Housing targets and traffic levels...

[ian]

...

I'm stunned by that. Here, internal roads serving above a certain number of houses have to be to an adoptable standard - to avoid the problems you describe. And we're just bumpkins in the sticks so I'm surprised you guys in the metropolis aren't ahead of us.

I'm slightly less stunned by people realising too late that they've taken on a lifetime of debt servitude only to be sold a pup. Caveat emptor seems to go out of the window when you're spending borrowed money.

Major access roads might be of adoptable standards, councils can and do stipulate that in S.106 agreements. Beyond that it gets sketchy and short of a full and comprehensive survey, who knows. Even if they are adoptable, there's no guarantee they will consider it and the owners face the bills for surveys, legal, and admin fees. They'll run into thousands. The street I mentioned was little more than a car park, but to come up to council standards required new drainage, installation of street lighting, remaking of the road surface, and replacement of the entry speed bumps. The likelihood of getting a dozen owners, often buy-to-let landlords, to stump up £30k each in cash? Nil. Restoring the original management company would require similar agreement of all households, a barrister, and a trip to court. Why bother for a few weeds. House prices were buoyant and still are. The house we original bought for £100k was up last year for £450k. A few weeds and a vague future liability evidently don't put people off.

Anyway, the point was – even if a street is adoptable – it can't be assumed to happen and as such, the owners still carry all liability. Are there many new developments built with council owned roads? None of the ones we visited when we shopping for a new houses last year were. Every new development that wasn't on an existing street was entirely private. My understanding is that councils require a considerable sum from developers.

So the problem is that there are lots of roads and developments that aren't being adequately maintained. There's nothing to stop management companies folding through apathy. Developers have no ongoing liability once they've sold the houses.

[CrazyEnglishTriathlete]

As a parent with two children I am a big fan of new houses.  The country is short of them and I would like my children to be able to afford somewhere to live before my 70th birthday.  But without a larger housing supply or some draconian changes to inheritance tax (increasing it) that's unlikely.

In my area, Basingstoke, the only argument is "NO NEW HOUSES" (oddly enough about 70% of the population live in NEW HOUSES, built since 1975 on farmland).  So the only way that developers can build houses is when the inadequate local plans are overruled.   

If the NIMBYS tried an argument "NO NEW HOUSES WITHOUT INVESTMENT IN BUSES TRAINS RELIEF ROADS AND SCHOOLS" we might be in a better place.  However, I've not been offered that option by any local politician yet.

[Jaded]

That's pretty much the story everywhere. Changes in planning controls have left a gap between the old way of doing things and the new "Local Plans". Until Local Plans are in place, there is effectively a developer's charter. I think the government is waking up to the fact that this will cost votes, but I don't hold out any hope that they will do anything.

In the meantime developers are filling their boots.

I'd be interested to know of examples - as this shouldn't happen. The old Local Plans govern development until the Local Development Framework is complete (and, surely they all are now - the change in legislation came in in 2004 or thereabouts). Certainly, you can't buy a field and build on it an will anymore than you could in the past.

I'm a little out of touch and may have forgotten some details - but the transition to the LDF was the last thing I did before I stood down. I do try to keep aware, though - I became a total planning policy anorak and still find the subject[1] fascinating.

[1] Not so much the bureaucracy so much as qualities of streetscene, architecture, and influencers of modal choice.

Don't let facts get in the way of anecdotes fuelled by assumption!

Go on then, give us the facts.

[Jaded]

That's pretty much the story everywhere. Changes in planning controls have left a gap between the old way of doing things and the new "Local Plans". Until Local Plans are in place, there is effectively a developer's charter. I think the government is waking up to the fact that this will cost votes, but I don't hold out any hope that they will do anything.

In the meantime developers are filling their boots.

I'd be interested to know of examples - as this shouldn't happen. The old Local Plans govern development until the Local Development Framework is complete (and, surely they all are now - the change in legislation came in in 2004 or thereabouts). Certainly, you can't buy a field and build on it an will anymore than you could in the past.

I'm a little out of touch and may have forgotten some details - but the transition to the LDF was the last thing I did before I stood down. I do try to keep aware, though - I became a total planning policy anorak and still find the subject[1] fascinating.

[1] Not so much the bureaucracy so much as qualities of streetscene, architecture, and influencers of modal choice.

The key change in legislation (I believe) was the Localism act, with the abolishing of the Regional Spatial Strategies.

The absence of a current Local Plan means that you pretty much can buy a green field and build on it, hence this thread.

“This government is committed to localism and greater local decision-making in planning. The flawed top-down targets of regional planning, centrally imposing development upon communities, built nothing but resentment. They will hang over communities no more.

