UK housing supply - the problem & solutions

najaB said:

I wouldn't say it's a diversion - planning is at the heart of the issue!

Click to expand...

ABB125 said:

The thing with housing is that there are plenty of problems and not enough solutions. Most new-build houses seem to be tiny, poorly designed, badly-built and incredibly expensive for what they are (although there are exceptions). The current planning system is skewed heavily in favour of the interests of the developers, with extortionate amounts of profit being made (which normally I wouldn't have a problem with). Jeff Fairburn, former chief executive of Persimmon, was due to be awarded a £110 million bonus, reduced to around £75 million after "public outrage". And that's just one company.

This thread on the SABRE Roads forum is an interesting read about what developers can get away with.

Near where I live, Tewkesbury Borough Council, which does a very good job of giving the impression that its sole reason for existence is to concrete over the entire borough, actually refused* planning permission for an 850-house development to the south-east of M5 Junction 9 at Ashchurch. The developer appealed to the Secretary of State, and now has permission. There are two main issues with this development:

• The A46 cannot cope with yet more car traffic, and neither can Jn 9, which will just lead to longer queues leading onto the motorway from the junction
• The development is right is the way of the much needed Ashchurch bypass (it couldn't be more in the way if it tried) and will severely limit options for this (yet Highways England didn't object to the proposal...)

So in summary, it will worsen the quality of life for people in Ashchurch, and also hinder the thing which would improve life there. If the developer was paying for (or making a substantial contribution towards) road improvement schemes (and cycling/walking provision) to accommodate all the people living in the development, and this happened to a much more significant level across the country, I'm sure there would be less objection to development.

Also local to me, at the south end of Evesham (a town with terrible traffic problems and large amounts of housing development going on, especially in the Hampton area), further development in going on (the red box on the map; the blue box has already been built upon) right in the way of any extension of the bypass round to Hampton to relieve traffic through the town centre. This is a stupid decision. (I will at this point mention that a bypass extension isn't officially proposed, indeed was pretty much rejected by the council as it might reduce the case (as a result of reduced congestion) for the other road project that will hopefully be going ahead soon, an upgrade of the A46 between the M5 and (eventually) the M40. Nevertheless, a strip of land should have been left free, should the town's transport plan change.)
View attachment 75084

(Apologies for the slight diversion into terrible planning decisions, but it is related.)

Click to expand...

najaB said:

I wouldn't say it's a diversion - planning is at the heart of the issue!

Click to expand...

Jozhua said:

If development is carried out in a smart way, then new housing doesn't necessarily have to add more traffic or require a significant amount more road infrastructure. Unfortunately, what doesn't help the issue is the significant number of out of town 'industrial' parks many have to commute to. They are almost impossible to access by foot or public transportation, forcing their employees to find housing with reliable off street parking and connections to road networks. More dense office space would really help resolve some issues. It doesn't even have to be in expensive city centres. I know people who have perfectly acceptable commutes to offices near Metrolink stops a few miles out of Manchester. New industrial parks should be focused around existing transportation routes, as well as having their roads/pathways better integrated with the local community, so people can confidently walk between the town centres and places of work.

Click to expand...

Dai Corner said:

Sounds great in theory but doesn't seem to work in practice.

Within a mile of where I live in western Newport there is housing of all types from Council flats to 5 bedroom private houses, all kinds of jobs from retail to high tech manufacturing, financial services, public utilities and the National Statistics Office. There are six buses an hour to the city centre and to Cardiff.

Most people drive in or out of the area to work.

Click to expand...

Jozhua said:

It won't work until these policies are adopted on a larger scale. At the end of the day, these people probably live far out the city in suburban car-oriented developments. Its a bit of a chicken/egg situation.

Having more development with public transport access will give a slight increase in transit mode share to begin with. Over time, with more development accessible by transport, I think its safe to say this number may increase. That, along with public transport priority on certain heavily congested roads and junctions.

Click to expand...

Dai Corner said:

But they could live in a suburban development and walk to work. Why do you think they don't?

Click to expand...

Jozhua said:

It's too far, there are limited direct routes by foot, and the car tends to be quicker in the way we have prioritised it.

Click to expand...

Dai Corner said:

No, I mean why do people drive out of the area to work when there are plenty of jobs within walking distance?

Click to expand...

najaB said:

There may be plenty of (for example) call centre jobs within walking distance, but that's not of much interest/use to a trained astrophysicist.

Click to expand...

