Corbyn promises 'radical reboot' of council house building to tackle housing crisis

Thrugelmir

Lungboy wrote: »

The second flaw is that agreeing that the deficit should be cut is clearly not the same as agreeing with ideological austerity, because the socially and economically destructive Tory "cut our way to growth" strategy is clearly not the only conceivable way of cutting the deficit. In fact, Jeremy Corbyn's plan is to cut the deficit by carefully investing in things that create more economic activity than they cost."

Surely he would have been on the front benches previously if his ideas were actually workable. One suspects not.

ukcarper

martinsurrey wrote: »

yes, BUT, if you split those 3.5k houses in to 35 100 unit developments around an area (so different product mix and placement mix), you could sell them a lot faster, but that would require a sea change in planning.

for example in Surrey, build 3.5k houses on the outskirts of Guildford and you'll be there for 10 years.

build 100 houses on the outskirts of/in the suburbs of/redevelop areas of the centre of Guildford, Woking, Godalming, Dorking, Bisley, Camberley, Bagshot, Cranley, Horley, Farnham, ect ect, and you could sell them all, almost every year.

What I'm saying that planning restrictions are not the only consideration and it not as simple as release land and build houses.

The relax planning and everything else will fall into place argument is much to simplistic.

How many house do you think would need to be built in Surrey to make housing affordable to everyone with out benefits.. I'd say it's not practical to build that many.

martinsurrey

ukcarper wrote: »

What I'm saying that planning restrictions are not the only consideration and it not as simple as release land and build houses.

The relax planning and everything else will fall into place argument is much to simplistic.

How many house do you think would need to be built in Surrey to make housing affordable to everyone with out benefits.. I'd say it's not practical to build that many.

I agree its not the be all and end all of the problem, but its a huge part of it, and you're tinkering around the edges if you ignore it.

ukcarper

martinsurrey wrote: »

I agree its not the be all and end all of the problem, but its a huge part of it, and you're tinkering around the edges if you ignore it.

I agree planning needs to be looked at the property needs to be of the right type and in the right place it's no good just relaxing green belt rules and allowing building on what ever bits of land builders can get hold of. Plenty of green belt in surrey that could be build on without having to bad an effect but that doesn't mean the owners of suitable land would be willing to sell.

martinsurrey

ukcarper wrote: »

I agree planning needs to be looked at the property needs to be of the right type and in the right place it's no good just relaxing green belt rules and allowing building on what ever bits of land builders can get hold of. Plenty of green belt in surrey that could be build on without having to bad an effect but that doesn't mean the owners of suitable land would be willing to sell.

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/local-news/longcross-village-exhibition-reveals-scale-6369096

been in the works for over a decade already, maybe another decade before it gets off the ground, if it ever does, and lets remember that this isn't even all green, its brown (with a fair cover of trees), and by the side of a motorway, yet planning is still going to take the best part of 20 years.


(heres an article from 2004 in which its redevelopement was discussed)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/2731974/So-farewell-then-Longcross.html

ukcarper

martinsurrey wrote: »

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/local-news/longcross-village-exhibition-reveals-scale-6369096

been in the works for over a decade already, maybe another decade before it gets off the ground, if it ever does, and lets remember that this isn't even all green, its brown (with a fair cover of trees), and by the side of a motorway, yet planning is still going to take the best part of 20 years.


(heres an article from 2004 in which its redevelopement was discussed)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/2731974/So-farewell-then-Longcross.html

That's a prim example of problems and the Wisley site will probably be the same. But saying that environmental and infrastructure concerns need to be considered. You will always get people objecting and if it is just nimbyism they will have to be over over ruled , easier said than done.

antrobus

Lungboy wrote: »

..."There are two really glaring flaws in the conclusion that Labour lost the election because the electorate supposedly support ideological austerity. ...

But the survey didn't ask any questions regarding "ideological austerity" (whatever that is), it asked a what people thought about the proposition 'We must live with our means so cutting the deficit is the top priority". Either you believe that cutting the deficit is the top priority, or you don't. It's quite simple really.

Besides, the results of the TCC survey are consistent with the results of the GQRR post election survey, as well as the anecodatal evidence presented in Never Again.

Lungboy wrote: »

..... In fact, Jeremy Corbyn's plan is to cut the deficit by carefully investing in things that create more economic activity than they cost."

And speaking of an "economically meaningless platitude", what kind of twonk would invest in something that generated less eonomic activity than it cost?

martinsurrey

ukcarper wrote: »

That's a prim example of problems and the Wisley site will probably be the same. But saying that environmental and infrastructure concerns need to be considered. You will always get people objecting and if it is just nimbyism they will have to be over over ruled , easier said than done.

exactly my point.

this thread is called "Corbyn promises 'radical reboot' of council house building to tackle housing crisis"

we cant have our cake and eat it, if we want to consider and re consider and over consider everything for 10 years, then we HAVE to accept that house prices will rise and rise and rise as build numbers remain low.

in order to achieve a radical overhaul, you have to deal with the fact that it can take 10years+ to get planning to build on brownfield sites (and greenfield) otherwise you're just making headlines without any substance.

put it in perspective, to get from 120k completions per year (the 12 months to Dec14) to 240k (the accepted number we need) you are talking about 120 developments of the size of the one linked above being approved EVERY year, in addition to what we are already building.

If current speed is maintained (say 10 years from start of planning to first build, and even that is optimistic for a large site), we would need to have 1200 of them in planning already to start ramping up the numbers (and 120 to add next year).

Its crazy.

MS1950

Marktheshark wrote: »

He is an Old school Pro IRA sympathising champaign socialist.
Out further and further in to the wilderness of non electability they will go.

I think you'll find that Corbyn is teetotal.....

Whereas the supposedly 'electable' 'big hope for the future' Chuka Umunna is very much a 'champagne socialist', and seemingly a somewhat arrogant one at that - as shown in this news item from 2013:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2304227/Internet-secrets-jetrosexual-Chuka-Umunna-party-loving-MP-hailed-Labours-Obama.html

Graham_Devon

martinsurrey wrote: »

yes, BUT, if you split those 3.5k houses in to 35 100 unit developments around an area (so different product mix and placement mix), you could sell them a lot faster, but that would require a sea change in planning.

Though in the council house scenario everything you are talking about here is null and void, as you are not selling the houses to anyone.