Building more homes
I have been following with interest the promises by Gordon Brown to dramatically increase the number of houses built. The problem is that he does not show any signs of appreciating that the government's own policies, and misunderstanding about why we have a housing shortage, have made the housing shortage worse in many parts of the country - and that they are trying to put housing in the wrong places.
In some areas, such as Cumbria, it is direct government restrictions which are preventing new homes from being built. The North West region Government office in Manchester has imposed a cap of 1,200 new housing units per year to be built in the whole of Cumbria
For years, Brown and people influenced by him - including John Prescott, whose housing policies were largely driven by the Treasury - have been acting as if the biggest cause of the shortage of houses were NIMBY councils in the South East being slow to grant planning permission.
I would never pretend that NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) pressures on councillors are not sometimes a problem. I have seen councillors of all parties - but especially Liberal Democrats - refuse housing proposals on totally inadequate grounds to court cheap popularity, and I have come under heavy flak myself once or twice for approving housing schemes on brownfield sites in town or city centres which I believe were desperately needed.
However you need only to look at where the houses are and are not being built to realise that this is not the main problem. Councils in rural parts of the South East, in the areas which the government would have you believe that NIMBY residents and councillors are the problem, are approving nearly as many new homes as they were passing when housebuilding was at record levels in the 90s. It is the midlands and the north where housebuilding has collapsed and this is the direct result of government policies to force the housing into the South East.
And the government has been proposing to put a third of the houses they are planning in flood plains. Surely the events of a few weeks ago, following on from the 2005 floods, should have made us realise that it is time for a rethink on this. But if such a rethink was in progress, the Prime Minister should be perfectly aware that he would not be in a position to made sweeping promises to deliver vast numbers of new homes.
Sadly it appears that the era of spin and of meaningless government promises is not over: ony the tone is different.
In some areas, such as Cumbria, it is direct government restrictions which are preventing new homes from being built. The North West region Government office in Manchester has imposed a cap of 1,200 new housing units per year to be built in the whole of Cumbria
For years, Brown and people influenced by him - including John Prescott, whose housing policies were largely driven by the Treasury - have been acting as if the biggest cause of the shortage of houses were NIMBY councils in the South East being slow to grant planning permission.
I would never pretend that NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) pressures on councillors are not sometimes a problem. I have seen councillors of all parties - but especially Liberal Democrats - refuse housing proposals on totally inadequate grounds to court cheap popularity, and I have come under heavy flak myself once or twice for approving housing schemes on brownfield sites in town or city centres which I believe were desperately needed.
However you need only to look at where the houses are and are not being built to realise that this is not the main problem. Councils in rural parts of the South East, in the areas which the government would have you believe that NIMBY residents and councillors are the problem, are approving nearly as many new homes as they were passing when housebuilding was at record levels in the 90s. It is the midlands and the north where housebuilding has collapsed and this is the direct result of government policies to force the housing into the South East.
And the government has been proposing to put a third of the houses they are planning in flood plains. Surely the events of a few weeks ago, following on from the 2005 floods, should have made us realise that it is time for a rethink on this. But if such a rethink was in progress, the Prime Minister should be perfectly aware that he would not be in a position to made sweeping promises to deliver vast numbers of new homes.
Sadly it appears that the era of spin and of meaningless government promises is not over: ony the tone is different.
Comments
I've seen this happen at at least a dozen planning meetings over the past 5 years.I've also seen the Lib Dems vote against a 20 bedroomed hostel for vulnerable adults, a sure start centre for deprived families and a rail freight terminal.The LDs are the great luddites of British politics.Even Charles Kennedy was against a wind farm in his own constituency.
(Though I must confess to having also voted against a rail freight terminal which I thought was being proposed in entirely the wrong place.)