Planning changes to encourage new builds

Gavin234

cells wrote: »

I've lived in London for 30 years and never seen a house grow by 1 story. The work you are seeing may be a loft conversion or work to repair a roof or even an extension.

I would be amazed if a council anywhere gave permission for a house to be extended a floor where said house was near or joining other houses (basically that means everywhere in London)

The only way it would be remotely possible is if a good number of households applied to do it together but I aint see it never

---

Edit: Actually I recall a few now that I think of it but they have been v.rare and in those instances the additional floor was smaller than the floor below it probably to try and minimise the impact of an additional floor. So they do happen but certainly not "everywhere you look". And the main reason is it would in most places simply not be worth it

Bivouacs I'm talking about loft conversion. They are everywhere

mwpt

stator wrote: »

Typical Tory policy, faffing around the problem instead of dealing with it head on.
The private sector has never been able to build enough houses, and I don't think they want to.
The only way to build enough houses is to get councils to lead the way. Compulsory purchase the best suited land, develop the master plan and then sell off parcels of plots to anyone who wants to build them. Problem solved.

Yes. People build their own houses in other countries, I don't see why we need the big company monopolies here.

Mistermeaner

Get the point re population growth being independent of house building. However when new homes are constructed in a given area this moves people from potentially already overcrowded areas into less crowded areas - fine from a bedroom point of view but the infrastructure struggles.

Arguably of course but London's infrastructure copes with the population even though the housing is overcrowded.

Nimby I know but building new homes in my area is increasing the population when it otherwise wouldn't but the infrastructure is not being improved.

I'm in favour of house building, just saying that infrastructure improvements are needed too - this can often be more difficult in brownfield sites that are already boxed in vs building in Greenfield where infrastructure can be better planned

Gavin234

I wonder how this will affect land prices?

Before some land in the country was about £6k per acre, if it got planning x ten.

Now planning is easier, what will be he effect?

daveyjp

princeofpounds wrote: »

The only way is to get councils out of the way, given they are the main blocker of development.

Incorrect. Ask your local Council how many housing developments they have given permission for in the last 10 years and how many have actually been built. There will be a huge gap as not everything with permission gets built and large developments take years to bring to complete.

The biggest block to housing development is the free market. When prices are falling development stalls as developers can't cover the cost of the development. When prices are rising developers restrict supply in order to capitalise on a rising market.

Why do you think the last Govt invented ever more schemes to increase demand? It was to prop up a failing property market.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

So you don't think increasing the size of a typical town or village doesn't increase the population.

where do the people come from?

and no, increasing the amount of space people have, doesn't increase the population.

Sapphire

In my view:

1. Depending on the area, the infrastructure generally (hospitals, transport and so on) definitely needs to improve A LOT before much more living accommodation is built – many areas are now just full up and incredibly crowded. The NHS is certainly groaning at the seams, and transport in many areas (barring, perhaps, places on the Crossrail line) is terrible, especially during the rush hour.

2. Enough is already being built, with all the horrendous vast, ugly, light-killing buildings (commonly sold as 'luxury apartments') springing up throughout London. It's just that it's being built for investment purposes, not for housing the indigenous population. (In passing, at this rate no visitors will want to come to visit such an ugly city, which is rapidly losing its historic character and quirkiness.) People seem to have forgotten what a bad effect the similar cheaply built huge buildings erected in the Sixties had on people stuffed into them, and how they went to seed – I thought it was going to be 'never again' with such architecture.

3. I feel the government is constantly promoting this idea of never-ending building because Britain has few other sources of income. Property appears to be be the only thing the government is interested in selling to all and sundry mainly abroad, rather than within the country (except to already wealthy speculators, probably including quite a few MPs).

4. Property should be for living in, like it used to be, not used as a financial instrument in speculation. The inflation in property prices with disproportionately little progress in other parts of the economy is really dangerous for financial stability (I'm sure the vested interests are aware of this, but are just acting in the short term to help themselves).

michaels

I think everyone who comments should reveal how many live in their property and how many bedrooms they have. It would appear that those with above average bedrooms to people will be the ones saying 'no we have plenty of house already'....

Similarly anyone who's house was built on land that was originally 'green' - ie undeveloped should not complain about any other development of undeveloped land.

vivatifosi

cells wrote: »

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

I can't believe how short sighted we have been on this. If we were in the Far East we would be building Boris island, no doubt. The point you make about the freed up housing land is an important one yet never gets mentioned.

GO talked about infrastructure in the budget, then pretty much restricted it to roads. We need to be bolder in this country.

Sabrina2000

Gavin234 wrote: »

I wonder how this will affect land prices?

Before some land in the country was about £6k per acre, if it got planning x ten.

Now planning is easier, what will be he effect?

From now on, no need to for estate agents to sing about how planning permission could be got on this land, because its now automatic.