“We have secured the abolition of every single strategy. We are committed to decentralising as much power as possible and these important and popular planning reforms will bring a significant shift in power to local people.”

[TimC]

That's pretty much the story everywhere. Changes in planning controls have left a gap between the old way of doing things and the new "Local Plans". Until Local Plans are in place, there is effectively a developer's charter. I think the government is waking up to the fact that this will cost votes, but I don't hold out any hope that they will do anything.

In the meantime developers are filling their boots.

I'd be interested to know of examples - as this shouldn't happen. The old Local Plans govern development until the Local Development Framework is complete (and, surely they all are now - the change in legislation came in in 2004 or thereabouts). Certainly, you can't buy a field and build on it an will anymore than you could in the past.

I'm a little out of touch and may have forgotten some details - but the transition to the LDF was the last thing I did before I stood down. I do try to keep aware, though - I became a total planning policy anorak and still find the subject[1] fascinating.

[1] Not so much the bureaucracy so much as qualities of streetscene, architecture, and influencers of modal choice.

Don't let facts get in the way of anecdotes fuelled by assumption!

Go on then, give us the facts.

I think Pancho is doing that quite adequately.

[teethgrinder]

As a parent with two children I am a big fan of new houses.  The country is short of them and I would like my children to be able to afford somewhere to live before my 70th birthday.  But without a larger housing supply or some draconian changes to inheritance tax (increasing it) that's unlikely.

In my area, Basingstoke, the only argument is "NO NEW HOUSES" (oddly enough about 70% of the population live in NEW HOUSES, built since 1975 on farmland).  So the only way that developers can build houses is when the inadequate local plans are overruled.   

If the NIMBYS tried an argument "NO NEW HOUSES WITHOUT INVESTMENT IN BUSES TRAINS RELIEF ROADS AND SCHOOLS" we might be in a better place.  However, I've not been offered that option by any local politician yet.

Similar to Milton Keynes.
It's been known for years/decades that the demand for housing is going up, so they have to be built somewhere.
Milton Keynes is the obvious choice. Lots of surrounding land and with very good road and rail links.
It amuses me when I read NIMBYism in the local rag. Milton Keynes has been expanding ever since it became a New Town. Most objections seem to be on the basis that more people will mean more congested roads.
Most complaints are based on too many cars on the roads because apparently, cars are the only way possible to travel

[Morrisette]

Cambridge - absolutely shocking. ....snip....This subject makes me quite angry, actually.

1. Developers S106 agreements. Councils need to grow a pair in negotiations and need to learn how what a decent contract looks like. They are depressing frequently commercially incompetent.

2. Affordable housing. Don't start me on this one. Seriously, don't! There are two core reasons why housing is unaffordable. Firstly, we don't build enough of it (which is why Northstowe and the other necklace developments around Cambridge are a Good Thing). Secondly, subsidised lending of money. Houses would a damn site more affordable if the government didn't keep pumping them up with practically zero interest rates, HTB1, 2, n, n+1 etc.

3. Transport at Northstowe. I can't remember too much detail - but, IIRC, the internal roads are practically all going to be "Homezone" style 20mph roads with ped/cyclist priority. And the guided bus was build in preparation for Northstowe et al - a good example of getting the infrastructure in first, I think.

4. Investment Properties. I'm not convinced this model of ownership is a problem per se. They're rented at market rents (by definition - not double!) and provide maintained accommodation - with all the capital risk lying elsewhere. However, when combined with low interest rates (see above) and housing benefit they *do* push up prices - but it's not the ownership model on its own.

You obviously know your stuff on this but what is meant to happen and what actually does is not always the same.

1 - couldn't agree more!
2 - it's not the fact of whether or not 'affordable housing' is a good thing or not - they were awarded the contract on the understanding that they were going to build it. 'We won't make enough filthy lucre from selling those houses' is not a good enough reason to change the plans after the contract is awarded. 'Affordable' in Cambridge still means 250 grand+ anyway, just some of the money is from the government in various dodgy schemes, so how are they not making a profit on that?
3 - the guided bus will have to be extended to Northstowe, it doesn't go there now. Home Zones are all very well but when the nearest shop, pub, doctor, secondary school, sports centre, community facility of any kind is ten miles away, people will drive. All of them. None of those things will be built until right at the end, as grudgingly as possible (see also: Cambourne, which waited nine years for a pub).
4 - nothing wrong with investing, but crappy flats that have been built specifically to sell to investment companies (I'm not talking about the individual with one extra house to fund their retirement) are crappy, and Cambridge city is over-run with them.

Anyway, none of this matters very much from my point of view as I live in Newmarket, which has the opposite problem - the racing industry won't let anyone build anything! But the houses are cheap.

