UK Housing Policy - an intractable mess?
Discussion
I drove down the A127 (a very busy arterial dual carriageway from Essex into London) about 15 miles outside of London today and saw a brand new modern looking block of flats with balconies over looking the road today and it made ne think.
Is this what we want from our planning policy - cramming ever smaller units into the least desirable plots without building any new infrastructure or amenities, whilst prices continue to rise?
White does it end?
I really think it's tome for some New Towns a la Milton Keynes rather than this endless cramming of tiny units into unsuitable plots in and around existing heavily built up towns and villages.
Is this what we want from our planning policy - cramming ever smaller units into the least desirable plots without building any new infrastructure or amenities, whilst prices continue to rise?
White does it end?
I really think it's tome for some New Towns a la Milton Keynes rather than this endless cramming of tiny units into unsuitable plots in and around existing heavily built up towns and villages.
Such poorly sited developments are no doubt due to the obsession with building on "brownfield" sites.
Building on previously developed land, where it is situated where people might want to live, is desirable, but has a significant flaw as a blanket approach.
The whole planning system is basically broken in this country and has been, and getting worse, for some time. It needs a complete rethink from the ground up.
South Korea is another densely populated country and the government has put in place a state land bank to try and deal with housing issues and cost of housing.
How this would work in a British context is the government would identify a greenfield site suitable for development. They would then buy the land at its current value, whether that be as agricultural land, or woodland etc. They would then grant themselves planning permission and sell sub plots of the land with planning permission to developers. The planning "gain" would then be used to build roads, schools and other public infrastructure and compensate local residents if required.
Building on previously developed land, where it is situated where people might want to live, is desirable, but has a significant flaw as a blanket approach.
The whole planning system is basically broken in this country and has been, and getting worse, for some time. It needs a complete rethink from the ground up.
South Korea is another densely populated country and the government has put in place a state land bank to try and deal with housing issues and cost of housing.
How this would work in a British context is the government would identify a greenfield site suitable for development. They would then buy the land at its current value, whether that be as agricultural land, or woodland etc. They would then grant themselves planning permission and sell sub plots of the land with planning permission to developers. The planning "gain" would then be used to build roads, schools and other public infrastructure and compensate local residents if required.
JagLover said:
Such poorly sited developments are no doubt due to the obsession with building on "brownfield" sites.
Building on previously developed land, where it is situated where people might want to live, is desirable, but has a significant flaw as a blanket approach.
The whole planning system is basically broken in this country and has been, and getting worse, for some time. It needs a complete rethink from the ground up.
South Korea is another densely populated country and the government has put in place a state land bank to try and deal with housing issues and cost of housing.
How this would work in a British context is the government would identify a greenfield site suitable for development. [b]They would then buy the land at its current value, whether that be as agricultural land, or woodland etc. They would then grant themselves planning permission and sell sub plots of the land with planning permission to developers. The planning "gain" would then be used to build roads, schools and other public infrastructure and compensate local residents if required[/]
Which would only work if it was government land in the first place. If that was your “agricultural” or “woodland”, and e government wanted to buy it for a new town, you’d never sell it at agricultural value unless you were completely nuts! You’d get your solicitor to whack a massive overage clause into the contract. If anyone can afford to cough up the overage then it’s the government! Building on previously developed land, where it is situated where people might want to live, is desirable, but has a significant flaw as a blanket approach.
The whole planning system is basically broken in this country and has been, and getting worse, for some time. It needs a complete rethink from the ground up.
South Korea is another densely populated country and the government has put in place a state land bank to try and deal with housing issues and cost of housing.
How this would work in a British context is the government would identify a greenfield site suitable for development. [b]They would then buy the land at its current value, whether that be as agricultural land, or woodland etc. They would then grant themselves planning permission and sell sub plots of the land with planning permission to developers. The planning "gain" would then be used to build roads, schools and other public infrastructure and compensate local residents if required[/]
come to Australia - we really love that kind of s
t here.
https://goo.gl/maps/GBV7iyAX2iNBBTRv7
https://goo.gl/maps/zWaWhjSeJq1XTuwG6
That's just two straight off the top of my head.
t here.https://goo.gl/maps/GBV7iyAX2iNBBTRv7
https://goo.gl/maps/zWaWhjSeJq1XTuwG6
That's just two straight off the top of my head.
We seem to be getting new build 2.5bed semis built on estates in small villages with no provision for the extra strain on schools, doctors or infrastructure generally.
Added bonus is that many of these are quite rural and new occupants require cars to get around but the estates are built to discourage cars so their is cock all parking and narrow access roads.
The bus service is almost useless here if you actually need to work and the last village shop closed years ago and is now also a house.
Oh, and because it is far south west a 2 1/2 bed hobbit house costs over half a million, in many cases 600ish !
Prices driven up by people coming to escape cities.
Added bonus is that many of these are quite rural and new occupants require cars to get around but the estates are built to discourage cars so their is cock all parking and narrow access roads.
The bus service is almost useless here if you actually need to work and the last village shop closed years ago and is now also a house.
