Hammond secures 3 billion for house builders

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

It is surely not beyond the wit of man to come up with a means of allocating land that incentivises housing to be built.

For example - we make the issuance of planning permission for XX thousand houses in certain areas pre-approved so long as it meets basic criteria - not in a flood plain, houses of a certain style/size/type, built within X number of years, etc - and let the market get on with it.

So an individual could buy half an acre at agricultural prices, get planning, run services, build a couple of houses - a council could release 100 acres they owned, subdivide, run services, sell the plots cheaply - a developer could buy 1000 acres and build without having to spend tens of millions on the land.

Radically increase the supply and prices will fall...

padington

The plan seems to be mostly about turning shops into flats and effectively creating a sudden new demand for commercial property.

stator

CLAPTON wrote: »

-how would that help in London ?
-why would a council be good at 'designing' estates
-if the council sells at market value then they would be 'unaffordable'
-in London, the 'original' landowner would be the person you stole -their property from to knock down and redevelop
-there would be no other money

you could take the Aylsbury Estate in Southwark as an example

I forgot to mention
0) Remove all green belt designations and replace with something more sensible (smaller)

We don't actually need more houses in London, if houses were built in the South East it would do just as well since the South East has excellent transport links (current disputes aside)

Councils did a very good job of designing the post WW2 housing estates in cities like Plymouth. Take a look at the satellite photos of 1950s estates and then look at the current Taylor Wimpey matchbox estates.
Green spaces, playing fields, a few shops, BUS ROUTES. All things missing from commercial projects.

CLAPTON

stator wrote: »

I forgot to mention
0) Remove all green belt designations and replace with something more sensible (smaller)

what exactly would they be then

We don't actually need more houses in London, if houses were built in the South East it would do just as well since the South East has excellent transport links (current disputes aside)

delusional

Councils did a very good job of designing the post WW2 housing estates in cities like Plymouth. Take a look at the satellite photos of 1950s estates and then look at the current Taylor Wimpey matchbox estates.
Green spaces, playing fields, a few shops, BUS ROUTES. All things missing from commercial projects.

no idea about Plymouth but if modern estates don't have open spaces it is because local authority force it to be so.

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

It is surely not beyond the wit of man to come up with a means of allocating land that incentivises housing to be built.

For example - we make the issuance of planning permission for XX thousand houses in certain areas pre-approved so long as it meets basic criteria - not in a flood plain, houses of a certain style/size/type, built within X number of years, etc - and let the market get on with it.

presumably this is private property

So an individual could buy half an acre at agricultural prices, get planning, run services, build a couple of houses - a council could release 100 acres they owned, subdivide, run services, sell the plots cheaply - a developer could buy 1000 acres and build without having to spend tens of millions on the land.

how do councils happen to have land they own?

Radically increase the supply and prices will fall...

possibly

ukcarper

stator wrote: »

I forgot to mention
0) Remove all green belt designations and replace with something more sensible (smaller)

We don't actually need more houses in London, if houses were built in the South East it would do just as well since the South East has excellent transport links (current disputes aside)

Councils did a very good job of designing the post WW2 housing estates in cities like Plymouth. Take a look at the satellite photos of 1950s estates and then look at the current Taylor Wimpey matchbox estates.
Green spaces, playing fields, a few shops, BUS ROUTES. All things missing from commercial projects.

Have you ever driven into London in the rush hour or got on train into London in rush hour.

lisyloo

I very much hope the cynicism here is misplaced although I admit that's just a hope.

CLAPTON

2 billion at 250,000 per house (obviously not in London) means 8000 houses over 4 years so 2000 per year
we need at least a 1million so that would take 500 years assuming no further increase in population

nothing cynical just a bit of maths

cells

There is no real need to improve supply much at all outside of primarily London and secondarily the SE

My solution would be to rebuild much of inner London. Some parts like inner east London area are still 60% social homes so more or less 60% of the land can be redeveloped.

A more pragmatic approach is also needed. There are lots of council estates flats in London which really should for example have building heating systems rather than running gas lines and boilers to each and every property. Not only would it be cheaper to install cheaper to maintain cheaper to run but also safer and more reliable.


I would like to see almost all of the old council estates in Hackney/Islington/Tower Hamlets knocked down and rebuilt at 3x the density. Those areas are close enough to walk/cycle to the city/Westminster which are the two biggest employment hubs in London and you can walk there so there would be no large transport stress. Generally its working age who would live there so less stress on schools or hospitals too. The other inner London zone2 boroughs would probably need the same but I am less familiar with them.

At the same time when rebuilding at 3x the density the properties should be no more than 1/3 council so although the number of council properties stays the same the ridiculous situation where 60% of the households are social of which 60% dont work falls towards 20% of the households in the area.

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

There is no real need to improve supply much at all outside of primarily London and secondarily the SE

My solution would be to rebuild much of inner London. Some parts like inner east London area are still 60% social homes so more or less 60% of the land can be redeveloped.

A more pragmatic approach is also needed. There are lots of council estates flats in London which really should for example have building heating systems rather than running gas lines and boilers to each and every property. Not only would it be cheaper to install cheaper to maintain cheaper to run but also safer and more reliable.


I would like to see almost all of the old council estates in Hackney/Islington/Tower Hamlets knocked down and rebuilt at 3x the density. Those areas are close enough to walk/cycle to the city/Westminster which are the two biggest employment hubs in London and you can walk there so there would be no large transport stress. Generally its working age who would live there so less stress on schools or hospitals too. The other inner London zone2 boroughs would probably need the same but I am less familiar with them.

At the same time when rebuilding at 3x the density the properties should be no more than 1/3 council so although the number of council properties stays the same the ridiculous situation where 60% of the households are social of which 60% dont work falls towards 20% of the households in the area.

once we leave th EU and repeal HR act then this might become possible