The Conservative Party

[BrianW]

Brownfield sites are more expensive to build on. Ask Mansour how much he spent on 'remediation' for the Academy site. Most UK native developers (99%) would not look at such a project. They want the biggest possible profit on the smallest possible outlay, and they want that profit tomorrow, not in 25 years' time.

 

[Vic]

Brownfield sites are more expensive to build on. Ask Mansour how much he spent on 'remediation' for the Academy site. Most UK native developers (99%) would not look at such a project. They want the biggest possible profit on the smallest possible outlay, and they want that profit tomorrow, not in 25 years' time.

It's a real dilemma for the Tories.

Create a presumption in favour of development, set housing targets, and collect the party donations from developers. Then find their party's local nimby opposition is too strong and try and row back on targets. Lots of noise about protecting the green belt while the reality is it's people living in a house built on a field objecting to someone building on a field near them, stifling supply of new housing that keeps their own house price high.

And that's without things like Jenrick's rush to approve a £40m development by a Conservative donor.

 

[TinFoilHat]

Tories just oppose any building in their areas, full stop. They imagine brownfield sites that only become available if another factory closes. Gove is another cokehead liar.

 

[BeerIsTheBest]

New housing provision will remain an impossible conundrum unless a political party thinks outside the box and also looks back at history when affordable housing initiatives were an imperative. Like after WW2. And no I am not advocating a return to concrete housing estates.

There are polar views on whether builders are actually abusing land -banking, there will always be pressure from local residents to restrict build on green belt and of course house builders would always prefer to build on virgin land be it flood plain or whatever.

But the amount of available brownfield land in England is substantial - some 67,563 acres over c22,000 sites (2021 figure from 344 brownfield registers) with the capacity to hold 1.2m homes. A decent proportion of this land must be a possibility for building without truly extortionate lane cleaning costs.

This is without the hamsters initiative to utilise vacant retail premises etc,

Imagine being able to meet the gvmt target of 300,000 new homes each year by utilising this available land.

A gvmt with imagination could do so much with this potential, utilising incentives to build and actively promoting some sort of return to traditional social housing. It would tackle the stain of homelessness and relieve pressures from migration etc.

And fuck the house builders who have for years thrown up 3 and 4 bedroom rabbit hutches on open fields and made a fortune.

 

[mosssideblue]

I support policies I agree in, which is why I look past the colour of the rosette. Do you?

having good policies doesn't make for a particularly good government if those in power are corrupt as fuck

 

[TinFoilHat]

 

[Phil1]

View attachment 87696

Not sure what makes the **** look dafter, the original message or the second asking people not to read it!! Haha! Fuckinell.

 

[TinFoilHat]

Not sure what makes the **** look dafter, the original message or the second asking people not to read it!! Haha! Fuckinell.

You can take the man out of North Notts...

 

[BrianW]

I hate to say this, but the only way to do 'virtuous' housing is for the state to do it. The private sector is (understandably) about maximising profit. So if 6-bedroom 'executive' properties in the Greenbelt are what makes that profit, that is what they will want to build. Tbh, I don't really 'blame' them, it's what capitalists do.

There needs to be more social housing, but people won't admit it, not least because many influential people (including MPs) are raking it in from the private rental market, and living on the state's tit in the form of Housing Benefit. But that's the sort of benefit Tories like. Never mind we could provide housing more cheaply and effectively - that's an evil socialist plot.

The fundamental failure of what passes for political culture in this country is an unwillingness to admit that some things are best done by the state; others by the private sector. In particular, the private sector will always follow the money. It really doesn't care if Mr Bloggs has no house or Mrs Jones has no bus service. They should both have worked harder, that's the mantra, even if both are doing 60-hour weeks.

 

[bluethrunthru]

View attachment 87696

30p Lee sharp as ever