Oh, and because it is far south west a 2 1/2 bed hobbit house costs over half a million, in many cases 600ish !
Prices driven up by people coming to escape cities.
TeaNoSugar said:
JagLover said:
Such poorly sited developments are no doubt due to the obsession with building on "brownfield" sites.
Building on previously developed land, where it is situated where people might want to live, is desirable, but has a significant flaw as a blanket approach.
The whole planning system is basically broken in this country and has been, and getting worse, for some time. It needs a complete rethink from the ground up.
South Korea is another densely populated country and the government has put in place a state land bank to try and deal with housing issues and cost of housing.
How this would work in a British context is the government would identify a greenfield site suitable for development. [b]They would then buy the land at its current value, whether that be as agricultural land, or woodland etc. They would then grant themselves planning permission and sell sub plots of the land with planning permission to developers. The planning "gain" would then be used to build roads, schools and other public infrastructure and compensate local residents if required[/]
Which would only work if it was government land in the first place. If that was your “agricultural” or “woodland”, and e government wanted to buy it for a new town, you’d never sell it at agricultural value unless you were completely nuts! You’d get your solicitor to whack a massive overage clause into the contract. If anyone can afford to cough up the overage then it’s the government! Building on previously developed land, where it is situated where people might want to live, is desirable, but has a significant flaw as a blanket approach.
The whole planning system is basically broken in this country and has been, and getting worse, for some time. It needs a complete rethink from the ground up.
South Korea is another densely populated country and the government has put in place a state land bank to try and deal with housing issues and cost of housing.
How this would work in a British context is the government would identify a greenfield site suitable for development. [b]They would then buy the land at its current value, whether that be as agricultural land, or woodland etc. They would then grant themselves planning permission and sell sub plots of the land with planning permission to developers. The planning "gain" would then be used to build roads, schools and other public infrastructure and compensate local residents if required[/]
Land owned by House builder close to the village centre but without planning, compulsory purchased by local authority. Local authority relocated playing fields from the edge of the village to central site. Approved development of old playing field and sold for massive overage.
Developer took them to court, and lost. Massive win for rate payer.
The thing is, there isn't a housing shortage. There are plenty for sale.
The issue is that housing for many is simply not affordable. Hence the whacky con of getting people to think they own a house by partaking in a shared ownership scheme in new-build, with all the other charges that come with the same, and still not really owning the house.
We're also at the mercy of a handful of developers who build the most uninspiring properties, the fat cats at the top of which would never dream of living in any of the properties they churn out.
I'm thinking Keepmoat, Taylor Wimpey, Persimmon, Redrow (amongst others).
But hey, if they can squeeze a few hundred properties into a brownfield site as close to the M25 as possible and flog them for maximum profit then why not?
The issue is that housing for many is simply not affordable. Hence the whacky con of getting people to think they own a house by partaking in a shared ownership scheme in new-build, with all the other charges that come with the same, and still not really owning the house.
We're also at the mercy of a handful of developers who build the most uninspiring properties, the fat cats at the top of which would never dream of living in any of the properties they churn out.
I'm thinking Keepmoat, Taylor Wimpey, Persimmon, Redrow (amongst others).
But hey, if they can squeeze a few hundred properties into a brownfield site as close to the M25 as possible and flog them for maximum profit then why not?
rover 623gsi said:
There is definitely a housing shortage. We need to get over the obsession of protecting the green belt - most of which is nothing special.
There is tons of brown field sites, non need to attack green spaces.
With retail moving more to online, just those shops and warehouses amount to huge supply of land along with disused factories.
Developers want green belt as its cheaper for them.
Edited by hyphen on Sunday 16th January 09:22
Where I am all the house building (and there is a lot!) is on agricultural land. A lot of it on “grade one” agricultural land.
Awful housing estates, management companies and service charges, no infrastructure, houses on top of houses, local services stretched, and so on. Short term planning, driven by profiteering.
Are we supposed to just get over that and wave goodbye, forever, to our prime agricultural land? In the face of what seems to be growing geopolitical uncertainty?
Awful housing estates, management companies and service charges, no infrastructure, houses on top of houses, local services stretched, and so on. Short term planning, driven by profiteering.
Are we supposed to just get over that and wave goodbye, forever, to our prime agricultural land? In the face of what seems to be growing geopolitical uncertainty?
menousername said:
Where I am all the house building (and there is a lot!) is on agricultural land. A lot of it on “grade one” agricultural land.
Awful housing estates, management companies and service charges, no infrastructure, houses on top of houses, local services stretched, and so on. Short term planning, driven by profiteering.
Are we supposed to just get over that and wave goodbye, forever, to our prime agricultural land? In the face of what seems to be growing geopolitical uncertainty?
Houses need to be built to meet population growth and new household formation. Awful housing estates, management companies and service charges, no infrastructure, houses on top of houses, local services stretched, and so on. Short term planning, driven by profiteering.
Are we supposed to just get over that and wave goodbye, forever, to our prime agricultural land? In the face of what seems to be growing geopolitical uncertainty?
