This new government has pledged to build 1.5 Million new homes over the next five years. I would say that this will never happen. One, there are not enough trades people to build them and two, the requirements of planning and building control will put a huge brake on any buidling. Over the last 21 years that I have built houses the amount of paperwork and surveys needed has multiplied incredibly. All of these requirements (many on the green agenda) have a cost implication that will have to be paid by the house buyer. If you doubt this have a look at the Goverment building control regulations, which seem to be added to daily. All of these new requirements has spawned new "Consultants" to carry out the surveys/paperwork. All goverments have talked about bonfires of regulations and then added to them. The talk is of slackening planning laws,by which they mean removing your right to object to a housing estate next door to you. Reintroducing zero carbon targets to 2030 is all the proof you need. Yes all of these trades people will go out and buy an electric van for £50,000 won't they?
House building
- Thread starter XTiffy
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
HOJ
Established Member
Then you factor in the need and cost for Nutrient Neutrality compliance, how are they going to meet the building targets and deliver at affordable prices, I know a "Developer" with a potential bill of nearly £500K for it, they are having to revise the feasibility of the scheme, to offset this cost, one way is by reducing the number of "affordable" properties in it.
niall Y
Established Member
No government has ever grasped the true nature of building work. There is a seasonal element to it in that you are reliant on the weather. There is also a physical side , so you need to be young and active.
In all my time on building sites i rarely saw any one in their fifties. Unless , of course , they owned the business and had others working for them. The only exception to this was an older guy helping his son construct roofs, and he was a plumber who had closed down his business.
The main killer is the wasteful, stop-start nature of building in general. I weathered two recessions, but this was largely down to luck. Anyone with a trade, other than perhaps plumbers or electricians has to find alterative work, like driving a bus, and once work picks up they seldom return. And ,in a sense, why would they They will enjoy a lot more job security, especially if the have a family to provide for.
You can train as many bricklayers and carpenters as you like, but when the next recession hits - however long or short, they will be out on their a*se, never to return.
In all my time on building sites i rarely saw any one in their fifties. Unless , of course , they owned the business and had others working for them. The only exception to this was an older guy helping his son construct roofs, and he was a plumber who had closed down his business.
The main killer is the wasteful, stop-start nature of building in general. I weathered two recessions, but this was largely down to luck. Anyone with a trade, other than perhaps plumbers or electricians has to find alterative work, like driving a bus, and once work picks up they seldom return. And ,in a sense, why would they They will enjoy a lot more job security, especially if the have a family to provide for.
You can train as many bricklayers and carpenters as you like, but when the next recession hits - however long or short, they will be out on their a*se, never to return.
The only way they are going to build the amount of houses they claim is to lower the standards and magic up a lot of tradespeople. Perhaps they can use the Chinese builders that put up all the cardboard cities that nobody has ever lived in and are crumbling.
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
One and a half million houses over five years even if feasible doesn't even keep up with immigration, let alone solve a shortage.
Cooper
Established Member
I have a bee in my bonnet about this. In the 80s I was Head of Design and Technology at Tulse Hill school which had been set up as the junior section of the Brixton School of Building. There were specialist workshops for most trades but they were no longer in use as the curriculum no longer recognised developing skills as useful education. When the school was set up in the 50s many of the boys went on to apprenticeships in the building industry. Lots found work in companies building council homes, there were a great many being built by the LCC later the GLC and local authorities. Those homes, schools , hospitals etc were built to high standards for the time, Parker Morrison comes to mind.
As time has gone on councils have been forbidden/discouraged from building homes and it has become the province of companies called house builders but they are nothing more than speculators. With their friends the banks they have the resources to buy up most potential building land and as they are not the direct employers of the trades, they only start and stop projects when their inflated profits and bonuses are at a maximum. The banks benefit from the consequential reliable shortage of homes enabling them to lend inflated mortgages. Companies doing the actual construction in this stop start situation couldn’t be the educators and employers of enough secure apprentices and trades people. This led to importing tradespeople from other countries and sending them home when the work dried up. This has led to a situation where we are told there aren’t enough British skilled people to build the homes we require. Also the appalling situation that we still have pokey new homes that do not meet energy standards set in the early 2000s.
A few years ago I was told about building land that had become available in East Anglia to build in excess of 4,000 homes, however it was only to be released in lots of 250. As to embark on the whole project would dramatically reduce the profit margins. The only solution I can see to the housing crisis is to freeze out the so called Main House Builders (who I understand were the main donors to the last government) and let local authorities commission the building that needs to be carried out in their areas. Supermarkets are able provide the essentials of life on relatively low profit margins because they know there will be a constant demand for their products. The same should be the case for housing. Proper long term planning, reliable predictable business for the construction companies and regular skilled employment for trades people.
However I fear that the new government are no more enthusiastic about giving power to local authorities and the freedom to plan and finance what our communities require. Councils already have a legal obligation for housing but are denied the right to control planning as they are regularly overruled by government. They are deliberately underfunded so the Treasury can control everything.
