0:04 AM, 31st July 2024, About 4 months ago 7
Text Size
Angela Rayner has warned that councils will be stripped of planning powers if they fail to meet housing targets.
Under new plans announced by the Housing Secretary mandatory housing targets will increase from 300,000 to 370,000.
Ms Rayner says councils that fail to meet targets will be compelled to build on low-value “grey belt” land, like disused car parks, situated in the green belt.
Ms Rayner told the House of Commons that two-thirds of local councils in England don’t have an up-to-date plan for building the new homes needed in their areas.
She says that from now on, all councils will have to draw up a plan showing where they’ll put the houses to meet their yearly targets.
The housing secretary also announced that there will be “golden rules” for development on the green belt, requiring that half of new homes be affordable.
Ms Rayner also vowed to work with local authorities to deliver a “council house revolution”.
However, the housing secretary warned that councils failing to comply will be stripped of their planning powers, and Whitehall will impose a housing plan on them.
Ms Rayner told MPs that she understands the plans will be controversial but accused the Conservative government of “ducking difficult decisions on housebuilding” and says the number of new homes built is below 200,000.
She said: “Whilst the previous government watered down housing targets, caving into their anti-growth backbenchers, this Labour government is taking the tough choices putting people and country first.
“For the first time, we will make local housing targets mandatory, requiring local authorities to use the same method to work out how many homes to build. But that alone is insufficient to meet our ambition, so we’re also changing the standard method used to calculate housing need so it better reflects the urgency of supply for local areas.
“Rather than relying on outdated data, this new method will require local authorities to plan for homes proportionate to the size of existing communities, and it will incorporate an uplift where house prices are most out of step with local incomes.
“The collective total of these local targets will therefore rise from some 300,000 a year to just over 370,000 a year.”
In response to Angela Rayner’s announcement, Shadow Housing Secretary Kemi Badenoch said rural councils are worried they’ll be forced to take on housing projects that urban areas haven’t managed.
She said: “Councillors have repeatedly told me that they are afraid that they will be forced under a duty to cooperate to sacrifice their own green spaces to take the housing need that the urban leaders who are her friends fail to meet.”
Ms Badenoch also questioned what penalties would be enforced on urban council leaders who do not meet their housing targets.
Fergus Charlton, a partner in law firm Michelmores’ planning practice, says increasing the housing targets could be problematic.
He said: “Increasing the housing targets combined with pressure to produce new local plans should result in more housing allocated sites. Allocated sites ought to have an easier ride through the planning system, meaning increased certainty.
“But if local plans are not updated there will be a disconnect between the allocation housing numbers in the out-of-date local plans and the new mandated targets. That will encourage developers to appeal planning refusals.
“Identifying sites for allocation will put pressure on recipient local communities and the green belt, so increasing the housing targets will be controversial.”
Philip Allin, director, at Boyer (part of Leaders Romans Group) says it remains to be seen whether Labour’s housebuilding plans will become a reality.
He said: “At the dispatch box, Angela Rayner set out the ambitious programme for delivering the government’s ‘decade of renewal’.
“Much of the detail will follow, initially in planned changes to the NPPF culminating in the publication of a long-term housing strategy in the coming months. Whilst the anticipated changes are no secret the nature and language both seek to underline the significant shift underway and more muscular nature of the government’s new approach.
“Many of the aims are familiar (e.g. requirement for universal Local Plan coverage). However, the tools with which this is to be achieved differ markedly from those of the previous government.
“How already stretched planning authorities will deliver these objectives will remain to be seen. However, these announcements are most welcome and will hopefully result in the new infrastructure and increased housebuilding that the country desperately needs.”
Colin Brown, head of planning and development, at Carter Jonas said: “We support the return of mandatory housing targets and the emphasis on delivery in areas where affordability issues are at their most acute.
“It is positive to see that local authorities will be obliged to deliver the housing that is needed in their areas, and while we support the fact that they can decide how to do this, we are pleased to see they will not have the ability to duck the issue simply because they choose to.”
You can watch the announcement by Angela Rayner below
Previous Article
What's the best approach for raising rent for a reliable tenant?Next Article
London's PRS boosts the UK's economy by £14.6bn
Paul Essex
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up10:07 AM, 31st July 2024, About 4 months ago
I wonder just how councils can be forced to build half as affordable - seems totally unrealistic.
Reluctant Landlord
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up11:16 AM, 31st July 2024, About 4 months ago
hahahahh!
