Rachel Reeves announcements.

[mickd1961]

I must admit it was nice to feel some energy today at her press conference.

Words are easy of course and action is far harder to achieve but nevertheless.

Some of the changes such as building on the green belt may well have a direct impact on me personally because I live next to a field which is prime real estate for any builder and it’s recently been sold.

That would be a bummer from a personal view but the reality is that there’s been too much knocking back of planning over such a long period of time.

I had a nightmare with Dudley Council when I tried to get planning for six starter homes on some rough brownfield site I owned.

The single objector had mates on the Council and the appeal was a horrible process that I won 4-3 on the vote but the self interest and the matey attitude towards the objector by a couple of the councillors was disgraceful, they are supposed to recluse themselves from voting if they know the objector.

Back to Reeves though, although her voice grates on me I thought she made a good start.

The Tories spent a lot of the past 14 years doing nothing.

Onshore wind turbine to be allowed again is another great move.

I’ll give anyone a chance so from me it’s a positive first glimpse of the Chancellor on growth projects.

[Q165]

Increased housebuilding is not as straightforward as seems to be made out. The problem occurs not with planners but with the house builders themselves. It used to be the case that when planning permission was granted for development there was a 5 year limit within which this had to be taken up otherwise the permission would lapse. This was later reduced to 3 years. A pretty common occurance was for house builders to obtain permission but not necessarily implement the development. They would very often build up land banks and wait until circumstances were most favourable for them to build. If a planning permission has not been implemented it is a relatively straightforward process to extend the time limit within which it can be taken up. Developers are not at all obliged to build. It is their choice. Having housing targets is OK but even when areas and numbers are identified, set down and agreed it does not guarantee that building will actually take place

[mickd1961]

Increased housebuilding is not as straightforward as seems to be made out. The problem occurs not with planners but with the house builders themselves. It used to be the case that when planning permission was granted for development there was a 5 year limit within which this had to be taken up otherwise the permission would lapse. This was later reduced to 3 years. A pretty common occurance was for house builders to obtain permission but not necessarily implement the development. They would very often build up land banks and wait until circumstances were most favourable for them to build. If a planning permission has not been implemented it is a relatively straightforward process to extend the time limit within which it can be taken up. Developers are not at all obliged to build. It is their choice. Having housing targets is OK but even when areas and numbers are identified, set down and agreed it does not guarantee that building will actually take place

Land banking is a real problem Q.

I sold some brownfield land along with planning permission for 6 starter homes 6 years ago and still the land sits untouched and in a now terrible state.

The developer who bought it has messed around with trying to increase density and can’t get his plans passed.

I wished I kept it now because the £155k I sold it for I could by now have afforded to have built and sold the houses myself at a good profit.

Reeves has got her work cut out but if she gets legislation passed to allow her or Rayner to overrule local councils it would help.

Land banking needs to be stopped, a penalty of 50% of the lands value should be charged for every year after the first year where building has not taken place.

[baggieal]

Alright talking about house building but infrastructure needs to come first - improved roads - more schools - more hospitals - doctors - prisons etc. House builders who coin it in should pay a percentage towards infrastructure as why should councils pay it when they have no money. Too many new build developments slapped up without any thought of infrastructure.

More of an incentive for first time young buyers to get on the housing ladder would be nice so perhaps taxing those more with multiple properties. As my elderly mother in law said - I fear for the younger generation. I am sure property prices were not ridiculous - salary/property price - when Sir Wooden Keir bought his first property after enjoying a free university experience!

[kettering_baggie]

New houses are being thrown up everywhere, I really wonder why they are all needed, most of them are not homes for first time buyers or social housing. There should be no building on green belt land. How many of all these houses that we are told that are required are destined for immigrants? Stop most immigration and surely there will be less of a need for these ticky tack throw ups?

[Lindenbaggie]

Plenty of people with 3 bedroom houses who want to downsize to a little bungalow, but they're not there. We just want a little bathroom, Kitchen, living and bedroom. An updated version of post war prefabs would be ideal, provided the location is reasonable.

[mickd1961]

Plenty of people with 3 bedroom houses who want to downsize to a little bungalow, but they're not there. We just want a little bathroom, Kitchen, living and bedroom. An updated version of post war prefabs would be ideal, provided the location is reasonable.

We want a detached former bungalow as well but the choice is dire.

Built some locally to me and went on sale at £1.45m.

Went to have a look and they were extremely disappointing for such stupid money but I had no intention of buying.

Trying to find a plot or an old one I can knock down and build my own but I’ve been looking for three years and can’t find anything.