Planning changes to encourage new builds

Mallotum_X

Developers could get automatic planning permission to build on disused industrial sites in England.

Ministers would also get powers to seize disused land, while major housing projects could be fast-tracked, and rules on extensions in London relaxed.

Business Secretary Sajid Javid unveiled the plans as part of a broader push to boost Britain's productivity.

It came as official figures showed new house building fell by 5.8% in May, the sharpest decline in nearly four years.

There is a question mark over whether building more homes will boost productivity as much as ministers claim.

Treasury sources say workers are more productive when they live closer to their jobs - but critics say increasing airport capacity and electrifying the Transpennine rail line would have a much bigger effect.

'Suitable sites'
Emran Mian, a director of the Social Market Foundation think tank, said: "I think if I was thinking about a productivity plan, housing wouldn't be the first issue I would leap to."

Electrification of the Trans Pennine line between Manchester and Leeds and a section of the Midland Mainline has been delayed and a decision on a third runway at Heathrow, recommended by an independent commission, will not be made until the end of the year.

Analysts have also questioned whether there is enough brownfield land - a term which refers to land that has previously been developed but is vacant or derelict - available to meet the UK's housing needs over the next 15 years.

More

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33472405

michaels

My house was built in the 30s on what would now be considered 'green belt' on the edge of the town I live in, no doubt reducing the amenity of everyone who lived in the town already who then had to suffer a higher population and more development between them and the countryside.

I therefore propose that my street and the surrouding streets should be torn down to restore the green belt which all the more central residents should have a human right to enjoy....

I can't see how this is any different from demanding that no building should take place slightly further out becuase it will destroy the current green belt. What is so special about the current line which meant it was ok to buuild up to it but any more would be the greatest disaster ever seen?

I think all those who object to further development of green land should join me in insisting that our current houses are torn down to return the land to its natural state.

lisyloo

I can't see how this is any different from demanding that no building should take place slightly further out

So you think that the alternative is to have no line drawn at all?

Mummyisbeauty

they need to build more infrastructure first tbh.

danothy

lisyloo wrote: »

So you think that the alternative is to have no line drawn at all?

It is inarguably true that an alternative is to have no line drawn at all.

michaels

lisyloo wrote: »

So you think that the alternative is to have no line drawn at all?

Has the world ended because Milton Keynes was built on some fields in Buckinghamshire?

Are there no other bits of land that it would be unfortunate to lose but where the gain to those who were housed there would far away the loss to the small number of people who had their views changed or had to ramble in a different place?

Sure I would prefer that the fields close to my house remain as fields but I don't think it is fair that I insist on it if that means that other people have to rent eight to a 4 bed house with no possibility of ever buying their own place.

cells

House building being 120k a year instead of 430k a year in the UK costs us at least £75B in GDP directly and then some indirectly

Its the single most important and effective way we could boost GDP/Taxes/Jobs/Productivity

Electrify a fekin rail line saves us close to nothing. A little fuel saving in return for much higher capital costs. Akin to swapping your mid age ford for a new Tesla.

Heathrow should be moved to Boris island to effectively allow a new borough to be built in its place. Can house 200-250k people there

Rinoa

Planning permission is important, but it's not the only problem. Small builders used to build a quarter of all new properties, now it's just an eighth. They just can't get finance from the banks.

I owned a plot of land and a local builder agreed to buy it subject to him attaining planning permission, which he duly did. Sold it to him in 2006 with PP for 20 flats.

Still not built on 9 years later and currently up for sale.

Rinoa

michaels wrote: »

Has the world ended because Milton Keynes was built on some fields in Buckinghamshire?

Are there no other bits of land that it would be unfortunate to lose but where the gain to those who were housed there would far away the loss to the small number of people who had their views changed or had to ramble in a different place?

Sure I would prefer that the fields close to my house remain as fields but I don't think it is fair that I insist on it if that means that other people have to rent eight to a 4 bed house with no possibility of ever buying their own place.

Some green belt is beautiful and worth keeping. other green belt is just scrubland and building houses on it would actually improve its appearance.

daveyjp

There are far bigger issues with building on brownfield land than obtaining a piece of paper to say you can.

The work needed to obtain planning consent will still be required to secure funding for the development.

mwpt

and rules on extensions in London relaxed.

Seems to be just about upward extensions, and only if your neighbour already has a higher building, and only if your neighbour doesn't object.

Pity.