Dai Corner said:

But my point was that people will travel to work in a call centre when there are similar jobs on their doorstep.

Click to expand...

najaB said:

All things being equal, most people will preferentially choose a job that has a shorter commute to work. So, by inference, we can conclude that all things are not equal. So while there may be a call centre job on their doorstep, the job itself is likely inferior - e.g. lower paying, less rewarding, limited career prospects, etc.

Click to expand...

Jozhua said:

If development is carried out in a smart way, then new housing doesn't necessarily have to add more traffic or require a significant amount more road infrastructure.

Click to expand...

Dai Corner said:

No, I mean why do people drive out of the area to work when there are plenty of jobs within walking distance?

Depending on where they work, they could have a longer walk from where they park than they would from home to a local job.

Click to expand...

bramling said:

It just doesn’t work out like this. There’s many factors which determine where people live and where they work. People will want a job which fits their skill set, and perhaps even one they enjoy. Meanwhile choosing where to live may well be determined by factors like proximity to relatives, getting the type of property they want within their budget, as well as factors like local schools.

I don’t think there will ever be a situation where a majority of people will just choose a house and then simply find a local job.

Click to expand...

bramling said:

I don’t think there will ever be a situation where a majority of people will just choose a house and then simply find a local job.

Click to expand...

Dai Corner said:

There are probably jobs for physicists (if not the astro variety) at Airbus, G24 (solar cells, batteries, microelectronics etc) the IP Office or Western Power Distribution for example.

But my point was that people will travel to work in a call centre when there are similar jobs on their doorstep. I was refuting Joshua's assertion that 'smart' development would reduce commuting by giving a real life example where it doesn't.

Click to expand...

Dai Corner said:

Further reasons why 'smart development' doesn't work as expected / hoped.

Click to expand...

Jozhua said:

My point is that jobs should be accessible from their local communities, but also public transportation, which typically serves town/city centres. It doesn't make any sense that these 'industrial' parks, which mostly consist of offices and non-polluting industry should be so separated from nearby neighbourhoods. Plus, how about people who don't have access to cars, or can't drive? Should they not have access to all the jobs based in these out of town developments?

I know from experience in my hometown, offices and jobs were scattered throughout, so many people were able to walk to their jobs, or at least have a very short commute.



Going back to the traditional mixed use that worked well in cities for years, and asking for some basic pedestrian connectivity doesn't seem unreasonable and it is somewhat chicken and egg. Until more places follow, people will continue to be incentivised to use their cars.

Click to expand...

Enthusiast said:

Most of the responses to this question seem to think it's OK to have a continually increasing population. It clearly isn't because at some point (and parts of the UK are already demonstrating this) the issue of housing is a side show. Humans need more than places to live to keep them going and an ever increasing number of humans means an ever increasing effort will have to be made to provide those things. There are simply too many people in the UK and to harp on about the distribution of the population is pointless. People don't want to live in the Cumbrian Fells or on Dartmoor; they want to live in London, Birmingham, Manchester and the other big conurbations. That's where they feel comfortable, that's where there might be work for them and that's where there might be the services that they need. But not only is there no room for them (unless they live in 30 storey rabbit hutches). There aren't the services they need because there's no room for them either.

Click to expand...

The Ham said:

Whilst rising population will have had some impact, it's only one of many factors which will have had an impact others include:
- more active old people able to stay in large homes for longer
- adding population meaning that population growth isn't entirely from more births or more immigration
- skills shortages within the native population to build homes (I remember the time around 2000 when it was difficult to find a tradesperson and if you did you'd pay a LOT for them) - requiring us to import the skills needed
- skills shortages within the native population to build homes - meaning that we fell behind on the number of new homes needed
- planning allowing schemes to develop but other government agencies slowing down the implication of them
- smaller average family sizes
- smaller average household sizes (it's more common for a couple, not aways younger people, in a relationship to each have their own homes)

I'm sure that there's others which could be added. The suggestion that it's all down to immigration is flawed, especially given that migrant workers are more likely to live in HMO's compared to young professionals, who in turn are now likely to live in flats than couples in their 30's who are more likely to be in 2 or 3 bedroom homes compares to those who are older who are more likely to be in 4 or 5 bedroom homes. (Obviously there's going to be exceptions to this but the general trend is there).

Immigration will have had an impact, but a fairly small one.

In the last decade how much has the population fine up by? 20%, 15%, 10%?

