Starmer's vision quest

[bobzmyunkle]

Brownfield sites, Council houses. You'd thing an ultra lefty like Starmer would dive right in.

 

[CXRAndy]

We dont have a building problem. The UK has an immigration problem. Far too many people.

 

[CXRAndy]

Well done Rachel


View: https://x.com/i/status/2044105907030896880

 

[Psamathe]

Again, that reads like a developer problem, not a Labour problem.

I think it comes from developers having different motives than Labour. Labour want more houses for people to buy/live in whereas developers what higher profits and returns for investors.

Developers achieve their aims from building the sorts of properties that return highest profits rather than what society needs. They can also improve returns for investors through land banks (buy land without planning permissions, get planning permission and their book value increases without any need for actually building anything).

Sadly Labour policy is too influenced by lobbyists. What I think they should be prioritising is enabling Councils to build (is borrow to build), housing associations and trusts, etc. where the motives are better aligned with the needs of society.

Developers might not like developing on brownfield sites but the UK is now one of the most nature-depleted countries on Earth. We should not be throwing away our environment for the cause of developer profits, particularly where those profits are not from addressing the needs of society.

 

[BoldonLad]

Reads like the problem is with Netanyahu, Donnie, and the builders. Not Labour.
I see that answer as government funded building project of genuine affordable housing (ie 2 bed max) and reap the profits from sales or rent.

I dare say that it is not that simple and requires long term planning instead of under 4 years.

Yes, local authorities who have set up as Developers have shown the way

 

[BoldonLad]

Brownfield sites, Council houses. You'd thing an ultra lefty like Starmer would dive right in.

Didn’t Ms Rayner “invent” a new category of “grey belt”, which was the former “greenbelt” sites adjacent to existing developments, thus enabling unending urban spread?

 

[CXRAndy]

Fiddling whilst home burns


View: https://x.com/i/status/2044374865801605283

 

[Psamathe]

Didn’t Ms Rayner “invent” a new category of “grey belt”, which was the former “greenbelt” sites adjacent to existing developments, thus enabling unending urban spread?

I think she just "rubber stamped" the developers dreams.

Developers met ministers dozens of times over planning bill while ecologists were shut out
The scale of lobbying of ministers by developers on Labour’s landmark planning changes, which seek to rip up environmental rules to boost growth, can be exposed as campaigners make last-ditch attempts to secure protections for nature.
...
The Guardian can reveal the scale of the lobbying by developers in face-to-face meetings with the chancellor and other ministers that has been going on for months, while professional ecologists have found it hard to gain any audience.

“Access to ministers has been difficult,” said Sally Hayns, the chief executive of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management. “We asked for a meeting early on, and were initially turned down. We asked again in July and finally had a meeting in the autumn with civil servants. We haven’t had a face-to-face meeting with a minister at all.”

In contrast, just a week into her tenure Reeves hosted high-level discussions with housebuilders Berkeley, Barratt and Taylor Wimpey and has continued to have a string of meetings with housing developers, according to the Treasury register of ministerial meetings.

 

[CXRAndy]

There are always unintended consequences of Rachel's plans.

High earners are topping up their pensions to sidestep income tax increases. An extra £400 million has been put into pensions.

 

[BoldonLad]

I think she just "rubber stamped" the developers dreams.

Maybe she did, is that a valid excuse for dubious decisions?

 

[TailWindHome]

There are always unintended consequences of Rachel's plans.

High earners are topping up their pensions to sidestep income tax increases. An extra £400 million has been put into pensions.

Is this good or bad?

 

[CXRAndy]

Reduces the income tax pot for the exchequer. When labour are gone and more favourable tax rules are in place, then high earners will re-evaluate their position

 

[Pross]

Looks like agricultural land. As I posted above, there are 1.2 m sites on brownfield sites (against Labour's target of 1.5 m) so why argicultural land?

Developers are not building on plots that already have permission granted so why not allow proper scrutiny of proposed development? 1.4m homes already granted permission but not built (against Labour's 1.5 m over 5 years). ie they already have planning permission granted.

Getting planning is just the first step on a journey that often takes years. I’m involved in a scheme to convert a rural building into a small SEN school. Planning was approved by committee months ago but we’re still awaiting the Decision Notice and Conditions. We then have a process that will take at least 6 months to get the near non-existent works in the highway approved.

Housing developers need a long term supply. Council’s are also supposed to be able to demonstrate they have a certain amount of supply from allocated sites but in many cases are unable to demonstrate this (which can then go against them in planning appeals). The idea that housing developers deliberately hold back land to push up prices is unlikely in most cases, they’ll have invested millions in land purchase and consultant fees but won’t get anything back until they start selling land.

The post-planning processes are a major bottleneck, there are plenty of smaller developers that have gone under as they have to spend so much up front and then wait years for the money to come rolling in. Another bottleneck is the lack of tradespeople to actually build the things. Without that (or a huge upscaling of off-site construction) they’ll never hit the building targets irrespective of the number of units that get planning.

 

[Dorset Boy]

There are always unintended consequences of Rachel's plans.

High earners are topping up their pensions to sidestep income tax increases. An extra £400 million has been put into pensions.

Well they can only contribute £60,000 pa and that reduces over a certain level of earnings down to £10,000 pa. So it's unlikely to be your really high earners, more your sub £120k pa earners.

 

[BoldonLad]

Well they can only contribute £60,000 pa and that reduces over a certain level of earnings down to £10,000 pa. So it's unlikely to be your really high earners, more your sub £120k pa earners.

Yes, I was thinking just that, but, I have broken my own "rule" once this year, didnt want to do it again 😂