Name and Shame councils that underbuild

ging84

would it be naming and shaming? or celebrating ?
If you were looking for a nice area to move to, would you want to go to the place where the council is constantly meeting or exceeding it's targets to put up new housing estates? or consistently failing to meet those targets?

cells

ging84 wrote: »

would it be naming and shaming? or celebrating ?
If you were looking for a nice area to move to, would you want to go to the place where the council is constantly meeting or exceeding it's targets to put up new housing estates? or consistently failing to meet those targets?

If you had the freedom to move I suspect you would move to the one building its target or exceeding it as you would get a 120sqm detached home instead of a 60sqm terrace home for the same price.

Loughton_Monkey

purch wrote: »

Wow, it would be terrible to be "named and shamed"

The Council wouldn't be able to show its face in public for a long time :eek:

Most of them are already "shamed" for Social care, Crime, Litter, Potholes, Environmental stuff, and Education.

No point vilfying them for something they don't ever do these days (house building). They don't block planning permission either, just 'blackmail' honest builders for as much 'Section 106' as will make them 'go away' to other areas.

It's time the young househunters got themselves motivated and built their own. Just find a bit of land, throw up a Potton jobbie made of wood, and join the ranks of the homeowners.

Jonbvn

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

No point vilfying them for something they don't ever do these days (house building). They don't block planning permission either, just 'blackmail' honest builders for as much 'Section 106' as will make them 'go away' to other areas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning_gain#Reception_of_Section_106_Agreements

The planning obligations agreed with developers through Section 106 agreements are sometimes criticised for:

• inconsistency
• unfairness
• lack of transparency
• length of time to negotiate
• some obligations being unlawful
• obligations not actually within Section 106 of the Act

TickersPlaysPop

This is not naming and shaming.

It is hitting councils where it hurts... Their pocket!

A significant % of funding could be linked to the target for building .

gazter

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

This is not naming and shaming.

It is hitting councils where it hurts... Their pocket!

A significant % of funding could be linked to the target for building .

New Homes Bonus is directly linked to numbers of new homes, with even more money for affordable homes. It isnt an unsubstantial amount of money, and can make up most of what the government took away when it reduced the main support grant a council gets.