As a consequence I think I will be hearing about the desperate housing shortage and lack of skilled builders for the rest of my life.
As time has gone on councils have been forbidden/discouraged from building homes and it has become the province of companies called house builders but they are nothing more than speculators. With their friends the banks they have the resources to buy up most potential building land and as they are not the direct employers of the trades, they only start and stop projects when their inflated profits and bonuses are at a maximum. The banks benefit from the consequential reliable shortage of homes enabling them to lend inflated mortgages. Companies doing the actual construction in this stop start situation couldn’t be the educators and employers of enough secure apprentices and trades people. This led to importing tradespeople from other countries and sending them home when the work dried up. This has led to a situation where we are told there aren’t enough British skilled people to build the homes we require. Also the appalling situation that we still have pokey new homes that do not meet energy standards set in the early 2000s.
A few years ago I was told about building land that had become available in East Anglia to build in excess of 4,000 homes, however it was only to be released in lots of 250. As to embark on the whole project would dramatically reduce the profit margins. The only solution I can see to the housing crisis is to freeze out the so called Main House Builders (who I understand were the main donors to the last government) and let local authorities commission the building that needs to be carried out in their areas. Supermarkets are able provide the essentials of life on relatively low profit margins because they know there will be a constant demand for their products. The same should be the case for housing. Proper long term planning, reliable predictable business for the construction companies and regular skilled employment for trades people.
However I fear that the new government are no more enthusiastic about giving power to local authorities and the freedom to plan and finance what our communities require. Councils already have a legal obligation for housing but are denied the right to control planning as they are regularly overruled by government. They are deliberately underfunded so the Treasury can control everything.
As a consequence I think I will be hearing about the desperate housing shortage and lack of skilled builders for the rest of my life.
niall Y
Established Member
There is a rather grand assumption that those in need of homes, can actually afford to buy them, at present prices. Even affordable homes are far from affordable - if they ever get built. And, they are the first thing that developers have to jettison if their costs rise too much.
I find it difficult to agree with Cooper. My own experience with local authorities over the past 27 years is that they are one of the principle log jambs in the whole process. I do agree about the house builders being anything but. These companies should be forced to reveal what land they have and must start building within 12 months of planning permission. Regardless of what ministers wish, this is interpreted by civil servants, who have great skill in complicating all they touch. Look up Part L of the building regs. and if you really are bored read the whole 104 pages and this only for dwellings , non-dwellings another 116 pages. Virtually all parts of the bldg. Regs. require a consultant to unlock what it means and guide it through. This is where all of the extra jobs have been created and their "expertise" is rather better paid than any trades person I know. Yet the snagging lists for recent estate builds is a horror story.
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
There are a number of barriers to building more houses.
Planning permission - government can change the rules to ensure decisions are made more rapidly with fewer conditions attached. This is likely to reduce challenges to proposals but leave local opposition more unhappy.
Whether it leads to ultimately worse decisions is debateable - in part the same decisions will be made but with less wasted time and costs.
Construction - currently 200-250k houses are built each year - an increase to around 300k pa which will put limited skilled resources under pressure.
Initially more resources will only come through increased pay dragging skills from lower priority projects and/or immigration. Over time increased training may fill the gap. It needs a plan.
Not considered are more radical changes to building techniques - eg: greater use of modular construction. I accept I have limited knowledge - but the assumption that construction techniques should forever be unchanged is to miss an opportunity.
Funding - the value of the additional build assuming an average selling price of (say) £300k, and 75k pa new properties is £22bn pa. Over the life of the parliament ~£100bn. This is a material amount and confidence is needed that funding/mortgages will be forthcoming.
Social housing is more complex. The simple approach simply adds to total government borrowing which is already too high.
I am somewhat nervous about smoke and mirrors solutions which seek to keep the asset and associated loans "off balance sheet". We are paying the price (for several decades) for the off balance sheet PFI deals.
Land - government and local authorities have huge land holdings - military, forestry commission, common land, village greens, "grey" greenfield etc. If planning rules change to allow development to ride "roughshod" over existing processes, it can also be applied to publicly owned sites.
As an added bonus - land costs account for a large part of the price of a property. Government could benefit through selling development sites to the private sector and reducing the cost of social housing by providing the land FOC.
Planning permission - government can change the rules to ensure decisions are made more rapidly with fewer conditions attached. This is likely to reduce challenges to proposals but leave local opposition more unhappy.
Whether it leads to ultimately worse decisions is debateable - in part the same decisions will be made but with less wasted time and costs.
Construction - currently 200-250k houses are built each year - an increase to around 300k pa which will put limited skilled resources under pressure.
Initially more resources will only come through increased pay dragging skills from lower priority projects and/or immigration. Over time increased training may fill the gap. It needs a plan.
Not considered are more radical changes to building techniques - eg: greater use of modular construction. I accept I have limited knowledge - but the assumption that construction techniques should forever be unchanged is to miss an opportunity.
Funding - the value of the additional build assuming an average selling price of (say) £300k, and 75k pa new properties is £22bn pa. Over the life of the parliament ~£100bn. This is a material amount and confidence is needed that funding/mortgages will be forthcoming.