If insufficient housing is built then housing becomes too expensive and also people are in housing too small for their needs. This has been the story of the past couple of decades. The single biggest determining factor of standard of living is size and quality of housing.
Despite all the housebuilding that has been going on the total stock of housing per 1,000 of the population has been trending downwards in recent years and that is a nationwide figure and does not differentiate between areas where there is tremendous demand on housing and areas where entire streets are virtually worthless.
Brownfield land can be the solution in some areas but all too often it is situated where people should not be expected to live, such as besides a busy motorway or dual carriageway.
Edited by JagLover on Sunday 16th January 10:30
rover 623gsi said:
There is definitely a housing shortage. We need to get over the obsession of protecting the green belt - most of which is nothing special.
Assume green belt is massively built upon. We'd still end up with same situation as on brownfield. I.e. loads more legoland homes built by the same companies that are still priced beyond the reach of many. The property listings are always plentiful, so that indicates that there is no shortage. It's affordable housing (particularly in desirable areas) that there isn't enough of: many cheap houses are still available but if you've a job in London or a major city, or if you're of a particular class then the thought of a cheap terraced house in a decaying town isn't going to be what you want. Ergo renting, raiding your nan's savings or scraping every last penny for a 25% share in a 60m2 'mews' style terrace with (assuming you're lucky enough) a driveway not barely wide enough for a Toyota IQ in order to live where you'd prefer are the only options.
Edited by captain.scarlet on Sunday 16th January 12:02
there's approx 25 million private dwellings in the UK and the total is being increased by about 0.5% a year so the chances of the green belt being massively upon is pretty remote.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41901297#:~:text=Ord...
Ordnance Survey data suggests that all the buildings in the UK - houses, shops, offices, factories, greenhouses - cover 1.4% of the total land surface. Looking at England alone, the figure still rises to only 2%.
Buildings cover less of Britain than the land revealed when the tide goes out.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41901297#:~:text=Ord...
Ordnance Survey data suggests that all the buildings in the UK - houses, shops, offices, factories, greenhouses - cover 1.4% of the total land surface. Looking at England alone, the figure still rises to only 2%.
Buildings cover less of Britain than the land revealed when the tide goes out.
s2kjock said:
Are developers not forced to make large contributions to infrastructure as part of the planning process in England and Wales?
Section 106 agreements.There is no guarantee it will be adequate or actually spent on the infrastructure needed. It seems rare these days for example for a new road to be built following these developments.
JagLover said:
s2kjock said:
Are developers not forced to make large contributions to infrastructure as part of the planning process in England and Wales?
Section 106 agreements.There is no guarantee it will be adequate or actually spent on the infrastructure needed. It seems rare these days for example for a new road to be built following these developments.
Community infrastructure levy (Known as CIL) is also a common way of securing contributions to a larger pot.. which has to be spent on the infrastructure identity by the planning authority.
What I always thought the UK lacked was densification. Our cities seem to sprawl rather than being properly vertically developed.
As a result Greater London has a population density of 7,700 residents per square mile whereas a well planned city like Barcelona has a population density of over 40,000 people per square mile. We just seem to have a strong preference for more geographically dispersed cities.
As a result Greater London has a population density of 7,700 residents per square mile whereas a well planned city like Barcelona has a population density of over 40,000 people per square mile. We just seem to have a strong preference for more geographically dispersed cities.
speedy_thrills said:
What I always thought the UK lacked was densification. Our cities seem to sprawl rather than being properly vertically developed.
As a result Greater London has a population density of 7,700 residents per square mile whereas a well planned city like Barcelona has a population density of over 40,000 people per square mile. We just seem to have a strong preference for more geographically dispersed cities.
Our inner suburbs are quite different from a lot of places, sAs a result Greater London has a population density of 7,700 residents per square mile whereas a well planned city like Barcelona has a population density of over 40,000 people per square mile. We just seem to have a strong preference for more geographically dispersed cities.
tty terraces and converted flats rather than 4 story apartment buildings found elsewhere.NerveAgent said:
speedy_thrills said:
What I always thought the UK lacked was densification. Our cities seem to sprawl rather than being properly vertically developed.
As a result Greater London has a population density of 7,700 residents per square mile whereas a well planned city like Barcelona has a population density of over 40,000 people per square mile. We just seem to have a strong preference for more geographically dispersed cities.
Our inner suburbs are quite different from a lot of places, sAs a result Greater London has a population density of 7,700 residents per square mile whereas a well planned city like Barcelona has a population density of over 40,000 people per square mile. We just seem to have a strong preference for more geographically dispersed cities.
tty terraces and converted flats rather than 4 story apartment buildings found elsewhere.rodericb said:
come to Australia - we really love that kind of st here.
https://goo.gl/maps/GBV7iyAX2iNBBTRv7
https://goo.gl/maps/zWaWhjSeJq1XTuwG6
That's just two straight off the top of my head.
Depressing to learn that's it's not just happening in the UK. t here.https://goo.gl/maps/GBV7iyAX2iNBBTRv7
https://goo.gl/maps/zWaWhjSeJq1XTuwG6
That's just two straight off the top of my head.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff