Another development 'ducks' WBC's affordable housing policy, Greenacre is 'rushed through on the nod'. Options

[Andy Capp]

I see the Greenacre plot got the nod, despite falling way short of fulfilling WBC's own affordable housing policy.

[Turin Machine]

Sorry, remind me. Please.

[Andy Capp]

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2014/demolit...ouncil-go-ahead


Jeff Beck (Con, Clay Hill) said: “We are looking at a package, including three affordable houses which don’t exist at the present time, plus what we believe will be an enhanced sports facility for the future.”

All that delay for three, how generous.

[blackdog]

I guess it is a trade-off - a reduction of the affordable housing allocation in exchange for a replacement sports facility.

[Andy Capp]

I guess it is a trade-off - a reduction of the affordable housing allocation in exchange for a replacement sports facility.

A reduction? Near removal is closer description.

[Exhausted]

I see the Greenacre plot got the nod, despite falling way short of fulfilling WBC's own affordable housing policy.

Why the developer should be forced to build houses for people who have aspirations to live in the middle of a high quality housing development without paying the going rate I don't know.

Why doesn't the council develop property for their own affordables and sell off a few at the quality housing price. Boot on the other foot.

[Exhausted]

I would like a definition of "Affordable" if anybody can help with that.

[Andy Capp]

Why the developer should be forced to build houses for people who have aspirations to live in the middle of a high quality housing development without paying the going rate I don't know.

Why doesn't the council develop property for their own affordables and sell off a few at the quality housing price. Boot on the other foot.

Because they don't.

And I am sure most of you with this apparent ignorance, were beneficiaries of a different time.

[Andy Capp]

I would like a definition of "Affordable" if anybody can help with that.

Some thing that a typical hard working working class family can afford to live in/buy without a sugar daddy.

[Andy Capp]

However, what this is about is that there's this myth of a council policy. It is ignored; more political lies. More reason to ignore councillors; they have no power.

[Exhausted]

Some thing that a typical hard working working class family can afford to live in/buy without a sugar daddy.

I'm afraid that answer doesn't do it for me. Are you suggesting that the builder/developer builds ten identical houses for a market value of 300k but sells three of them for 150k. That's the developer becoming the sugar daddy for the affordables.

The other option, he builds seven to sell for £300k then on his plot he builds three lower quality less desirable houses that he can sell for £150k lowering the value of his total product.

You tell me how it works.

[Andy Capp]

I'm afraid that answer doesn't do it for me.

Why not? What is your definition?

Are you suggesting that the builder/developer builds ten identical houses for a market value of 300k but sells three of them for 150k. That's the developer becoming the sugar daddy for the affordables.

No, that's a strawman fallacy.

The other option, he builds seven to sell for £300k then on his plot he builds three lower quality less desirable houses that he can sell for £150k lowering the value of his total product. You tell me how it works.

Well that is the policy that the WBC, and to a lesser extent, our local councils, systematically fail to implement.

I guess the reason the original policy of affordable home ratios were implemented was because the free market was not supporting the need for lower value homes. The housing market is broken because it has been allowed to grow unmoderated.

Longer term it should even-out, but that doesn't help people now.

[On the edge]

I suppose this contention is inevitable as the Developer will always see such a demand as a levy and a restriction. That's not excusing the need to properly enforce the existing rules. However, perhaps a better scheme would be for the agency responsible for housing to be given the authority to purchase what they deem they need, from any developer at market assessed prices. That would inevitably mean that the originating planning applications would need to be considered carefully, so that a mix of dwelling sizes / types were included; as defined in the local strategic plans.

[Exhausted]

Why not? What is your definition?

I don't have one, I thought you might but I suspect not

No, that's a strawman fallacy.

That is a typical meaningless and overused comment. To me that is the potential dilemma that a developer might be faced with.

Well that is the policy that the WBC, and to a lesser extent, our local councils, systematically fail to implement. I guess the reason the original policy of affordable home ratios were implemented was because the free market was not supporting the need for lower value homes. The housing market is broken because it has been allowed to grow unmoderated. Longer term it should even-out, but that doesn't help people now.

That might be a policy that is currently favoured, but be honest, it stigmatises those low cost tenants/owners who are perhaps living amongst people who have either made their mark or by luck or death of a relative have the finances to afford at their level. Is that then what 'affordable' means.

[Exhausted]

I suppose this contention is inevitable as the Developer will always see such a demand as a levy and a restriction. That's not excusing the need to properly enforce the existing rules. However, perhaps a better scheme would be for the agency responsible for housing to be given the authority to purchase what they deem they need, from any developer at market assessed prices. That would inevitably mean that the originating planning applications would need to be considered carefully, so that a mix of dwelling sizes / types were included; as defined in the local strategic plans.

Isn't that what should happen. A developer builds a group of apartments or houses, some therefore should be available for a housing association to purchase and do what they like with. The developer sells to them at the agreed market assessed price and apart from the concern about the quality of the tenant or assisted purchasers being a negative sales problem, at least some finance changes hands.

What agreements are reached between the planners who write their memos asking for the amount of affordable housing they require as laid down on some hymn sheet somewhere within the council enclaves and the group responsible for financing the property for its affordable portfolio.

[On the edge]

..........
That might be a policy that is currently favoured, but be honest, it stigmatises those low cost tenants/owners who are perhaps living amongst people who have either made their mark or by luck or death of a relative have the finances to afford at their level. Is that then what 'affordable' means.

I think you are probably right! Arguably ALL new housing is 'affordable', what Developer would build if he couldn't sell. So, it's simply yet another PC euphemism. Yes, we probably do need to help those starting out etc. but this quotas idea isn't the way to do it. As it is, it's simply social re-engineering.

[Simon Kirby]

I think you are probably right! Arguably ALL new housing is 'affordable', what Developer would build if he couldn't sell. So, it's simply yet another PC euphemism. Yes, we probably do need to help those starting out etc. but this quotas idea isn't the way to do it. As it is, it's simply social re-engineering.

Agreed.

[Exhausted]

Perhaps this Grauniad article helps to explain the definition and what it means.
The final line in the article..." The government has rendered the word affordable meaningless." says it all.

http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network...-social-housing

[NWNREADER]

." The government has rendered the word affordable meaningless."

It always was a political soundbite, of no real meaning. "Council Housing' was apparently a stigma, as was 'Social Housing'. Affordable is just the next in line. The cost of the house and the land it stands on is simple maths. Using cheaper fittings and methods, or selling in bulk, enables a lower cost but any enforced benefit to the renter/purchaser is simply added elsewhere on the development.
Same with assisted purchase schemes - delve into the numbers and the purchaser is often no better off at all.

What is the responsibility of the State/local councils to provide housing? As far as I know (and I will doubtless be re-educated) the only responsibility is temporary accommodation for the homeless?

[On the edge]

It always was a political soundbite, of no real meaning. "Council Housing' was apparently a stigma, as was 'Social Housing'. Affordable is just the next in line. The cost of the house and the land it stands on is simple maths. Using cheaper fittings and methods, or selling in bulk, enables a lower cost but any enforced benefit to the renter/purchaser is simply added elsewhere on the development.
Same with assisted purchase schemes - delve into the numbers and the purchaser is often no better off at all.

What is the responsibility of the State/local councils to provide housing? As far as I know (and I will doubtless be re-educated) the only responsibility is temporary accommodation for the homeless?

Yes, you are quite right. Trouble with land us that no one is making it any more. We still live in a de facto aristocracy and land supply is an oligopoly at best. So, just as we have for other necessity provisions that tend towards monopoly, regulation is appropriate (and regrettably) necessary to balance the market forces, which are otherwise be one way. There is absolutely no reason why a housing market for all types of decent accommodation that suits every pocket, should not exist - without having to resort to subsidy or property ownership in public hands.