Social housing is more complex. The simple approach simply adds to total government borrowing which is already too high.
I am somewhat nervous about smoke and mirrors solutions which seek to keep the asset and associated loans "off balance sheet". We are paying the price (for several decades) for the off balance sheet PFI deals.
Land - government and local authorities have huge land holdings - military, forestry commission, common land, village greens, "grey" greenfield etc. If planning rules change to allow development to ride "roughshod" over existing processes, it can also be applied to publicly owned sites.
As an added bonus - land costs account for a large part of the price of a property. Government could benefit through selling development sites to the private sector and reducing the cost of social housing by providing the land FOC.
I agree with @Cooper on this. The last 27 years have seen government's siding with housebuilders. Local authorities have been sidelined as they have have been denied the ability to build their own houses and also when it comes to planning, the housebuilderrs have known that can appeal directly to government if any local authority deigns to ask for better housing standards.
So you are in favour of building on village greens and other public parks and open spaces just because they are in public ownership? So much for quality of life!
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
Far from it - the very act of putting new houses where people want to live (jobs, decent schools, views, environment etc) has the frequent effect of reducing the desirable to average.
At heart I am a Nimby - no apologies - I do not want a high density commuter compound built on the common where livestock currently roam free.
Reality - if government want more houses to be built, they need to be put somewhere. If the planning rules are to be "liberalised" to make it happen, they can change the rules as they wish. One can only hope they start with the less contentious/damaging.
Jester129
Established Member
Building companies around here own huge amounts of land, and can easily get planning permission when they set their minds to. Several thousand home have been built around Coalville.
The 'old' A6 from Leicester to Loughborough went through villages like Rothley, Mountsorrel and Quorn (King Charles used to hunt here). All of these are now linked by houses and the last field between Quorn and Loughborough has houses being built on. Rothley and Quorn used to be quite exclusive and VERY desirable places to live. Not any more, they have lost all of the charm of small villages thanks to huge housing estates. So very sad, but true.
I expect this is true for all of us in rural areas.
The 'old' A6 from Leicester to Loughborough went through villages like Rothley, Mountsorrel and Quorn (King Charles used to hunt here). All of these are now linked by houses and the last field between Quorn and Loughborough has houses being built on. Rothley and Quorn used to be quite exclusive and VERY desirable places to live. Not any more, they have lost all of the charm of small villages thanks to huge housing estates. So very sad, but true.
I expect this is true for all of us in rural areas.
Lots of building companies had land banks just before the last building recession, this sent them into receivership in very short order, remember Rush and Tompkins just one that went under, looking at the state of our economy we are heading for another recession, I remember remarking to one of my passengers (just before the recession) on the morning trip into London over Blackheath the number of tower cranes on the horizon indicating the amount of construction being undertaken can not last, same view now.
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
Try Cornwall - the population has nearly doubled since 1971. Anything seemingly much over an acre has a council estate built on it.
There is also the issue of food security. As it will become more difficult/costly to import food it is crucial to retain as much good farm land as possible putting an additional constraint on housing construction. There would seem to be not enough land for the population we seem to have/need.
But the starmer party has said it will reform the planning rules, call green belt grey belt and just build, build and build.
Depends what they are building, if they are just throwing up the modern version of the post war pre fabs then it could be done.
They never grasp anything technical or the practical aspect, in there world anything can be done because they cannot visualise the problems or reasons why it cannot be done.
What many are saying, you are just chasing your tail because the issue is growing faster than the solution. Maybe a solution is to allow the immigrants to just build their own houses once the planning rules have been watered down and allow them to develop new towns and villages. The starmer party is also looking at getting more existing houses onto the market, Reeves has started her crusade by going after the less well off pensioners and removing there winter fuel allowance, get a very cold winter and will they survive but a double win for Reeves as a house gets freed up and they do not have to pay out anymore state pension.
You will see a free for all because the developers will seek to build in the more desirable locations to maximise profits that have to date be out of bounds or difficult. National parks will be targeted and any location that is currently unspoilt will be concreted over, what they will not be looking to do is build real affordable homes in the less desirable locations.
pip1954
Established Member
I live in a small village in Lincolnshire it is being swamped by house building on grade 1 agricultural land all round the outskirts of the village and three small industrial sites what I would like to know is where is our food going to come from in the future,we cannot keep building on top growing land, they talk about miles for our food. It is just crazy we need to crack down on immigration!
selectortone
Still waking up not dead in the morning
The correct name is 'The Labour Party'.
I don't see National parks being targeted as there are already layers of rules and regulations. Developers will target surrounding areas. There was a fire a year ago which burnt down a listed hotel in Midhurst, West Sussex. This lies within the South Downs National Park and the various bodies have managed to completely stop any rebuilding, which has had an extremely bad effect on the town (only route through was blocked for months while they dithered and insisted on the facade being kept and shored up. Doesn't take a genius to see that it will eventually have to come down before rebuilding. Fire started in the next door property and spread through the attics.
