Councils scrap plans for 85,000 homes
Plans to build nearly 85,000 homes across England have been axed following the government’s decision to end house building targets.
According to research carried out for the National Housing Federation by Tetlow King Planning, councils have dropped plans to build 84,150 homes as a direct or indirect reaction to the change in policy.
Shadow communities secretary Caroline Spelman wrote to local authorities before the Conservatives came into power warning they would do away with house building targets.
Communities secretary Eric Pickles wrote to local authorities in May reaffirming the commitment to do away with the targets by abolishing regional spatial strategies, and last month he revoked the strategies.
The NHF is warning the number of homes built in England in 2010/11 could fall below 100,000 after reaching its lowest level since 1923 in 2009/10, when 123,000 homes were built.
Federation chief executive David Orr said: ‘With more than 4.5 million people on waiting lists and 2.5 million people in overcrowded conditions, this is no time to downgrade the need for new homes.’
The Tetlow King research found councils in the south west had dropped plans for 59,750 homes, those in the east of England had dropped plans for 20,540, and in the south east councils had scrapped plans for 1,860 homes. The figure for the south west is believed to be high because regional house building targets had not been fully adopted in the area.
Mr Orr said: ‘It is frankly disappointing that so many local authorities have decided to revise down the number of homes planned for their areas following the scrapping of regional house building targets.
‘Local authorities need to recognise that just because regional targets have gone, housing need has not.’
Councils who have made cuts include:
- Exeter City Council – has reduced its target by 3,000 homes
- Bristol City Council – 6,000 homes
- Torbay Council – 5,000 homes
- Cotswold District Council – 900 homes
- North Somerset Council – 10,750 homes
- North Hertfordshire Council and Stevenage Borough Council – have suspended plans for 9,200 homes.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (19)
philipjohn001 | 19/07/2010 11:29 am
It's not often I find myself agreeing with David Orr but in this I am united!!
It was inevitable that Council's would lower build number but this is a great deal just when more new housing is needed to prevent another 'bubble' in the sector. This news can only drive prices higher, pricing even more people out of buying and into the private rented and social rented sectors.
Obviously though, there isn't enough SR housing to go around now, and despite the caps on LHA private landlords must be rubbing their hands in glee.
Kind of makes me wonder how many properties our current crop of tories are renting out???
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 19/07/2010 12:53 pm
It is a complete government conspiracy! Like petrol prices, Apple iPhone 4 and WII Fit (when first released), constrain units on the market by limiting stock and keep prices high. Good news for those ‘middle and upper class’ Tory voters who already own their own home.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Michael Read | 19/07/2010 2:56 pm
Orr's becoming desperate.
How long before he's selling the Big Issue and asking for a cardboard box in these columns.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
john bull | 21/07/2010 10:31 am
never mind reduce the target, lets scrap the building programmes of councils altogether.
Councils could save time and money by getting out of housing provision altogether. The new very generous housing benefit ceilings mean the private sector will build or let all the housing needed.
Look at the areas cutting back its the west country which is overcrowded as it is. We need to see the UK as one country and fill all the empty houses and re-allocate all the underused ones before we build any more houses.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 21/07/2010 10:40 am
Mr Bull - you avoid the obvious flaw in your arguments.
The wonderful gods of the private sector failed to provide additional housing to meet need before housing benefit caps were applied, so are unlikely to do so now.
We can not allocate housing without taking into account other social factors such as employment, public services, support circles, (dare I say choice). Housing a Islington road sweeper in Truro is not going to help anyone, unless you are prepared to pay their commute.
Whilst such solutions work in the confines of your skull Mr Bull, the real world is a little bigger and a bit more sophisticated.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
john bull | 21/07/2010 10:52 am
Hello Chris,
Well its a change from being accused of being a facsist, now you suggest my ten years as vice chair of a major HA, means I am not in touch with the real world.
I'm not suggesting its easy, but we have to face up to the mess well meaning but cruell people have got us into, by creating a hugh institutionalised benefits junkie army.
The world and uk situation means a great many 19th C ideas are in need of drastic revision.
Join the real world Chris, and you can call me John.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
john bull | 21/07/2010 10:53 am
PS Chris I hope you are typing this in your own time!!!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 21/07/2010 2:06 pm
Dear Mr Bull
Of what business and concern of your is it when I access this website.
I do not believe I have called you a facist, but if I have I apologise for comparing you to a group of individuals who had a declared manifesto.
I do not comprehend what you mean by 'hugh institutionalised benefits junkie army' as there appears to be too many rhetoric based terms clashing together for me to be clear of your intended statement.
I would be interested to learn how, in your vast experience of 10-years as a vice-chair of a RSL, the proposed welfare reforms will cause the private sector to increase the supply of housing?
Your tenureship of a major RSL will have informed you that the vast amount of government grant that you have adminstered has been used in the main to provide minimum sized 1 and 2-bed flats with the majority for some form of subsidised home ownership, whilst the local authorities within which your RSL works have a pressing need for family sized accomodation.
Perhaps you are proud of your complicity - if so why not come clean and state your true name and the name of your RSL. If not then it is proven true that bullies ultimately are just cowards with loud voices!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
john bull | 21/07/2010 4:06 pm
hi mr webb,
I didn't say you called me a facsist, but I note you are calling me a bully. I am just expressing a common viewpoint, frequently heard outside the sheltered world of social housing.
Sorry you have difficulty understanding my english, I suspect its really you hate to acknowledge the fact that millions of people have become state benefit junkies.
no sorry wrong again, most of our properties are 3 bed semis or two/three bed flats. The government Grant not loan, being 50% of the build cost. They are the minimum size but that makes them much bigger than private houses!
Identity no thank you!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 21/07/2010 6:17 pm
Mr Bull
To be clear - you are saying that the vast majority of your tenants are state benefit junkies - and you claim to be an RSL Vice Chair?
Your so proud of your achievements and views you will not state who you are?
Interstingly you have not replied to the points of challenge about how you believe the private sector will increase supply, or how people can be forceably shipped around the country. Is this because you accept your arguments to be fundementally wrong?
You terms of phrase to others amount to bullying, but as I say experience shows bullies to be cowards, and you are too cowardly to attribute your statements to your name or respond with answers to a challenge.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment