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

martinsurrey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

I think you'll find the council wont get planning for 100% affordable, its against planning policy, something about social integration. So they would be forced by their own rules to build private,and even if they did, look what happened to the estates they built in the 60's, a fair few are being knocked down now and rebuild as mixed developments as they became rather undesirable .

and the logistics of building that many houses at once would push the build cost sky high, so while selling wouldn't be a bottle neck, building would.

ukcarper

martinsurrey wrote: »

I think you'll find the council wont get planning for 100% affordable, its against planning policy, something about social integration. So they would be forced by their own rules to build private.

and the logistics of building that many houses at once would push the build cost sky high, so while selling wouldn't be a bottle neck, building would.

I suppose in the unlikely event that we have a Corbyn lead Labour government that could be overcome.

martinsurrey

ukcarper wrote: »

I suppose in the unlikely event that we have a Corbyn lead Labour government that could be overcome.

Yup, which is the planning overhaul, I've been banging on about since my first post... but why hasn't he released his plans on this? because he's got none, or he knows the politics of it would sink him.

Graham_Devon

martinsurrey wrote: »

I think you'll find the council wont get planning for 100% affordable, its against planning policy, something about social integration. So they would be forced by their own rules to build private,and even if they did, look what happened to the estates they built in the 60's, a fair few are being knocked down now and rebuild as mixed developments as they became rather undesirable .

and the logistics of building that many houses at once would push the build cost sky high, so while selling wouldn't be a bottle neck, building would.

Governments make new legislation all the time.

As for the 60's, we don't have to do everything exactly the same again. Cars were unsafe then, we progress, we learn and we change how we do things.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all your answers on this thread have us going down the path of "we can't do anything other than what we already do today".

You state planning will free up the house builders to build build build en masse, but if anyone else puts a suggestion foreward, building en masse is uneconomic and fraught with issues.

Maybe the underlying issue is you don't care for council housing? That's fine and I respect that opinion.

ukcarper

martinsurrey wrote: »

Yup, which is the planning overhaul, I've been banging on about since my first post... but why hasn't he released his plans on this? because he's got none, or he knows the politics of it would sink him.

To be fair I don't think anybody have any plans that would prove effective.

Mistermeaner

Relax planning, demand and money exists. Building capacity will increase, not instantly but it will. Expect foreign companies to express interest and also more smaller medium developers - major barrier to entry at the moment is the time and capital that is tied up in the planning process which prevents smaller entrants from competing.

It really is as simple as taking the shackles off the planning and private industry will flex to markets forces.

Even if for whatever reason, and there is none, the government had a magic recipe of design, access to materials, a brilliant way of cheapli employtng lots of skilled labour and the project management skills to optimise it all (which it doesn't) then they would still come acropper on planning.

This is without even discussing exactly how all this will be finances.

It's the same principles of nationalising stuff which that idiot Burnham has now jumped on the band wagon of. Why would the government with all its inefficiency, expensive labour, slow decision making, dated thinking, bureaucratic process, politics and public accountability be better at delivery of anything than private industry governed by market forces?

Corbyn policy is really appealling to the ideological, stuck in time warp, uninformed minority. He won't get in.

ukcarper

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Relax planning, demand and money exists. Building capacity will increase, not instantly but it will. Expect foreign companies to express interest and also more smaller medium developers - major barrier to entry at the moment is the time and capital that is tied up in the planning process which prevents smaller entrants from competing.

It really is as simple as taking the shackles off the planning and private industry will flex to markets forces.

Even if for whatever reason, and there is none, the government had a magic recipe of design, access to materials, a brilliant way of cheapli employtng lots of skilled labour and the project management skills to optimise it all (which it doesn't) then they would still come acropper on planning.

This is without even discussing exactly how all this will be finances.

It's the same principles of nationalising stuff which that idiot Burnham has now jumped on the band wagon of. Why would the government with all its inefficiency, expensive labour, slow decision making, dated thinking, bureaucratic process, politics and public accountability be better at delivery of anything than private industry governed by market forces?

Corbyn policy is really appealling to the ideological, stuck in time warp, uninformed minority. He won't get in.

I think you have much to much faith the market and I'm not sure the money to buy that much property is available .

martinsurrey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Governments make new legislation all the time.

As for the 60's, we don't have to do everything exactly the same again. Cars were unsafe then, we progress, we learn and we change how we do things.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all your answers on this thread have us going down the path of "we can't do anything other than what we already do today".

You state planning will free up the house builders to build build build en masse, but if anyone else puts a suggestion foreward, building en masse is uneconomic and fraught with issues.

Maybe the underlying issue is you don't care for council housing? That's fine and I respect that opinion.

no, I would say that all of my answers here have been along the lines of, building en masse is currently throttled by the planning situation as it exists, and that I don't believe any party has a credible solution to ease it. Which makes Corbyns "radical reboot" as its been announced an empty promise.

I would be happy if someone (anyone) put their neck out and suggested a solution that addresses this fundamental issue, as the current status quo of sub par numbers of builds and increasing prices will carry on until someone does, and that, I don't like.

but its not exactly an easy subject for a mainstream party to take a hold of, as everyone in the UK knows we need to build many many more houses, but just not near them, or on anything green, or near any historic towns, and the politician that say "we will build what we need, where we need to regardless of NIMBYism" will be shot down rather quickly, but its an issue that's going to have to be tackled sometime,but until then we'll struggle to get up to 180k houses, let alone 240k...

missbiggles1

martinsurrey wrote: »

no, I would say that all of my answers here have been along the lines of, building en masse is currently throttled by the planning situation as it exists, and that I don't believe any party has a credible solution to ease it. Which makes Corbyns "radical reboot" as its been announced an empty promise.

I would be happy if someone (anyone) put their neck out and suggested a solution that addresses this fundamental issue, as the current status quo of sub par numbers of builds and increasing prices will carry on until someone does, and that, I don't like.

but its not exactly an easy subject for a mainstream party to take a hold of, as everyone in the UK knows we need to build many many more houses, but just not near them, or on anything green, or near any historic towns, and the politician that say "we will build what we need, where we need to regardless of NIMBYism" will be shot down rather quickly, but its an issue that's going to have to be tackled sometime,but until then we'll struggle to get up to 180k houses, let alone 240k...

We need to build many more homes, not houses. There'll always be a shortage of property if we carry on insisting that mainly houses should be built and we'll concrete over far more countryside in the process.

martinsurrey

missbiggles1 wrote: »

We need to build many more homes, not houses. There'll always be a shortage of property if we carry on insisting that mainly houses should be built and we'll concrete over far more countryside in the process.

This post is exactly the kind of post I would expect from a politician on the subject!

score points on the minor detail or wording, while avoiding the real content on how to get the numbers up, just kick it into the long grass.