Largest housing rally ever across the UK

cells

shortchanged wrote: »

No, let's be honest the will just isn't there for governments to genuinely tackle the housing shortage.

I doubt many even know its an issue or even believe it to be true.

They like the general public are quite stupid when it comes to understanding simple mathematics. They probably think....there aren't hordes of homeless so there is no housing shortage.


I do however find it harder to believe that there isnt anyone competent enough in the treasury to explain his to them. The treasury/chancellors stance might be that its a net political benefit to have a shortage of homes

Old_Git

there are loads of houses they are just not in the south east of England .
Go up north where they have funny accents and you will find loads of houses .

Generali

cells wrote: »

I do however find it harder to believe that there isnt anyone competent enough in the treasury to explain his to them. The treasury/chancellors stance might be that its a net political benefit to have a shortage of homes

Part of the problem is that most of the powers to allow building lie with local councils and people simply don't want houses built within 5-10 miles of where they live.

It's easy to get people to agree there aren't enough houses but impossible to get them to agree that more houses need to be built locally.

I could easily fit 20 good houses on this piece of land. It's 5.5 acres, 4 miles from a train station to London and the land costs £45,000 or a bit over £2,000 a house.

According to these guys, suburban roads cost about £20,000 a house. Say even the same again to connect to services and I should be able to build a house on a piece of land that cost me £42,000 or thereabouts assuming I could find 19 like-minded people that wanted to build. That gives me a very roomy plot by UK standards: I could probably squeeze double the number on there.

The actual price of a good sized new house with a garden in T Wells? A bloody fortune:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/new-homes-for-sale/Tunbridge-Wells.html

cells

Generali wrote: »

Part of the problem is that most of the powers to allow building lie with local councils and people simply don't want houses built within 5-10 miles of where they live.

I dont think that is quite true,

councils force through development all the time and if i were a councilor i would not pay much notice to anyone protesting against new builds because I would be fairly confident that on polling day people will vote how people always vote regardless of me approving 100 homes or 200 homes

The real problem is that councils employ idiots, total feking morons

eg I am just reading the Enfield plan it in it it says such things as

The Borough will plan for an increase in population from an estimated 285,100 in 2006 to approximately 309,500 by 2026


but guess what, that planed for 309,500 population was hit sometime around 2010 not in 2026.....clearly someone !!!!ed up big time in the council and should literally get a hiding. but instead that same idiot is probably projecting the 2030 population for Enfield and grossly underestimating it. Instead of learning from their mistakes they continue to make them and make them worse

Enfield should be targeting a new build rate of 2,000 homes a year average but from what I can gather from reading their local plan (not finished reading it yet) they are going to aim for ~400


Its a quota driven system, where the quota setters probably could not multiply two single digits together without a calculator yet are in charge of managing perhaps one of the most important necessities of life

Generali

cells wrote: »

I dont think that is quite true,

councils force through development all the time and if i were a councilor i would not pay much notice to anyone protesting against new builds because I would be fairly confident that on polling day people will vote how people always vote regardless of me approving 100 homes or 200 homes

I can't speak for Enfield and TBH I am sure that it is unlikely to be the case in London in general. However it most certainly is the case in the Home Counties. If you go to any town in the South East and grab a copy of the local paper you can bet there's a few letters and an article about stopping local building.

For example:

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/guildford-forum-opposes-green-belt-8847326

http://www.courier.co.uk/Parishes-bid-beat-new-homes-developers/story-26160685-detail/story.html

These are very typical news stories in the home counties.

cells

Generali wrote: »

I can't speak for Enfield and TBH I am sure that it is unlikely to be the case in London in general. However it most certainly is the case in the Home Counties. If you go to any town in the South East and grab a copy of the local paper you can bet there's a few letters and an article about stopping local building.

For example:

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/guildford-forum-opposes-green-belt-8847326

http://www.courier.co.uk/Parishes-bid-beat-new-homes-developers/story-26160685-detail/story.html

These are very typical news stories in the home counties.

Oh I accept people protest and don't want it, i'm just not convinced the councilors should pay much heed to them

Also home building is not zero, so they are upsetting NIMBYs anyway why not just approve more homes knowing its the right thing to do irrespective of grandmas letters of objection

Generali

cells wrote: »

Oh I accept people protest and don't want it, i'm just not convinced the councilors should pay much heed to them

Also home building is not zero, so they are upsetting NIMBYs anyway why not just approve more homes knowing its the right thing to do irrespective of grandmas letters of objection

I suspect that in the Home Counties that a lot of people become Councillors to oppose housing just as it used to be normal for publicans to become magistrates to oppose licensing applications.

purch

The only way sufficient Housing can be built in the time frame available is for the Government to do the building, just as happened after WW2.

They will need to suspend normal planning regulations to stop councils and councillors blocking building, and just get on with it.

Housing is as important, in fact in many cases more important than most infrastructure development, so funding it should not be an issue.

ukcarper

Generali wrote: »

I can't speak for Enfield and TBH I am sure that it is unlikely to be the case in London in general. However it most certainly is the case in the Home Counties. If you go to any town in the South East and grab a copy of the local paper you can bet there's a few letters and an article about stopping local building.

For example:

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/guildford-forum-opposes-green-belt-8847326

http://www.courier.co.uk/Parishes-bid-beat-new-homes-developers/story-26160685-detail/story.html

These are very typical news stories in the home counties.

I know the Guildford case quite well as I was bought up not far from there and still live fairly close. Some of the points raised are valid most of the surrounding roads especially those leading to local stations are narrow country lanes. The part of A3 where the main road into estate will be is badly congested in mornings and evenings and the M25 in area is congested most of time.

But the site is an old airfield which already has quite a bit of concrete. I can't see any of properties being affordable unless they are social housing as this area is one of the most expensive in the country.

The number of properties in the immediately area is small but they are expensive properties so it will be interesting to see what happens.

Coveredinbees!!!!

So basically they should concrete over the green belt.