| Mandatory home building targets 11:12 - Jul 8 with 6655 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 11:16 - Jul 8 with 4088 views | Zx1988 |
I didn't listen to the speech, so apologies if I've missed some detail which contradicts my response.
I would assume that these would be permission-related rather than based upon completions. So a Local Authority would be obliged to grant planning permission for x number of houses per year, rather than builders being obliged to complete and sell x number of houses.
A step in the right direction, but it still doesn't solve the issue of developers obtaining planning, putting in some footings, and then just sitting on things until a more opportune time to complete the development. |  |
| |
| Mandatory home building targets on 11:16 - Jul 8 with 4084 views | EdwardStone |
One option might be to allow far more one-off self build homes
The Govt. / LPA provide serviced plots at a reasonable price and then small builders and individuals would build and complete any number of homes at way below current market rate
I think they are also talking in terms of some brand new "Garden Cities" which should help boost numbers |  | | |
| Mandatory home building targets on 11:26 - Jul 8 with 3997 views | 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. |  |
| |
| Mandatory home building targets on 11:27 - Jul 8 with 3990 views | Guthrum |
| Mandatory home building targets on 11:16 - Jul 8 by Zx1988 |
I didn't listen to the speech, so apologies if I've missed some detail which contradicts my response.
I would assume that these would be permission-related rather than based upon completions. So a Local Authority would be obliged to grant planning permission for x number of houses per year, rather than builders being obliged to complete and sell x number of houses.
A step in the right direction, but it still doesn't solve the issue of developers obtaining planning, putting in some footings, and then just sitting on things until a more opportune time to complete the development. |
You could get round that by limiting the permission time and tying it to completion rather than commencement |  |
| |
| Mandatory home building targets on 11:31 - Jul 8 with 3958 views | J2BLUE |
| 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. |
Forced? I'd volunteer. |  |
| |
| Mandatory home building targets on 11:31 - Jul 8 with 3954 views | Zx1988 |
| Mandatory home building targets on 11:27 - Jul 8 by Guthrum |
You could get round that by limiting the permission time and tying it to completion rather than commencement |
I think that's definitely what needs to be done, as well as penalties for larger entities (not Mrs Miggins, who gets permission for an extension and then lets it lapse) who obtain planning permission and then fail to use it.
Similarly, the system needs to be reformed so that permissions for units aren't taken out of a limited pot. At present, if the Local Plan says that 5,000 homes will be built in a location, if Persimmon gets permission for 2,500 of those, that reduces the remaining permissions available to 2,500, regardless of whether those houses are built to completion or just land-banked. | |
| |
| Mandatory home building targets on 11:40 - Jul 8 with 3860 views | NeedhamChris |
| Mandatory home building targets on 11:31 - Jul 8 by J2BLUE |
Forced? I'd volunteer. |
Me too! | |
| |
| Mandatory home building targets on 11:45 - Jul 8 with 3825 views | factual_blue |
Take their children hostage?
(This is a joke btw) |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Mandatory home building targets on 11:45 - Jul 8 with 3828 views | GeoffSentence |
Seems to me that's one of the big problems with house prices. It appears to me that builders choke off supply when house sales are weak to keep prices up.
It would be lovely if some mechanism could be found to stop that, maybe letting local authorities or other public bodies whose main interest is getting people somewhere to live rather then maximising profits, to take up the slack at those times and build some homes. |  |
| |
| Mandatory home building targets on 12:09 - Jul 8 with 3687 views | tractordownsouth |
Excellent news. Meanwhile the new Green MP for Waveney has been busy opposing green energy in his constituency.
A real challenge for the Greens in this parliament is going to be watching their two co-leaders voting in different lobbies. Green voters in Bristol Central have virtually nothing in common with those in Waveney and rural Herefordshire, especially when it comes to housing and infrastructure. |  |
| |
| Mandatory home building targets on 12:10 - Jul 8 with 3669 views | bluestandard |
| Mandatory home building targets on 11:45 - Jul 8 by GeoffSentence |
Seems to me that's one of the big problems with house prices. It appears to me that builders choke off supply when house sales are weak to keep prices up.
