A consistent theme is cropping up here? Is anywhere building the infrastructure at the same time as the housing? They are definitely not near to me. Perhaps we would be more forgiving if that was the case. Until then.......
Sitting on land
- Thread starter Tashyboy
- Start date
Block the pipe unless we get a 2 lane A1 going north of Newcastle to Edinburgh, 3 lane motorway going to Leeds and connection to HS2, 3 or whatever we are up to
Khamelion
Tour Winner
Well yes some thought has gone into the roads around Newcastle, The plan is from The north side of the Blaydon bridge up to Brunton (Great Park) they want to make it 3 lane, but a proper motorway, nooooo, they are going to use the same road footprint there is now but reduce the speed to 50mph.
Now that idea worked really well when they did it past the Metrocentre to Team Valley, the traffic still queues during rush hour which the power that be said would be gone, the majority of cars ignore the 50mph limit knowing that the road is not policed by patrol cars and only infrequently by mobile speed cameras.
It'll take them three years from 2020 at a current cost of £157 million to complete the project, in that time, developers will have built the 3000 houses I mention above, plus other developments will have been constructed and a large section of the A1 will be contra flowed and ridiculously slow, the 9 miles 15min trip to the office will take probably close to over an hour, with no alternative route.
Any sign of extra schools, doctors, hospitals, car parks etc? Those basics are not being built at the same time.
Grant85
Head Pro
I would tend to agree with the PM that building houses is generally good for the country and can see why she would want to encourage people to do it.
It certainly puts money into the economy, increases wages and (hopefully) increases the number of people being trained in trades. It also should help with making home ownership more affordable (obviously this depends on what / where the properties are). Finally, it reduces the number of vacant sites that can be an eyesore and a barrier to further commercial developments in that area.
HOWEVER... simply saying this for a PM is stupid. She needs to take action. Provide incentives to build, or at least provide disincentives to not building.
Even just something as simple as reducing stamp duty on new builds for 1st time buyers.
For years, the governments policy on housing has been nothing short of shameful. Cash incentives to 1st time buyers, paid for by the taxpayer, are completely stupid. They disproportionately benefit the well off people who can afford to save more (or their parents can) and ultimately they simply allow more money to find itself into the property market, thus increasing prices even more.
Recently there has been a more concerted effort to make buy to lets less appealing to landlords, but that will take years to really have any impact - and even then it only makes a profitable enterprise, slightly less profitable - for someone with a big BTL portfolio in London, it is barely going to slow them down.
The announcement today confirms that the government are bereft of ideas and money to make any kind of progress domestically.
Ironically, their European negotiations (or lack of) could solve the housing crisis as hundreds of thousands of young people emigrate to find work over the next decade.
Khamelion
Tour Winner
It's only good for the country if the additional infrastructure is built along with the houses.
The roads improved
New roads built
New Hospitals, more Dr's and Nurses
New Fire stations, more fire fighters
New Police Stations, more Police Officers
New Schools, more teachers
New Shops
New Parks and recreational areas with the communities where the houses are being built. Oops my mistake all the land that could be used for recreation has a house on it.
Sadly though it's just the houses that will be built and nothing else, the current roads get busier, the current emergency services get push to the limit and spread even thinner. More people die wating for an Ambulance to turn up, more property is destroyed through fire, crime goes up, kids education suffers as pupil numbers increase in classrooms with kids not getting the attention from teachers they require.
Building more houses on some level may be good for the someone, but it is in general a downward spiral without building new infrastructure to go with them.
Top post Khamelion :thup:
Grant85
Head Pro
I appreciate infrastructure should be a factor in any development, but the problems you describe are not brought about by house building. It's the same number of people living in the houses, just that they are in a slightly different area.
These problems are brought about by simple lack of investment in public services, whether people are living in nice houses or not.
Not as simple as that. For example, town A has 4,000 houses. It builds an extra 2,000 houses. Not all of the people for those extra 2,000 homes come from the existing population. Many will come from different areas, clearly not a million miles away to be fair, and may not have used the existing schools, hospitals etc. They may have been using those amenities elsewhere, another town, council area etc. New homes do bring new pressures although I totally accept that not every new house will add to the population of that area, they simply disperse some of the existing population.
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
Maybe because not all are so informed....
Khamelion
Tour Winner
Yes and no to both the above.
3000 new homes being built, a percentage will be first time buyers and thus any increase to the general population or demand on infrastructure, would be quite small. A percentage will be people upsizing or down sizing again any increase in population or demand on infrastructure would be quite small and there will be a percentage of people from outside the area which will increase population and demand.
And then you have the houses vacated by those upsizing of down sizing, their house won't stay empty, it'll likely have been sold to fund the occupants move, whether or not that house is bought by people doing the same or new buyers, means the population increases and so does demand in that area.
So the building of new houses does impact the infrastructure, amenities and emergency services, directly or indirectly.
MegaSteve
Tour Winner
Sadly it is not just land that is being 'sat on'...
In London [and other major cities] there are properties/developments that never see occupants...
Just being acquired and sold on as investments..
In London [and other major cities] there are properties/developments that never see occupants...
Just being acquired and sold on as investments..
andycap
Head Pro
There is a development near me that is now going ahead after many years of planning and objections , of 600+ houses .
Apparently if a developer is going to build that many , then they have to provide infrastructure , school / doctors surgery etc . The planning was approved with land set aside for the infrastructure , after approval the developer sold half the land to another developer , so each are building around 300 , at those levels neither developer is obligated to provide the infrastructure, the local authority has now got to give the money to schools etc to be able to take the extra capacity.
And to really rub it in , developers are now applying to build on the land that was set aside for the infrastructure,
I think that whether you are building 1 property or hundreds , there should be a charge per property to contribute to local needs ,
Apparently if a developer is going to build that many , then they have to provide infrastructure , school / doctors surgery etc . The planning was approved with land set aside for the infrastructure , after approval the developer sold half the land to another developer , so each are building around 300 , at those levels neither developer is obligated to provide the infrastructure, the local authority has now got to give the money to schools etc to be able to take the extra capacity.
And to really rub it in , developers are now applying to build on the land that was set aside for the infrastructure,
I think that whether you are building 1 property or hundreds , there should be a charge per property to contribute to local needs ,
Bunkermagnet
Journeyman Pro
Here in Kent, I forget how many times in the last 20 years we have had or been threatened with water restrictions becasue we dont have enough stored.
There is another side easily forgotten to the building new houses push.....where are we going to get all the builders and labourers etc needed to do the work? Many of the British time served older hands have given up after the last downturn, and most of the Eastern Europeans that have been doing (often badly) the work have returned back home due to the poor pound value and this countries impending Euro exit. It takes time to learn the trade. or are we going to teach them with Lego?
There is another side easily forgotten to the building new houses push.....where are we going to get all the builders and labourers etc needed to do the work? Many of the British time served older hands have given up after the last downturn, and most of the Eastern Europeans that have been doing (often badly) the work have returned back home due to the poor pound value and this countries impending Euro exit. It takes time to learn the trade. or are we going to teach them with Lego?
jim8flog
Journeyman Pro
According to the program I was watching yesterday Kielder water is used mainly for water supply to the North of England. Makes most sense as it is located in Northumberland.
