The thread is about Labour's claim to build 1 million homes by 2020........but your link, which admittedly, I have not read, refers to 200,000 homes by then.
Well here's the text of what Ed was supposed to say today (as usual it's a press briefing so he may well have deviated from the text)
So how will all the supporting infrastructure be paid for, i.e. schools, hospitals, roads, more PFI and borrowing?
The companies building the houses pay for all the needed infrastructure as part and parcel of the conditions of getting the planning permission to build the houses. That is what they do on all the housing developments in my area. Schools, parks, play grounds, sports centres, indoor swimming pools, football pitch, skate park, bmx trail, shops, cinema, community centres, doctors surgeries, road network improvements, sewage works, you name it the housing developers pay for it. And they also have to provide x percent of affordable housing and x percent of social rented housing although at least for those properties I think the housing associations pay although the price is dictated by the government it is not market price.
The companies building the houses pay for all the needed infrastructure as part and parcel of the conditions of getting the planning permission to build the houses. That is what they do on all the housing developments in my area. Schools, parks, play grounds, sports centres, indoor swimming pools, football pitch, skate park, bmx trail, shops, cinema, community centres, doctors surgeries, road network improvements, sewage works, you name it the housing developers pay for it. And they also have to provide x percent of affordable housing and x percent of social rented housing although at least for those properties I think the housing associations pay although the price is dictated by the government it is not market price.
Who pays to run them? What about all the equipment, power, staff etc.?
If the government had the money before the recession, why did Blair have to resort to PFI?
What happens to the so called net contribution of migrants, why isn't that used?
The companies building the houses pay for all the needed infrastructure as part and parcel of the conditions of getting the planning permission to build the houses.
Community Infrastructure Levy. Though there are loopholes in it already and these proposals may well expand them (recommendation 18) allowing for some developments not to pay and redistributing the money from others
Remove the restriction on pooling Section 106 contributions for both strategic and mitigating infrastructure on strategic and large sites (over 500 units). This will enable the authority, having [highlight]set a zero rate for CIL[/highlight] on such sites through its charging schedule, to pool contributions from multiple development
partners
Exactly. There is also the small matter of this country ending like a concrete jungle.
This is the least of anyone's worries. You can't deny people a place to live because you're more interested in preserving bits of land no one actually cares about. We need houses, and if it means building on the green belt, it's time to do it.
Community Infrastructure Levy. Though there are loopholes in it already and these proposals may well expand them (recommendation 18) allowing for some developments not to pay and redistributing the money from others
This is Cornwall Council's favourite wheeze. Schools are full, roads are congested (with local and through traffic), utilities barely cope (drains overflow when it rains too hard).
The council exempts "affordable housing" (which is not that affordable) from any levies so the developer doesn't need to pay a penny and the infrastructure continues to crumble. Schools aren't expanding (and the one nearest to me can't, because the council let a developer build around it), utilities are iffy, roads are dangerously congested (and people go too fast through what has become a built up area when it's emptier)
No wonder then that every parish council is working hard to prevent the council from unilaterally approving every planning application it can get, regardless of suitability or the state of local infrastructure
Unfortunately it works the other way too. CC is trying to build an "eco town" not far away from me - and it seems like the way things should be done, with infrastructure built from scratch to actually handle modern living and the projected demand. The NIMBYs are trying hard to get it thrown out.
Having a lot of experience of working in planning and developing I can tell you there is no way at all Labour can build 1 million new homes by 2020. It takes typically 12-18 months to build a block of flats, but before that you have to buy the land, get planning (which can take forever).
This is the least of anyone's worries. You can't deny people a place to live because you're more interested in preserving bits of land no one actually cares about. We need houses, and if it means building on the green belt, it's time to do it.
(I speak as a life long rural dweller)
That reminds me of one of my favourite John Prescott quotes:
"The Green Belt is a Labour achievement and we intend to build on it"
Having a lot of experience of working in planning and developing I can tell you there is no way at all Labour can build 1 million new homes by 2020. It takes typically 12-18 months to build a block of flats, but before that you have to buy the land, get planning (which can take forever).
Milliband is flat out lying.
This is the only link I can find, and no way does he seem that ambitious
This is the least of anyone's worries. You can't deny people a place to live because you're more interested in preserving bits of land no one actually cares about. We need houses, and if it means building on the green belt, it's time to do it.
(I speak as a life long rural dweller)
That's not acceptable to me, not while immigration is running so high.
Who pays to run them? What about all the equipment, power, staff etc.?
Not sure who pays for the equipment. I think in some cases the Local Authority out of money given to it by the developer, in some case the private sector contractor that gets to run the thing like indoor swimming pool, cinema,. The running costs in the long-term are paid by the Local Authority via council tax from all those new residents in those new houses, or central government money in the case of NHS doctor's surgeries, or in other cases like the cinema, shops and some other leisure facilities the private sector contractor running the facility via what it charges customers.
