15:55 - Jul 8 with 1284 views | Whos_blue |
| Mandatory home building targets on 14:23 - Jul 8 by DJR |
I am not an expert on housing but I am sure I heard recently that one of the issues is a lack of infrastructure in the sense of things like gas, electricity, water and drainage. [Post edited 8 Jul 2024 14:28]
|
The lack of drainage is a huge problem, or at least the impact of new developments are.
Rain water has to go somewhere. It will generally fall on land, then slowly make it's way down into the water table.
Where land is developed, rain falls on concrete and is diverted into the drainage system along with other sewage etc. This process is unnaturally fast for an ill equipped drainage/sewerage system.
It's this additional water that much of our current sewerage systems, particularly in rural areas where sewerage systems were not built with expansion in mind, are starting to struggle and those living near the end of those systems will find themselves increasingly at risk of flooding if the drainage upgrades do not keep up with development.
Get the infrastructure right and build away. Implement unsupported development and we can expect problems.
For the record I'm pro development, but important to understand the risks. |  |
| Distortion becomes somehow pure in its wildness. |
| |
| Mandatory home building targets on 15:59 - Jul 8 with 1272 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Mandatory home building targets on 15:45 - Jul 8 by itfcjoe |
It does make sense at the times when the firms are so big that they can control the drip feed of properties into the market to keep prices inflated and the like - maybe permissions when they have been able to get councils over a barrel should have some timelines in place which need to be looked after.
Look at the Brightwell site at the moment behind BT - masses of infrastructure gone in for it but conditions not that favourable at the moment so it's just on the go slow |
Isn’t Wolsey Grange same developer. | |
| |
| Mandatory home building targets on 16:21 - Jul 8 with 1229 views | DJR |
Jamie Lockerbie, a planning partner at the law firm Pinsent Masons, said: “This was certainly a speech with a markedly different tone than we have been used to over the last decade. It seems likely that in the short term decisions will need to be unlocked by the deputy prime minister using her call-in powers under this new ‘interventionist approach’.
“The immediate question that springs to mind is, given the new mandatory targets, does the Planning Inspectorate have the capacity to deal with a massive ramp-up in caseload? While 300 more planners into local councils will be welcome, the reality is that it won’t be nearly enough to get the local planning authority workforce back to where it needs to be given that the number of planners in the public sector shrank by a quarter between 2009 and 2020.”
As regards the call-in powers these have been exercised by Angela Rayner in relation to two data centres Buckinghamshire but I suppose this could have implications for the electricity grid. [Post edited 8 Jul 2024 16:22]
| | | |
| Mandatory home building targets on 16:23 - Jul 8 with 1223 views | DJR |
| Mandatory home building targets on 15:55 - Jul 8 by Whos_blue |
The lack of drainage is a huge problem, or at least the impact of new developments are.
Rain water has to go somewhere. It will generally fall on land, then slowly make it's way down into the water table.
Where land is developed, rain falls on concrete and is diverted into the drainage system along with other sewage etc. This process is unnaturally fast for an ill equipped drainage/sewerage system.
It's this additional water that much of our current sewerage systems, particularly in rural areas where sewerage systems were not built with expansion in mind, are starting to struggle and those living near the end of those systems will find themselves increasingly at risk of flooding if the drainage upgrades do not keep up with development.
Get the infrastructure right and build away. Implement unsupported development and we can expect problems.
For the record I'm pro development, but important to understand the risks. |
The water supply system in Tunbridge Wells struggles even without much in the way of additional housing.
Drawing water from underground supplies is also an issue. [Post edited 8 Jul 2024 16:24]
| | | |
| Mandatory home building targets on 16:35 - Jul 8 with 1185 views | EdwardStone |
| Mandatory home building targets on 15:55 - Jul 8 by Whos_blue |
The lack of drainage is a huge problem, or at least the impact of new developments are.
Rain water has to go somewhere. It will generally fall on land, then slowly make it's way down into the water table.
Where land is developed, rain falls on concrete and is diverted into the drainage system along with other sewage etc. This process is unnaturally fast for an ill equipped drainage/sewerage system.
It's this additional water that much of our current sewerage systems, particularly in rural areas where sewerage systems were not built with expansion in mind, are starting to struggle and those living near the end of those systems will find themselves increasingly at risk of flooding if the drainage upgrades do not keep up with development.
Get the infrastructure right and build away. Implement unsupported development and we can expect problems.
For the record I'm pro development, but important to understand the risks. |
Stormwater drainage is not a difficult problem to solve
SUDS.... basically "porous" hard landscaping like driveways and pavements can flow into a stormwater drainage system with attenuation like balance ponds or underground water storage to release it into waterways when there is no risk of flooding
A slightly more enlightened approach might be to take the valuable resource of clean rainwater and capture it for non-potable use such as flushing the loo, watering the garden or even clothes washing....see rainwater as an asset to be used rather than a problem to be dumped |  | | |
| Mandatory home building targets on 17:28 - Jul 8 with 1125 views | OldFart71 |
Any Government whoever it is should first consider where they build and also make sure house builders are made to landscape where they build and that the infrastructure to deal with the extra people is available. But of course they won't as they are like headless chickens. They are blinkered and only see building x amount of houses per year as resolving the problem of young people unable to afford a property when really the problem is and has been that wages, except for boardroom members have lagged way behind the increases in housing . Also allowing Chinese, Russian and other billionaires to buy up properties in London and then leave them empty until a few years later they can sell them for a few million more make outlying areas housing more expensive as commuters and the like find it cheaper to buy within adequate rail/road links. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
