[Kizzy]

Thats what I thought when I heard that the government have given the green light to 75,000 new homes.
Quote:
''Removing restrictions on house builders to help unlock 75 000 homes currently stalled due to sites being commercially unviable. Developers who can prove that council’s costly affordable housing requirements make the project unviable will see them removed''

What doe this quote mean to you?..
that they can build the houses on the cheap is what I saw.
Are they suggesting prefabs or less energy efficient housing? Why would they not fulfill local councils requirements?

Hmm, I am very wary of this idea, wheres marc when you need him?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/blo...-politics-live

[fruit_cake]

we need less buy-to-let landlords not more homes, in my opinion.

[Omah]

Relaxed planning laws = bad building extensions, more speculation and less housing for those in desperate need.

The fundamental problem is not the planning system or Section 106 agreements for much needed affordable housing, it is the lack of confidence and demand in the economy, slashed public investment and the government’s failing economic plan.

The Local Government Association says it is a "myth" that the planning system was stopping house-building.

It released figures which show a backlog of 400,000 prospective homes which have planning permission but have not yet been built. It says these "conclusively prove" the planning system is not holding back development.

After a Budget for millionaires, spreading panic at the pumps, donor scandals followed by access scandals with News Corporation, the failure of Lords reform and boundary changes, and a reshuffle which changed nothing but the faces, we have this latest Tory farrago.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Omah

Relaxed planning laws = bad building extensions, more speculation and less housing for those in desperate need.

The fundamental problem is not the planning system or Section 106 agreements for much needed affordable housing, it is the lack of confidence and demand in the economy, slashed public investment and the government’s failing economic plan.

The Local Government Association says it is a "myth" that the planning system was stopping house-building.

It released figures which show a backlog of 400,000 prospective homes which have planning permission but have not yet been built. It says these "conclusively prove" the planning system is not holding back development.

After a Budget for millionaires, spreading panic at the pumps, donor scandals followed by access scandals with News Corporation, the failure of Lords reform and boundary changes, and a reshuffle which changed nothing but the faces, we have this latest Tory farrago.

As a degree assignment I had to study urbanisation in the UK (boooring) anyhoo, during research I remember reading something about private enterprise was only allowed to build a certain percentage of housing at a time in relation to council housing.

[Kizzy]

To me it smacks again of when Thatcher opened the right to buy, 1000's did and then lost their homes due to repossession.
This was front page of our local paper....
QUOTE:
''Leeds City Council is backing local first-time home buyers to the tune of £2m in a pioneering scheme to help them get mortgages.''

How would councils who bleat about a lack of funding suddenly magic 2Mill to underwrite morgages?...If you default and the home is repossessed do the council sell the house, or does it become a council house?...It is very odd!

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.u...yers-1-4897715

[Omah]

• Up to15,000 affordable homes and bring 5,000 empty homes back into use using new capital funding of £300m and the infrastructure guarantee

• 16,500 first-time buyers helped with a £280m extension of the successful ‘FirstBuy’ scheme, which offers aspiring homeowners a much-needed deposit and a crucial first step on the housing ladder.

Don'tcha just love it when the Tories "talk" money .....

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Omah

Don'tcha just love it when the Tories "talk" money .....

There is to be :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19496204

A new bill to provide £40bn in government guarantees to underwrite major infrastructure projects and £10bn to underwrite the construction of new homes.

It appears that the Tories are printing money again (see Quantitative easing) .....

[fruit_cake]

I seem to remember Tory Michael Heseltine objecting to the Lib Dems mansion tax by claiming that it was normal for people to own a £1million home in London, and was a tax on ordinary people.

[Omah]

LGA media release 6 September 2012

http://www.local.gov.uk/web/guest/me.../NEWS-TEMPLATE

New research published today by the Local Government Association reveals a bumper building backlog of 400,000 new homes which have received planning permission but have not yet been completed, with building yet to start on more than half of approved plots.

At the current rate of construction it would take developers three-and-a-quarter years to clear the backlog by building all of the new homes local authorities have signed off.

Meanwhile, government figures show that councils are more positive towards development than ever, with the overall percentage of planning applications being given the green light by local authorities hitting a ten year record high last year.

The figures also show that the time taken by developers to complete work on site has increased by several months since the credit crunch, with the longest taking nearly nine years from permission being granted to homes being built.

Sir Merrick Cockell, Chairman of the LGA, said:

"These figures conclusively prove that local authorities are overwhelmingly saying ‘yes' to new development and should finally lay to rest the myth that the lack of new homes being built is the fault of the planning system.

"Even if planning departments did not receive another new home application for the next three years, there are sufficient approved developments ready to go to last until 2016 at the current rate of construction.

"Councils are also playing their part to unlock stalled sites by contributing land and assets, forming partnerships with developers and overwhelmingly saying ‘yes' to growth through the planning system.

"To get Britain building again we need to address the lack of liquidity in the finance market and tackle the shortage of mortgages for struggling first time buyers. The planning system has been massively reformed under this government and it is clear that unlocking frustrated demand, not increasing supply, is now the most urgent problem in the housing market today."

The research provides findings from an analysis of unimplemented housing permission commissioned by the LGA and undertaken by Glenigan using data sourced in March 2012.

It gives the most detailed picture to date of the state of the nation's homebuilding construction industry.

The data compiled in the report shows that:
• In 2011/12 an estimated 2,536 schemes obtained planning permission, totalling 135,179 potential homes.
• There were 399,816 unbuilt homes with planning permission on 31 December 2011. Building work had yet to start on 52 per cent of the uncompleted developments.
• The average time taken for a development to progress to completion having obtaining planning permission has lengthened from 20 months in 2007/08 to 25 months in 2011/12. One development completed last year came 8.75 years after planning permission was granted.