Having a lot of experience of working in planning and developing I can tell you there is no way at all Labour can build 1 million new homes by 2020. It takes typically 12-18 months to build a block of flats, but before that you have to buy the land, get planning (which can take forever).
Milliband is flat out lying.
Isn't Miliband going to nationalise all the land the developers are sitting on, or something like that, under his use it or lose it policy?
Having a lot of experience of working in planning and developing I can tell you there is no way at all Labour can build 1 million new homes by 2020. It takes typically 12-18 months to build a block of flats, but before that you have to buy the land, get planning (which can take forever).
Milliband is flat out lying.
In 2007 we were building 200,700 houses a year. The Labour pledge is to be building 200,000 a year by 2020 that does not strike me as impossible, it strikes me as not very ambitious.
In 2007 we were building 200,700 houses a year. The Labour pledge is to be building 200,000 a year by 2020 that does not strike me as impossible, it strikes me as not very ambitious.
By "we" you mean the number of dwellings (not "homes" as many were flat/apartments) which were built. The vast majority were from the private sector. Local authority builds were virtually zero:
Labour: 1 million new homes by 2020 - No stamp duty for first time buyers
At least it's a better idea than the eejit rent control policy. However, it still doesn't address the fundamental issue of the lack of affordable housing to buy and lack of social housing to rent and the same applies to the Tories and Lib Dems.
In terms of commitments and ideas on housing policy, it seems to be left to the SNP, UKIP and the Greens.
By "we" you mean the number of dwellings (not "homes" as many were flat/apartments) which were built. The vast majority were from the private sector. Local authority builds were virtually zero:
Comments
Spot on again
How people can be so blind to not see this is beyond me.
Def a contender for most stupid quote of the day.
Well here's the text of what Ed was supposed to say today (as usual it's a press briefing so he may well have deviated from the text)
http://press.labour.org.uk/post/117508448409/ed-milibands-speech-in-stockton-on-tees
Who pays to run them? What about all the equipment, power, staff etc.?
If the government had the money before the recession, why did Blair have to resort to PFI?
What happens to the so called net contribution of migrants, why isn't that used?
This is the least of anyone's worries. You can't deny people a place to live because you're more interested in preserving bits of land no one actually cares about. We need houses, and if it means building on the green belt, it's time to do it.
(I speak as a life long rural dweller)
This is Cornwall Council's favourite wheeze. Schools are full, roads are congested (with local and through traffic), utilities barely cope (drains overflow when it rains too hard).
The council exempts "affordable housing" (which is not that affordable) from any levies so the developer doesn't need to pay a penny and the infrastructure continues to crumble. Schools aren't expanding (and the one nearest to me can't, because the council let a developer build around it), utilities are iffy, roads are dangerously congested (and people go too fast through what has become a built up area when it's emptier)
No wonder then that every parish council is working hard to prevent the council from unilaterally approving every planning application it can get, regardless of suitability or the state of local infrastructure
Unfortunately it works the other way too. CC is trying to build an "eco town" not far away from me - and it seems like the way things should be done, with infrastructure built from scratch to actually handle modern living and the projected demand. The NIMBYs are trying hard to get it thrown out.
Milliband is flat out lying.
That reminds me of one of my favourite John Prescott quotes:
"The Green Belt is a Labour achievement and we intend to build on it"
This is the only link I can find, and no way does he seem that ambitious
http://labourlist.org/2015/04/miliband-announces-plans-for-5-billion-housing-fund-to-kickstart-home-building/
That's not acceptable to me, not while immigration is running so high.
Isn't Miliband going to nationalise all the land the developers are sitting on, or something like that, under his use it or lose it policy?
By "we" you mean the number of dwellings (not "homes" as many were flat/apartments) which were built. The vast majority were from the private sector. Local authority builds were virtually zero:
Here's a good data table:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/405148/LiveTable211.ods
At least it's a better idea than the eejit rent control policy. However, it still doesn't address the fundamental issue of the lack of affordable housing to buy and lack of social housing to rent and the same applies to the Tories and Lib Dems.
In terms of commitments and ideas on housing policy, it seems to be left to the SNP, UKIP and the Greens.
when are people gonna get it, the whole ponzi is based on property and the stockmarket with cheap debt
so you CANT increase supply, prices MUST keep rising or the whole thing collapses
you cant taper a Ponzi
I posted this fairly early on in the thread, but it's probably getting lost.
The manifesto states they will implement the Lyons report
This is it
http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/uploads/editor/files/The_Lyons_Housing_Review_2.pdf