It would be lovely if some mechanism could be found to stop that, maybe letting local authorities or other public bodies whose main interest is getting people somewhere to live rather then maximising profits, to take up the slack at those times and build some homes. |
I think there is a major misunderstanding of the market amongst posters here. Try looking at it another way:- would you want a mechanism to force builders to implement the permission if they were guaranteed to make a loss on that development? Anyone saying that is not living in the real world. Its not always about maximising profits, but often about stemming losses. Construction company insolvencies topped the list in 2024. | | | |
| Mandatory home building targets on 12:14 - Jul 8 with 3627 views | bluestandard |
| Mandatory home building targets on 11:27 - Jul 8 by Guthrum |
You could get round that by limiting the permission time and tying it to completion rather than commencement |
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. | | | |
| Mandatory home building targets on 12:15 - Jul 8 with 3614 views | itfcjoe |
Make it as part of planning permissions that works have to be started by dates or the land is forfeited? It's often been bought from councils in the first place |  |
| |
| Mandatory home building targets on 12:18 - Jul 8 with 3592 views | giant_stow |
| 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. |
Out of interest, what would be your solution to building more houses? |  |
| |
| Mandatory home building targets on 12:18 - Jul 8 with 3586 views | itfcjoe |
| 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. |
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 | |
| |
| Mandatory home building targets on 12:28 - Jul 8 with 3504 views | Mullet |
| 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 think turbines are brilliant. I’d have them solar panels, a water wheel and whatever else if it was feasible and cost effective to be honest.
The housing stock issue is very complicated. I wonder if new builds are better value for money long term or not. Also do we need some sort of “slum clearance” type schemes in larger cities to empty out areas for redevelopment? It doesn’t seem to have worked up here over a long period I guess. |  |
| |
| Mandatory home building targets on 12:30 - Jul 8 with 3471 views | GeoffSentence |
| Mandatory home building targets on 12:10 - Jul 8 by bluestandard |
I think there is a major misunderstanding of the market amongst posters here. Try looking at it another way:- would you want a mechanism to force builders to implement the permission if they were guaranteed to make a loss on that development? Anyone saying that is not living in the real world. Its not always about maximising profits, but often about stemming losses. Construction company insolvencies topped the list in 2024. |
Yep, I hold my hands up here. I have no understanding of builders financials at all, I am simply a numpty trying to piece together what I see.
one thing i don't understand is how developers can do anything other than make whacking great profits given the really high price of houses these days.
Given that, when house prices do drop a bit and i see building stop it looks like they are keeping supply low to keep prices up.
But it is fair to say that I know nothing, my conclusions could be widely off and i would be delighted to learn more about the economics of house building. | |
| |
| Mandatory home building targets on 12:51 - Jul 8 with 3351 views | WeWereZombies |
| 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. |
If everyone had a wind turbine in their back garden then no one would have excessive energy bills, the turbines would be pint sized and there would be no need for an unsightly march of pylons across the countryside. |  |
| |
| Mandatory home building targets on 12:51 - Jul 8 with 3349 views | 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. | | | |
| Mandatory home building targets on 13:01 - Jul 8 with 3292 views | Leaky |
| 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. |
Communism on the march then good luck with that |  | | |
| Mandatory home building targets on 13:06 - Jul 8 with 3261 views | GeoffSentence |
| Mandatory home building targets on 13:01 - Jul 8 by Leaky |
Communism on the march then good luck with that |
Communism. That's a bit of a stretch. | |
| |
| Mandatory home building targets on 13:14 - Jul 8 with 3209 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Mandatory home building targets on 13:01 - Jul 8 by Leaky |
Communism on the march then good luck with that |
I’m probably to the right economically to many on here, but can see that privatisation of the rail network has been a disaster. Unlike perhaps Energy where there would have to be forced nationalisation and government requisition of assets, there is no risk to FDI - the franchises can be picked up by the government as they expire.
Privatised rail just doesn’t work. Firstly there is no competition, you have a choice of one operator on many lines. It’s therefore a monopoly. Secondly, since many of the operators are European state run rail companies we are subsidising public transport abroad. Its madness. | | | |
| Mandatory home building targets on 13:25 - Jul 8 with 3148 views | WeWereZombies |
| Mandatory home building targets on 13:14 - Jul 8 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
I’m probably to the right economically to many on here, but can see that privatisation of the rail network has been a disaster. Unlike perhaps Energy where there would have to be forced nationalisation and government requisition of assets, there is no risk to FDI - the franchises can be picked up by the government as they expire.
Privatised rail just doesn’t work. Firstly there is no competition, you have a choice of one operator on many lines. It’s therefore a monopoly. Secondly, since many of the operators are European state run rail companies we are subsidising public transport abroad. Its madness. |
Re; your second paragraph see also water. | |
| |
| Mandatory home building targets on 13:32 - Jul 8 with 3112 views | Guthrum |
| 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. |
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. | |
| |
| Mandatory home building targets on 13:42 - Jul 8 with 3054 views | Zx1988 |
| 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. |
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. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