Would it suprise you to know that it's gone up by 7.5% in a decade. That's less than 1% per year (circa 0.73% per year).

That's not a lot in the greater scheme of things.

It would require the construction of ~206,000 additional homes a year, about 1 per 115 hectares of land within the UK.

Click to expand...

underbank said:

Same around here - opposite us is a 4 bed single occupied and a 5 bed single (with 2 kids at Uni). Diagonally each way are a 4 and 5 bed both occupied by retired couples. Next door, single in a 3 bed, and next door the other way a mother/son in a 4 bed. We're on a late 70s estate, mostly 4 bed, some 3 some 5, but there isn't a single primary school child and just 2 or 3 sixth formers. These are family houses, but no small children anymore. There were plenty when we moved in 20 years ago, lots of cycling and footie games in the road, but the kids have mostly grown up and beggared off down South leaving quite a vacuum. The parents are getting older and many are now too old to be able to move themselves, so look likely to languish until they die or go into care. I think there should be a lot more help/encouragement for downsizing, i.e. reduced rates or zero stamp duty would be a good start if you downsize, maybe also practical help with the house contents decluttering/disposal/moving. One of our neighbours are an old couple in their 80s who'd love to move, but just aren't physically capable of sorting through all their stuff, viewing houses, etc - for them, it's the easy option just to stay put.

Click to expand...

Bletchleyite said:

Stamp duty should be abolished anyway. It would be better to tax ownership of property than sale/purchase of it. Any tax on selling property discourages moving around for flexibility which should be encouraged so the workforce is flexible and commuting is reduced.

If anything I'd look to put tax relief on the costs associated with moving your primary residence.

Click to expand...

Bletchleyite said:

Zoning is something we could do with getting rid of completely. The mixed-use approach in most European cities is far nicer - city centres that aren't dead after work, for instance, as people live there too - not just young professionals in posh flats, but families with kids too.

Click to expand...

Enthusiast said:

Most of the responses to this question seem to think it's OK to have a continually increasing population. It clearly isn't because at some point (and parts of the UK are already demonstrating this) the issue of housing is a side show. Humans need more than places to live to keep them going and an ever increasing number of humans means an ever increasing effort will have to be made to provide those things. There are simply too many people in the UK and to harp on about the distribution of the population is pointless. People don't want to live in the Cumbrian Fells or on Dartmoor; they want to live in London, Birmingham, Manchester and the other big conurbations. That's where they feel comfortable, that's where there might be work for them and that's where there might be the services that they need. But not only is there no room for them (unless they live in 30 storey rabbit hutches). There aren't the services they need because there's no room for them either.

Click to expand...

matacaster said:

There is however no denying that the population increase from 53 million to 68 million since circa 1960 is largely due to immigration.

Click to expand...

Bletchleyite said:

Why is a flat not an attractive proposition, assuming it has a lift and isn't in a super-high block in case of breakdowns? The trouble with bungalows is they make very poor use of land. Building them makes no more sense than building 4 bedroom houses.

Click to expand...

matacaster said:

Perhaps if oaps were encouraged to downsize by giving them a pension bonus for the rest of their lives?

Click to expand...

matacaster said:

There is however no denying that the population increase from 53 million to 68 million since circa 1960 is largely due to immigration.

Click to expand...

Dai Corner said:

Sounds great in theory but doesn't seem to work in practice.

Within a mile of where I live in western Newport there is housing of all types from Council flats to 5 bedroom private houses, all kinds of jobs from retail to high tech manufacturing, financial services, public utilities and the National Statistics Office. There are six buses an hour to the city centre and to Cardiff.

Most people drive in or out of the area to work.

Click to expand...

Jozhua said:

My point is that jobs should be accessible from their local communities, but also public transportation, which typically serves town/city centres. It doesn't make any sense that these 'industrial' parks, which mostly consist of offices and non-polluting industry should be so separated from nearby neighbourhoods. Plus, how about people who don't have access to cars, or can't drive? Should they not have access to all the jobs based in these out of town developments?

I know from experience in my hometown, offices and jobs were scattered throughout, so many people were able to walk to their jobs, or at least have a very short commute.



Going back to the traditional mixed use that worked well in cities for years, and asking for some basic pedestrian connectivity doesn't seem unreasonable and it is somewhat chicken and egg. Until more places follow, people will continue to be incentivised to use their cars.

Click to expand...

matacaster said:

Often because they take the kids to school before work and the school is not on a bus route anywhere near where they work.

Click to expand...