How is it possible to put the words mandatory and target into the same sentence when she has no direct control over either?
One means required by a law or rule, the other is a measurable milestone to achieve a goal. A goal is a broad statement describing the desired outcome or purpose, providing direction.
So basically she has a wish.
Beaver
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up11:58 AM, 31st July 2024, About 4 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Paul Essex at 31/07/2024 - 10:07
It's clearly not affordable for Councils to build half as affordable. Labour hasn't got the money to give to Councils to do it, especially now that they are starting to cave in to the unions on public sector pay rises. I believe that labour has said that they will not raise income tax or national insurance and that means they have nowhere else to go to pay for their commitments other than corporation tax, capital gains tax and raids on pensions.
If they raid pensions as Gordon Brown did that will severely damage the UK pensions industry and force people into poverty in retirement given that the people with the biggest pension pots are those close to retirement.
If they hit corporation tax they will be damaging the UK economy when they actually need to grow it. If they target capital gains tax, unless there are reliefs for small business owners they will disincentivise growth in the economy, because that's where most of the workers are and also where most of the growth in the UK economy has always come from.
Coming out with nutty housing targets that they just can't pay for solves nothing. Concerns over plans to develop on greenbelt land is how the conservatives lost the Amersham by election to the liberal democrats. If labour cave in to developer's plans to build on greenbelt then the electorate will punish them for this at the earliest possible opportunity.
Encouraging the UK pensions industry to invest in build-to-rent is one way that more houses can be built, but they won't be 'affordable'. If labour wants a healthy, dynamic rental market that provides choice they need to stop the vendetta against small landlords.
Steve O'Dell
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up17:40 PM, 31st July 2024, About 4 months ago
Of course these targets require developers to be interested. Let's have it correct, councils don't build homes. Anyway even if my some miracle Labour gets said number of houses built, there will still be a shortfall and so long as the population grows, there will continue to be a shortfall. At least for now they are not paying bonuses for people having more than 2 children, when that gets dropped, we may see even more exponential population growth. Is the topic of population size ever going to be talked about in the context of homes and climate change?
Beaver
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up11:32 AM, 1st August 2024, About 4 months ago
These targets don't just require developers to be interested.
Whenever we get a labour prime minister that prime minister comes with some baggage. When Tony Prescott came to power he was given John Prescott as Deputy Prime Minister, running the office of the deputy prime minister - the ODPM (standing for perhaps Loose Cannon Department).
John Prescott wanted to build millions of homes south of London. You'll find a reminder of what happened after he came out and said so on this link:
https://www.edie.net/prescott-failed-to-consider-water-shortages-in-house-building-plans/
'...in its report on water management, the science and technology committee pointed to a lack of coordination between Government institutions, in particular bringing attention to John Prescott’s housing expansion plans: “It is regrettable that the ODPM failed sufficiently to consult the water industry directly–or to give due consideration to the water management implications–when formulating the Sustainable Communities Plan and selecting the growth areas,” the report said.'
It's all very well to come out with a whacky target that can't be delivered but what it doesn't do is demonstrate your competence. One of the difficulties with our politicians is that they fail to learn the lessons of history, including their own. Hopefully Rachel Reeves, our first female chancellor, will be able to explain the facts of life to Angela Raynor.
SteveFowkes
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up7:53 AM, 3rd August 2024, About 4 months ago
Basically we need to stop the growth of the population - simple ( and the boats)
Obviously the 2 child benefit cap hasn't done it - largely because the thick feckers people who are breeding like rabbits don't know it exists
Beaver
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up10:04 AM, 5th August 2024, About 4 months ago
The growth of the population has already been stopped in Scotland but Scotland still has a housing crisis.
What the link above says is this:
'Liberal democrat housing spokesperson Dan Rogerson said: “The Thames Gateway redevelopment project is a vital part of solving the housing crisis in the South-East and is a valuable opportunity to develop truly sustainable communities. This level of miscommunication about something so important as water supply is shocking.
Sir Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, chairman of the Local Government Association, said giving councils more of a say in planning would improve sensitivity to the local environment: “Councils that have a better understanding of local issues and problems would have been much better placed to prevent this deeply worrying situation occurring in the first place.
“The government must learn its lesson and place more trust in local agencies to avoid similar problems arising in the future.
“Councils need to have the powers to take local decisions over planning and housing targets for their own areas.” '
And so the [then labour] government was told that it must learn its lesson and place more trust in local agencies to avoid similar problems arising in the future. I cannot see much evidence of learning going at the moment.