Tories to REDUCE housebuilding...

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

With the Tories expected to form the next government, the housing industry is being careful not to criticise the party’s housing policy too explicitly. However, a consequence of the Conservatives’ “localism” proposals is widely expected to be fewer new homes.

The plans have also been criticised by Steven Norris, the former Tory minister, who wrote in a trade magazine that while Labour’s insistence on targets was imperfect the Tory policy was wrong.

“To assume that progress will be made by reducing all decisions to local level is a grave mistake,” he wrote. “That path guarantees even fewer completions.”

However, Bob Neill, shadow local government minister, said there was evidence the government was pressing councils to sign up to “unsustainable housing targets” and removing green belt land.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/63f5e49c-a090-11de-b9ef-00144feabdc0.html

The seeds of the next boom are being sown today, mark my words.:T

Afriend_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/63f5e49c-a090-11de-b9ef-00144feabdc0.html

The seeds of the next boom are being sown today, mark my words.:T

There was a young lady earlier, not far from Edinburgh, looking for advice on buying a home in Scotland.
Knowing what a balanced poster you were, I pointed her in your direction.

nembot

Seems reasonable enough, there is a massive over supply of housing already - why build more shoeboxes nobody wants to buy.

Try again Mr McT

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Afriend wrote: »

There was a young lady earlier, not far from Edinburgh, looking for advice on buying a home in Scotland.
Knowing what a balanced poster you were, I pointed her in your direction.

:rotfl:

She's in the Dundee area. I don't know that much about it, other than it's seriously cheap by comparison to Aberdeen......

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

nembot wrote: »

Seems reasonable enough, there is a massive over supply of housing already - why build more shoeboxes nobody wants to buy.

Try again Mr McT

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

You poor deluded thing.....

Thrugelmir

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The seeds of the next boom are being sown today, mark my words.:T

Statistically only 1 in 10,000 acorns grows into an oak tree.

Keep planting and watering those seeds.

Mr_Mumble

However, a consequence of the Conservatives’ “localism” proposals is widely expected to be fewer new homes.

This is a problem with the structure of local government rather than this particular proposal. NIMBYs only see the downside to local housebuilding, i.e. increased traffic, tarmac, pollution and buildings rather than parks, greenery and open spaces. If NIMBYs shared in the upside, e.g. a partial council tax rebate for allowing developers to build on greenbelt, we'd see a change in tune!

PS. if a Tory government actually enforced border controls (unlikely since we'd have 'Dave' in power) we wouldn't need hundreds-of-thousands of new houses each year in the first place!

PPS. Steven Norris... really! The left-skewed FT editorial are using the same trick BBC Five Live used for years: if you get a Tory on make sure it's one of the wettest variants so Labour and Lib-Dems win the argument.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

PS. if a Tory government actually enforced border controls (unlikely since we'd have 'Dave' in power) we wouldn't need hundreds-of-thousands of new houses each year in the first place!

.

Nor would we have any way to pay peoples pensions, or pay for anything else for that matter.;)

Having only 2 or 3 young people to pay for and look after every 5 old people would be a disaster on every level.:rolleyes:

IveSeenTheLight

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

PS. if a Tory government actually enforced border controls (unlikely since we'd have 'Dave' in power) we wouldn't need hundreds-of-thousands of new houses each year in the first place!

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=950

Last year, there were 220,000 more births than deaths in the UK (Natural Change). In the years before this, the figures were: -

08 = 220,000
07 = 187,000
06 = 159,000
05 = 127,000
04 = 104,000
03 = 77,000
02 = 62,000

While partly this could be attributed to people living longer, the rapid increase cannot be attributed solely to this and shows that the UK is naturally growing in population.
Indeed over this period, you can see that births have increased 130,000 per year, while deaths have only reduced by 30,000 per year.

It would appear that there will be a greater need for more properties in the future.

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=950

Last year, there were 220,000 more births than deaths in the UK (Natural Change). In the years before this, the figures were: -

08 = 220,000
07 = 187,000
06 = 159,000
05 = 127,000
04 = 104,000
03 = 77,000
02 = 62,000

While partly this could be attributed to people living longer, the rapid increase cannot be attributed solely to this and shows that the UK is naturally growing in population.
Indeed over this period, you can see that births have increased 130,000 per year, while deaths have only reduced by 30,000 per year.

It would appear that there will be a greater need for more properties in the future.

To get the full picture you need to include migration figures which are not reliably kept by the UK Government.

Annecdotally it would appear that the is net emmigration from the UK at present reversing years of high net immigration. Annecdotes aren't data of course.

vivatifosi

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

This is a problem with the structure of local government rather than this particular proposal. NIMBYs only see the downside to local housebuilding, i.e. increased traffic, tarmac, pollution and buildings rather than parks, greenery and open spaces. If NIMBYs shared in the upside, e.g. a partial council tax rebate for allowing developers to build on greenbelt, we'd see a change in tune!

To be fair to NIMBYs - and I'm not a fan of NIMBYism - if there was more joined up thinking you'd probably get more people on board. I was called at random by the county where I live to join in the consultation on new houses in our area. There were a good 30 of us sitting in on the consultation. Nobody was objecting to new houses - especially if that led to greater affordability. What they were objecting to was funding formulas that mean until you get more people, you don't get the infrastructure funding. For example, what's the point in adding an extra 20,000 people to the local area if you've just closed swathes of services to the local hospital based on the number of people there? Why close a school, develop houses on the site, then wonder why all of the local schools have too many kids in their classes? Why not develop the wider roads in advance of the new journeys? Some things just don't make sense.