Planning changes to encourage new builds

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

It is normal that one third will not be built so 400,000 of the 600,000 will be built

Is there the capacity 400,000 is twice the average of the last 40 years.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

Is there the capacity 400,000 is twice the average of the last 40 years.

I can accept that we can't go from 150k units a year to 400k units a year overnight but I don't see why we could not grow the industry by say 15% a year.

15% a year growth would take us to 400k a year within 7 years.

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

I can accept that we can't go from 150k units a year to 400k units a year overnight but I don't see why we could not grow the industry by say 15% a year.

15% a year growth would take us to 400k a year within 7 years.

That sounds within the realms of possibility I suppose it would depend on many factors. We need the properties but my fear is that they will not be in the right places and the infrastructure will not be provided.

buglawton

cells wrote: »

It doesn't matter if your house is 1000 years old or 1 day old the point is there is no logical reason why infrastructure should be levied onto new builds especially since it wasn't onto most existing builds ( there has been some levies for a while now but they are often very modest (eg a fee hundred pounds a house) however things have got progressively worse and some councils now demand tens of thousands of pounds per house. Thats fine with me so long as every existing house is also charged the same say £20k (if an existing house has already paid £600 two decades ago they van be invoiced the difference.)

Actually lets do that. Invoice all existing and new homes £20k to be used for infrastructure. That would be fair. Hope you got a spare £20k


as for who should gain in planning uplift. There needs to be a modest gain for developers to take into account the cost and risk and time. But what needs to happen is that about 600,000 stamps need to be given out a year which will crush plannig gain to the £5-10k per house region rather than the £50k to £1+m region

Am I right in thinking that if you build extra living space over 30 sq m on your own (already highly valued) land, the same per sq. m building levy is charged as is charged for new builds on land with new planning permission?

But the builder has made major capital gain on the land, and expects major council services to be provided for new developments.

cells

buglawton wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that if you build extra living space over 30 sq m on your own (already highly valued) land, the same per sq. m building levy is charged as is charged for new builds on land with new planning permission?

But the bu has made major capital gain on the land, and expects major council services to be provided for new developments.

You can extend upto 100sqm without a CIL charge in most councils afaik

new development needs to pay it but its absurd as most existing homes haven't paid it or certainly not to the same extent. Its silly to put infrastructure costs on homes but if it must be there should be a levy on all homes. So send out a bill for £20k to each and every home

mwpt

ukcarper wrote: »

That sounds within the realms of possibility I suppose it would depend on many factors. We need the properties but my fear is that they will not be in the right places and the infrastructure will not be provided.

I think you are objecting on nimby grounds. Or at least, that is an objection I often see nimbys use.

Besides, it is a poor objection, because we know that the infrastructure isn't going to be built in advance. There are only really a few of places in the world with forward planning like that, and we don't have such a society/government/economic climate. So with your objection, we're just not going to get enough houses build. The practical better way is to build them and let the infrastructure arise to meet demand. It usually does.

(Now is the part that you tell me our infrastructure is already creaking, and I say yes, but our population is growing regardless and so that isn't an excuse to make people live in continually worse conditions).

Generali

Building more houses doesn't require any more infrastructure than connecting to what's already there. People require infrastructure not houses.

michaels

Generali wrote: »

Building more houses doesn't require any more infrastructure than connecting to what's already there. People require infrastructure not houses.

Whilst mostly true, building at scale will tend to move people, for example from the overcrowded centre to new build on the edge of town where there is room. This may mean that more pressure is put on roads and public transport and individual facilities like schools may become overloaded.

ukcarper

mwpt wrote: »

I think you are objecting on nimby grounds. Or at least, that is an objection I often see nimbys use.

Besides, it is a poor objection, because we know that the infrastructure isn't going to be built in advance. There are only really a few of places in the world with forward planning like that, and we don't have such a society/government/economic climate. So with your objection, we're just not going to get enough houses build. The practical better way is to build them and let the infrastructure arise to meet demand. It usually does.

(Now is the part that you tell me our infrastructure is already creaking, and I say yes, but our population is growing regardless and so that isn't an excuse to make people live in continually worse conditions).

This is the trouble with the build with no consideration any objection is classed as nimby while in many cases they are legitiment. Infrastructure does not always follow or if it does it' take far to long. As I've already pointed out the infrastructure does not. Have to be built in advance just in conjunction with new building.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

This is the trouble with the build with no consideration any objection is classed as nimby while in many cases they are legitiment. Infrastructure does not always follow or if it does it' take far to long. As I've already pointed out the infrastructure does not. Have to be built in advance just in conjunction with new building.

If it exists at all its a failure of the state. Why is all non state infrastructure willingly and eagerly provided. Shops and offices are built. Warehouses and sorting offices are built. If there is a need for a school or a hospital the state should provide tje money and the builders will build

it makes no sense at all to place the burden on new homes especially considering old homes did not contribute at their time