How we can fix the 'housing crisis'?

marksoton

badmemory wrote: »

Have we reached the stage yet where builders/developers who have owned land with planning permission for over 5 years say, in an area that needs the properties building, should have the land removed from their ownership? Or at a minimum the planning permission removed.

Building the houses is the easy bit.

Getting PP for the related infrastructure takes years, and trust me it's a very painful process.

AdrianC

badmemory wrote: »

Have we reached the stage yet where builders/developers who have owned land with planning permission for over 5 years say, in an area that needs the properties building, should have the land removed from their ownership? Or at a minimum the planning permission removed.

PP already expires if work hasn't started after (IIRC) two years from it being granted.

Cornucopia

AdrianC wrote: »

You seem to be confusing the actual implementation - the building of houses - with the policy as to where those houses could and should go, and what size/style/price range they could and should be.

Not really. There are issues across the board. However, the big builders are holding land with planning permission equivalent to 10 years of their current building rate.

Because people object to those applications.
How many places have you seen massive banners objecting to new developments?
How many petitions like this are there...?
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-woodstock-say-no-to-1200-more-houses

I would plan in the first instance for every county to build one new town (assuming that they have demand in their area). I would aim to site them away from existing towns (and as far as is practicable, villages), and close to existing transport routes. As an example, in my region, I would probably be looking at the area around Bluebell Hill, where HS1 runs close to the M2 and M20.

Planners decide on specific, detailed planning applications. Builders put those applications in.

Those decisions are informed and guided by various documents which carry varying amount of legal weight in saying what is and what is not encouraged - from Neighbourhood Development Plans, Core Strategies and National Planning Frameworks - but the application has to come from a builder.

The NPF says x,000 new houses should be build in our county in the coming decade or so. Our county's CS says that they should be spread between the communities in a certain way. Our village's NDP says that they should be here and here. But until a landowner sells his land to a developer who puts in to build a property there, because he thinks it'll make him money, it ain't going to happen.

Well, yes, that's another part of the problem. TBH, I doubt that chasing around after plots for fewer than 100 homes is ever going to address the huge problems we face in some parts of the country. In fact, I would probably relax planning on small sites to allow smaller developers some advantage, and try to encourage development.

Such as?

Incentivise housing association building? Examine new forms of land leasing and related house tenure? Examine faster/cheaper building technologies? Drive large schemes through planning where the objections are obviously without merit from the outset?

My problem is that I don't want what young people are saying about inter-generational unfairness to be true, but the building industry (planners and builders alike) is letting the side down.

Cornucopia

AdrianC wrote: »

PP already expires if work hasn't started after (IIRC) two years from it being granted.

Another example of part of the problem. The PP needs to continue, but the ownership of the land needs to come under pressure if it is not built upon in a reasonable time-frame.

AdrianC

Cornucopia wrote: »

I would plan in the first instance for every county to build one new town (assuming that they have demand in their area). I would aim to site them away from existing towns (and as far as is practicable, villages), and close to existing transport routes. As an example, in my region, I would probably be looking at the area around Bluebell Hill, where HS1 runs close to the M2 and M20.

I live on the border between Herefordshire and Powys. Any suggestions for those two?

AdrianC

Cornucopia wrote: »

Another example of part of the problem. The PP needs to continue, but the ownership of the land needs to come under pressure if it is not built upon in a reasonable time-frame.

So if you apply for permission, then change your mind - or the market collapses, making it unprofitable - you could find your land confiscated...?

davidmcn

Cornucopia wrote: »

Another example of part of the problem. The PP needs to continue, but the ownership of the land needs to come under pressure if it is not built upon in a reasonable time-frame.

If you mean by compulsory purchase by the council/government, where is the money for that coming from?

Cornucopia

AdrianC wrote: »

I live on the border between Herefordshire and Powys. Any suggestions?

Is there a demand there, and if so, what is the demographic?

It's not a part of the country I know particularly well, so I wouldn't want to make any crass suggestions based on what looks good on a map. Given the lack of rail infrastructure, the choices might be somewhat limited.

Another example location would be north of Cambridge, between the A10 and the rail line near Waterbeach. It looks like there is a disused airfield there, which could also be the basis of a brownfield development site. Cambridge is a good example of a local housing hot-spot away from London.

Cornucopia

davidmcn wrote: »

If you mean by compulsory purchase by the council/government, where is the money for that coming from?

I would probably make it a short-turnaround process. CP followed by immediate auction. The original owner would get the net proceeds or loss at auction. If the owner made significant profits, the Council would have a statutory entitlement to a share.

Bearing in mind that enterprising councils like Portsmouth are buying up property to assist their financial management, I don't think that funding this kind of scheme would be difficult, but I would allow Councils discretion to not touch a particular location if they felt it was too great a risk to public funds.

Cornucopia

AdrianC wrote: »

So if you apply for permission, then change your mind - or the market collapses, making it unprofitable - you could find your land confiscated...?

Why would you want it if it were no longer viable? To keep on the off-chance? That doesn't get homes built.

There are lots of ways to cut this to get to the right incentives to builders - perhaps you limit the forced resale to 20% of the plot each year, for example?