Councils are now calling on Government to focus efforts to boost housing growth on freeing up finance for developers and increasing the availability of mortgages for would- be home owners struggling to get on the housing ladder.

Sir Merrick added:

"The housing crisis means that we should be exploiting all avenues possible to bring forward high quality, locally appropriate development. Measures to unlock finance and reinvigorate demand should be coupled with moves to enable councils, with their strong balance sheets, to invest further and faster in the homes we desperately need.

"The Government should relax the restrictions on council borrowing so that they can pay for the construction of new homes and upgrade their existing properties, improving standards and bringing unusable properties back into use."

[Kizzy]

''5,000 empty homes back into use''

Only 5,000!
With the amount of abandoned social housing in serious disrepair this figure is laughable!

[Omah]

Originally Posted by kizzy

''5,000 empty homes back into use''

Only 5,000!
With the amount of abandoned social housing in serious disrepair this figure is laughable!

Exactly ..... another Tory attempt at obfuscation with a spit in the wind .....

[Kizzy]

''Thousands of big commercial and residential applications to be directed to a major infrastructure fast track and where councils are poor developers can opt to have their decision taken by the Planning Inspectorate.''

Roughly translated... If the council say no we can go to the 'planning inspectorate' AKA tory quango and they will say yes.

''patrickwintour: For housing bores. In nov 2011 said councils shd be forced to review all sect 106 agreements made prior to April 2010. Today goes further.''

Yes housing is a bore, unless you don't have a roof over your head....

[arista]

More houses/homes built
or converted is a Good Thing.

I am all for it
Dave and Nick.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by arista

More houses/homes built
or converted is a Good Thing.

I am all for it
Dave and Nick.

Yes, as a prospect it sounds brill, untill you start asking who, what, where, when and why now?....

[Omah]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19496204

Outrageous
Allowing people to build extensions without permission is a recipe for disaster!
People who have had planning permission refused for very good reasons, and people who had not even applied because they knew they stood no chance, will be rubbing their hands with glee.
Meawhile, thousands of peoples' lives will be ruined by having inappropriate structures built next to their properties.

bewickt
19 Minutes ago
I don't understand how "relaxing" the planning regulations on builidng an extension is going to benefit those who need affordable housing. It's going to attract cowboy builders no doubt and give free rein to those intent on spoiling views/removing privacy/removing sunshine from neighbouirs gardens. This opens the door to property bullies.

shillo
Just now
Rules that do nothing but make it easier for developers and increase overcrowding.
Inner city housing is crowded and all the change rules on extensions does is exacerbate this situation.
The green belt rules purely make it easier for developers to develop green fiedd sites instead of taking the time or spending money to make brown field sites safe.

Dragonwight
2 Minutes ago
Im beginning to think the tories have morphed into the republicans this is bonkers.Do they think a rush at B&Q is going to dig us out of this hole? the one they made deeper when they took office. And can you imagine the disputes that will arise between neighbours. Seriously if this is it maybe they should step down or have an election because their out of ideas.

Harry Lime
5 Minutes ago
It's a cowboy's charter. If the planning people don't know what's being built, then neither does the building inspector or the tax man. Still the Tories don't care about collecting taxes do they, otherwise they wouldn't have sacked half the tax collectors.

[Marc]

-feels like you want me to post loads- but all I can really say is, in the current economic climate, builders don't want to build because of the insecurity around developments and profits; they're in it for one reason and that's money, they don't care what sort of homes should be delivered etc. that's for the planning consultees and local authorities to determine.

Developers don't think they can get money from AH units, and they're right, it's common knowledge that they'd rather be developing homes that profit them more. However this news isn't too good for councils who practically have to fight to help house a lot of people in affordable homes. But at the end of the day to help house some of these people councils and government need to appeal to the builders, and it seems that currently it might be the best option for them to negotiate with builders to actually deliver. More homes with little AH units is better than no AH at all or very slowly built homes that get tied up in the planning system

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Marc

-feels like you want me to post loads- but all I can really say is, in the current economic climate, builders don't want to build because of the insecurity around developments and profits; they're in it for one reason and that's money, they don't care what sort of homes should be delivered etc. that's for the planning consultees and local authorities to determine.

Developers don't think they can get money from AH units, and they're right, it's common knowledge that they'd rather be developing homes that profit them more. However this news isn't too good for councils who practically have to fight to help house a lot of people in affordable homes. But at the end of the day to help house some of these people councils and government need to appeal to the builders, and it seems that currently it might be the best option for them to negotiate with builders to actually deliver. More homes with little AH units is better than no AH at all or very slowly built homes that get tied up in the planning system

Thankyou for commenting mark
Thats what I thought. they will want to minimise costs and maximise profits, and to stay within the remit of laocal authority regulations something has to give...
Would you say these proposals will therefore see a reduction in standards required to build AH?

Would it not be better to again have local authority builders than outside contractors for such projects, why does there always have to be someone creaming profits?

[Marc]

However the relaxation on planning extensions w/o planning permission doesn't seem good on a local level and most councils would probably think its a bad thing personally but for their work load etc. it would help

[Kizzy]

http://www.socialism.org.uk/socialism21/ch2.htm

''In the first six months of 2000 the pre-tax profits of Laing, the building firm, rose by 70%. The increase was largely due to its involvement in Private Finance Initiatives (PFI – the government’s favourite privatisation scheme). Serco, the facilities and contracting managing group, saw a 13% rise in its profits in the first six months of 2000. It openly explains that this is due to "the increasing shift by government to use private funding for public infrastructure". What this means is that ever increasing amounts of taxpayers' money are going into the bank accounts of private companies instead of into public services.''

Why is this name everywhere and yet nobody knows who they are....