[Jaded]

That's pretty much the story everywhere. Changes in planning controls have left a gap between the old way of doing things and the new "Local Plans". Until Local Plans are in place, there is effectively a developer's charter. I think the government is waking up to the fact that this will cost votes, but I don't hold out any hope that they will do anything.

In the meantime developers are filling their boots.

I'd be interested to know of examples - as this shouldn't happen. The old Local Plans govern development until the Local Development Framework is complete (and, surely they all are now - the change in legislation came in in 2004 or thereabouts). Certainly, you can't buy a field and build on it an will anymore than you could in the past.

I'm a little out of touch and may have forgotten some details - but the transition to the LDF was the last thing I did before I stood down. I do try to keep aware, though - I became a total planning policy anorak and still find the subject[1] fascinating.

[1] Not so much the bureaucracy so much as qualities of streetscene, architecture, and influencers of modal choice.

Don't let facts get in the way of anecdotes fuelled by assumption!

Go on then, give us the facts.

I think Pancho is doing that quite adequately.

Oh go on, you little tease! Hiding behind Pancho.

Surely you can back up your post?

[Pancho]

The key change in legislation (I believe) was the Localism act, with the abolishing of the Regional Spatial Strategies.

The absence of a current Local Plan means that you pretty much can buy a green field and build on it, hence this thread.

Hmm (still dubious!). The Localism Act etc was past my time so maybe I'm just out of date. But my understanding was that it was, well, local and very limited. A bit of googling suggest that is so: https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/giving-people-more-power-over-what-happens-in-their-neighbourhood/supporting-pages/community-right-to-build . It allows communities to push for small developments only - and only then if over 50% of the community support it in a mini-referendum.

All the developments mentioned in this thread are driven by LDFs. Just look at the map in the OP - it's a classic "settlement extension". If developers really could build anywhere, every field in Hampshire would have JCBs in it. The field next to my house (which developers have been wanting to build on for years and years) would be covered in new executive starter homes.

Also, I don't think the Regional Spatial Strategy abolition is showing much effect yet. The RSSs (set by the now-abolished Regional Assemblies) were a driver for development rather than a stopper. They imposed requirements for housing etc on local planning authorities  who would otherwise build sweet FA (as per the democratic wishes of their NIMBY constituents).

Removing RSSs is likely to (eventually) cause problems as they were the link between national problems and local solutions. Their abolition will slow housing growth as the big programmes they demanded are, maybe, replaced with ad hoc poxy little schemes under Localism. Or, rather, won't be - I don't think many communities are going to be voting to build over the green fields they love to walk their dogs on.

[Jaded]

Well, my interpretation of the situation was agreed by the County Councillor and District Councillor I was meeting this morning - that the requirement to update Local Plans with the new housing requirements, combined with the removal the RSSs has led to this developer bonanza.

[GothonaBrompton]

Wokingham is simmilar, there will be a new band of housing round both the north and south sides. The developments are being laid out in such a way as to effectively create a new ring road round the town.

However this will replace the current level crossing with a bridge over the railway and should hopefully remove the town centre traffic, what it will do to my commute is yet to be seen.

Matthew

When commuting to Winnersh Triangle a few times about 4-5 years ago for Sage training, I noticed there was a huge lot of houses being built somewhere between Martin's Heron and Wokingham (I think).  Is this around the same area?  I was quite shocked at the size of the development.

That is the Jennets Park development (where I am buying a house). That development includes a primary school and busses into town, it is on the cycle network to town etc. etc. Yes it's huge but it is expansion of the new town (Bracknell) in one of the few areas round here that isn't either green belt or crown estate.

Roads wise they built a new roundabout onto the A329 just off the end of the 329(M) with the result that the commuters can easily get to the M4 and London.

For me it has links to the local back roads using the estates cycle network to then avoid the main roads into Wokinham and then through to work.

Thanks Matthew.  It does sound like this is a more successful and well thought out development with the necessary infrastructure in place.  I guess having grown up in an already well built up part of West London, I am always curious when I see building on what appears to be green fields.  Only green bits I grew up with were the parks.

[matthew]

not necessarily fully thought out, yes the primary school is there but there will soon be shortages of secondary school places. The local shop has only just got a tenant 6 years later so there isn't yet a convenience store.

However there is are a couple of bus routes and the network of pedestrian / cycle routes through the development is good for the locals that know their way around.

overall though there is a reason I am moving to Bracknell and it is simply that with this site and the development of the old RAF staff college site there is a supply of housing stock appropriate for first time buyers in mixed estates. Where I currently am (parents) the new homes are either 750k 5 bed detached in gate roads or 2 bed luxury apartments at 350k+.