It may sound all very logical in the Student Common Room, but is the fragrant Ms Rayner's plan to build 1.5 Million new homes such a good idea? It has now become the flag-waving policy of the Labour Party.
It's been calculated that the area of 'Green Belt' land required to build these one and a half million new homes would cover an area the size of Surrey. In other words, about 640 Square Miles.
Of course we need more housing, especially reasonably priced homes; but do we really need 1.5 million of them?
'Green Belt' areas were originally designed to halt the spread of Urban Sprawl, and to enhance the lives of town dwellers. Presumably the new Socialist dream is to encourage Urban Sprawl, and to devalue the quality of lives of those townies. I certainly haven't heard any townies cheering!
It may sound all very noble to say that we need these new houses, but the truth of the matter is that we really need a smaller population. We also need fewer power-crazy bureaucrats who refuse planning permission on perfectly viable non-green-belt sites.
In a recent interview with Laura Kuenssberg on BBC TV, Rayner stated that she 'dislikes' private landlords, and she wants to see people renting 'social housing' instead. So, is she expecting local councils to buy/build many of these 1.5 million new homes to let as council houses? What would then happen to all those empty privately owned houses and flats?
Perhaps The Government should buy all the closed-down Pontins Holiday Camps to house both the homeless, and our illegal immigrants. They're already built, they're empty, and there'll probably be more to come! They would probably also be very cheap.
Currently, just under 4,000 'rough sleepers' have nowhere to call home in the UK. I'm sure they could be accommodated without building 1.5 Million new homes. The illegal immigrant population are already housed in nice comfy hotels. And there are just over 300,000 others, representing about 85,000 families, who are classified as 'homeless', but they all have somewhere to live; albeit in possibly unsuitable accommodation.
So, who is going to buy, or rent, all these expensive new homes?
Ms Rayner rather confused herself recently in her interview with Trevor Phillips - he pointed out that most of her 1.5M new houses would be going to her governments planned 2.5M immigrants, but she came back with the answer that there's plenty of housing! Maybe she's been to the Dianne Abbott school of maths as well?
ReplyDeleteI don't think they've done their figures correctly, unless they really are thinking of importing 2.5 million immigrants. But I thought they were trying to minimise immigration.
DeleteAs far as I recall, immigration was conspicuous by it's absence from Sir Kneeler's new and diminished missions/milestones/fudges/cop-outs.....
DeleteGood morning Cro, sometimes I have nothing to say about other people's troubles, I'm still amazed by the beautiful shapes of the pie you made yesterday...
ReplyDeleteThank you Yael. Sadly they looked much better than they tasted!
DeleteIts not something I'm concerned about as it's never going to happen. I suspect it is a sop to appease their voter base a base that has dwindled to from low to next to nothing and must now comprise a few middle class leftards consumed by envy.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I've ever known a new government loose support so quickly.
DeleteWhy do these new homes have to be so expensive, who can afford one of these 'affordable homes'? You're right, the problem is population, there are just too many of us. Are there really only 4000 official homeless on the streets, I'd have thought it was much more than that. Anyway, what's wrong with the good old fashioned prefab? In a suitable place (?!) it would solve the problem in no time, and can be easily dismantled if or when the population eventually reduces!
ReplyDeleteIn Newcastle IKEA had a development some years ago with "flat pack" style houses, but for whatever reason it didn't catch on, as far as I am aware there's been no further developments like it.
DeleteI believe that in some continental countries (Germany?) you can buy assemble on site modular wood frame houses, but in this country there's a major problem over availability of self-build plots for that kind of product.
Also in Newcastle I think that there are still some of the old prefabs, although heavily updated now.
Sorry but got this wrong, it was Gateshead not Newcastle - hope I don't get lynched over that!
DeleteGateshead is much closer to Newcastle than Syria is to Libya but don't tell Lammy.
DeleteThe German 'HUF' houses are reasonably cheap, super-insulated, and go-up very quickly. Why is no UK Co doing something similar. Or, maybe they are?
DeleteMy guess is that plot availability is a major issue - on the many developments in our area only one had any self-build plots available, and at just 20 was a tiny fraction of the whole 5,000+ (and still growing) development. And any small infill areas always seem to be snapped up by a second tier developer rather than being made available for self-build or modular construction.
DeleteThere are massive building programmes going on here. Huge high rise apartment blocks; all started under The Tories, of course. Goodness knows who'll buy them.
DeleteSomething radical needs to be done about Britain's housing crisis. Our population has risen tremendously in this millennium alone. It's good that the new government are prepared to grasp that particular nettle but I also think that there should be close consideration of all second homes. It seems cruel and plain wrong to have so many empty houses and flats when many thousands of people simply need somewhere decent to live.
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid that I'm guilty of having a second home that is now empty for 9 months of the year, although I don't suppose anyone is desperate to live there. I do notice than in most High Streets the flats above shops are mostly empty. Maybe Rayner could do something about that.
DeleteI think that there needs to be a distinction between second homes as in Cro's case, and holiday let's/AirBnB let's, which serve a purpose to the local economies.
DeleteI never understand why people who live in the countryside object to people applying for planning permission to live there. I am sure a lot of us smallholders and farmers have an old boggy field or rocky patch that we would sell for a site. I know I would.
ReplyDeleteThe worst thing they can do is to take prime agricultural land. There's plenty of unused land about without having to rape our Green Belt.
DeleteWill beat me to it. I saw her interview with Trevor Phillips and she got in a right muddle .... not a clue. One minute we need over one million homes then she contradicted herself and said there was plenty of housing ! It seriously is a worry that these people are ' running ' our country ..... ruining is a better word I think. XXXX
ReplyDeleteI hate to say it, but especially someone like her! She has too many chips on her shoulders.
DeleteA high percentage of people would like to buy their own home, the rent they pay is not that difference to mortgage levels, they just can't afford the deposit, owning your own house gives you a firmer future. Once you have a foot on the property ladder you can rise up as your income rises, which then allows others to purchase, it's about our mortgage systems and greedy lenders. I still believe in private ownership over renting.
ReplyDeleteWith a mortgage you are paying the cost back to yourself. When you rent, the money goes elsewhere.
Delete1.5 million homes that, if ever built will largely remain empty, because most people can't afford them and they will probably be shoddily built.That will give the next government a good excuse to blame this present lot of idiots for another huge black hole!
ReplyDeleteOf course the land may well become available due to the many farms that will have become bankrupt due to the insane inheritance tax now facing farmers. Perhaps that's what this government has planned for?
Just a thought - wasn't the fragrant Miss Rayner able to buy her council house? What a hypocrite if she expects everyone else to rent.
ReplyDeleteYes, she took advantage of Mrs T's generosity. But, I've never understood Mrs T's insistence that the money wasn't used to build more council houses.
Delete