Newsnight: Housing shortage the biggest social justice crisis of our times

Graham_Devon

Just seen a trailer for Newsnight tonight, and it was surrounding the Housing Minister suggesting the housing shortage was the biggest social justice crisis of our time.

There was also a bit about giving cash to locals communities if they accept new housing. Were not talking small fry here. He expects this levy to bring in £1bn.

The cash will have to be spent on local infrastructure, and will come from a levy on housebuilders.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20957422

In other words, its a cash incentive, aimed directly at NIMBY's. (in a way).

However, this policy has got to be one of the worst yet. Housebuilders first response is that this will push the cost of land, and the price of houses up. Probably because THEY will be the ones with a levy imposed on them to fund this.

In the meantime, the very same housebuilders, get taxpayer funded backing in the form of newbuy to build more houses.

So this appears to be somewhat bizarre. Charge the builders a levy, to incentivise NIMBY's to allow house building, while incentivising the very same builders via newbuy....in the meantime, allowing them to sit on large swathes of landbanks, with full planning permission.

We need someone with a clue!!!!

And why the ..... should local housing opposition groups get cash!??!

brit1234

Wednesday 1030 pm - Up to £650,00 may be given directly to communities to spend on infrastructure if they approve new home building, Planning Minister Nick Boles has told BBC Newsnight.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20957422

Graham_Devon

Apparently there is planning permission for 2 million houses, currently.

Probably all land banked.

However, the planning minister suggests this number is 1.25m, with planning permission.

However, he sticks to the point that planning is the problem.

Another commentator said it's builders building low amounts and charging higher and higher profits.

Seems no one can agree.

The housing federation spokesman obviously blames mortgages.

Labour HAVE to agree with the idea, as it was theres, but they are insistent on saying it won't work. The best thing the labour MP can suggest is to bring "passion and vision" to planning, using "pots of money". I.e. some kind of vague response.

Sadly, it appears no one is talking about the costs of housing.

Edit: Classic, the planning minister has just said "those of us who have 2 or more homes, have to be very careful about telling others they should go and live in high density flats" in response to a multi homeowner NIMBY Quite like this bloke, he DOES appear to understand there is a problem and he appears very passionate.

"Theres a shortage of housing"...."and how many homes do you own".....

ukcarper

I can't see it making much difference, as has been said builders only build what they can sell and if planning permission is for 1.25 million houses that's a lot of houses they are not building.

Another interesting point housing minister said only 250,000 houses have been empty for over 6 months.

They also put a lot of emphasis on buying property and seem oblivious to the fact that there are and always have been a lot of people who don't earn enough to buy and the availability of low cost rental accommodation has fallen and is not being replaced.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

I can't see it making much difference, as has been said builders only build what they can sell and if planning permission is for 1.25 million houses that's a lot of houses they are not building.

Imagine how many they would build if that land with planning permission granted was taxed?

No one, from any political persuassion seems to want to do this, or even mention it.

Thats a hell of a lot of houses with planning permission granted. So theres one of two things going on here.

Either the government and councils are happy to cgarge for planning, knowing full well it won't go ahead, and letting the house builders play the land banking casino.

Or, politicians are somewhat hamstrung by builders, giving them more and more taxpayer cash (or should I say, exposure) at a time when housebuilders make more and more profit per build (as stated in the programme).

ukcarper wrote: »

They also put a lot of emphasis on buying property and seem oblivious to the fact that there are and always have been a lot of people who don't earn enough to buy and the availability of low cost rental accommodation has fallen and is not being replaced.

Yes, this is true. The planning minister who took the young person to something he deemed affordable, obviously got no where, and offered no solution to her. However, I'd suggest her budget of £5-600 per month was a reasonable budget for most working, normal people. As she stated, her family earnings are not always the same each month, it depends on how mch work they get, and again, this will be apt for so many up and down the country, who cannot commit the absolute ceiling of affordability based on their best months earnings.

The one thing that was humbling was, even though she was offered no solution by any of this, and wold still be in the same position, the very first thing she said without thinking was "it may not provide a solution for me, but it may do for my children". I thought that was lovely, and honest. It's how I feel and have said so many times.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Imagine how many they would build if that land with planning permission granted was taxed?

No one, from any political persuassion seems to want to do this, or even mention it.

Thats a hell of a lot of houses with planning permission granted. So theres one of two things going on here.

Either the government and councils are happy to cgarge for planning, knowing full well it won't go ahead, and letting the house builders play the land banking casino.

Or, politicians are somewhat hamstrung by builders, giving them more and more taxpayer cash (or should I say, exposure) at a time when housebuilders make more and more profit per build (as stated in the programme).



Yes, this is true. The planning minister who took the young person to something he deemed affordable, obviously got no where, and offered no solution to her. However, I'd suggest her budget of £5-600 per month was a reasonable budget for most working, normal people. As she stated, her family earnings are not always the same each month, it depends on how mch work they get, and again, this will be apt for so many up and down the country, who cannot commit the absolute ceiling of affordability based on their best months earnings.

The one thing that was humbling was, even though she was offered no solution by any of this, and wold still be in the same position, the very first thing she said without thinking was "it may not provide a solution for me, but it may do for my children". I thought that was lovely, and honest. It's how I feel and have said so many times.

I'm not sure it's as simple as that and taxing building land is the ans.

The trouble is we need more social housing but no one is prepared to build that £500 would not get you a family house in the south east and plenty of people earn low wages there.

Graham_Devon

Thats an interesting way of debating carper....did you mean to type exactly the same thing again in response!?

By the way, did you catch the boomer in the field making some noise about his opposition because the roads couldn't cope or some jazz, and that 100k would do nothing for their small community....they would need millions?

Maybe they could make some road improvements with the 100k

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Thats an interesting way of debating carper....did you mean to type exactly the same thing again in response!?

By the way, did you catch the boomer in the field making some noise about his opposition because the roads couldn't cope or some jazz, and that 100k would do nothing for their small community....they would need millions?

Maybe they could make some road improvements with the 100k

My spelling is terrible (result of poor secondary modern education most of us boomers suffered from) so cut and past mistake'

I must admit I thought of toasty when boomer on but it's not just boomers who have to be bribed it's most people living in the area.

Wookster

Simon Jenkins is a prize c0ck.

It seems Nice grasps the severity of the problem but is somewhat impotent to actually do anything about it.

grizzly1911

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Thats an interesting way of debating carper....did you mean to type exactly the same thing again in response!?

By the way, did you catch the boomer in the field making some noise about his opposition because the roads couldn't cope or some jazz, and that 100k would do nothing for their small community....they would need millions?

Maybe they could make some road improvements with the 100k

We have loads of high volume speculative plans in the pipeline by us. The LA don't have a local plan so they are being hit all the time. At the moment they are batting them away. We simply don't need the numbers (little demand) would probably double the size of this small town and the infrastructure, including roads can't cope. The few that do get through usually have some road improvement override on them anyway. (I thought some form of community levy was already built in to planning acceptance?).

Like ukcarper I do think there is more need more affordable social housing but I don't see that happening.

It must be difficult for LAs because the extra CouncilTax, Business Rate must be so tempting where there is infrastructure capacity.

I did here one commentator (MP?), this week, suggesting that homes should be built smaller to make them more affordable:eek:

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The cash will have to be spent on local infrastructure, and will come from a levy on housebuilders.

I thought part of the planning consideration is for the local infrastructure.
If a builder is planning on building homes, they must show that the area has sufficient infrastructure else, include it in their development.

Why the need to incentivise with additional cash / levies?