The housing crisis and ways to fix it?

[WelshBluebird]

It's worth saying a property being "affordable" doesn't actually mean much at all. This may have changed but last I checked all it meant was it was to be sold or rented for 80% of the market rate for the area. In many areas that 80% is still insanely high and much much higher than what most people on regular wages can afford.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

As I've said before, the housing industry doesn't want to build too many homes.

That statement would make sense if the housing industry was a monopoly, so that the single monopoly company could control prices upwards by building insufficient homes. But it isn't a monopoly: There are lots of building companies that build houses etc. in the UK - so if any one builder deliberately tried to not build houses that people want, there's nothing to stop another company stepping in and building some houses instead, and thereby taking the profits that the first company would have made. For that reason I just don't buy this idea that there's some kind of conspiracy to not build enough houses. So I think we need to look at other possible reasons why supply is insufficient. My suspicion is the things to look at would be the difficulty getting planning permission, a possible lack of trained/skilled builders (people that is, not companies), and the fact that so many people want to live in fairly specific parts of the country (such as London) where there isn't enough land to build for everyone while also keeping enough green spaces.

Is there any sign of that changing? The only social housing comes when a council succeeds in forcing a developer to set aside a certain percentage in order to get what they want, and those properties are often very basic in comparison.

Well that's hardly surprising: If you force builders to build and sell something well below market prices, then *surprise* they are probably not going to spend lots of money on them that they won't be able to recoup by selling them.

And I would say the long term solution to social housing is to figure out why not enough houses are being built, then get enough built that prices/rents naturally fall to a level at which people on a lowish salary can afford them - then we won't need to keep mandating social housing in new developments.

 

[ainsworth74]

That statement would make sense if the housing industry was a monopoly, so that the single monopoly company could control prices upwards by building insufficient homes. But it isn't a monopoly: There are lots of building companies that build houses etc. in the UK - so if any one builder deliberately tried to not build houses that people want, there's nothing to stop another company stepping in and building some houses instead, and thereby taking the profits that the first company would have made.

Whilst it certainly isn't a monopoly situation I do wonder if it isn't more akin to an informal cartel. Whilst there are a few dozen housebuilders out there only four or five are really sizeable with significant numbers of completions each year (the sorts that are household names like Taylor Wimpey or Barratt). So considering that a few companies are responsible for a significant chunk of the market is it really in their interest to come in and undercut their rivals and start a price war? I'm not convinced the CEOs of these firms are meeting in a darkened room opting to screw people over but I'm also not convinced that there's any strong incentive for them to compete in a particularly cut throat manner either. Where's the incentive to get out there and build as much as they possibly can if all that will do is drive down the price of the thing they're trying to sell and cut into their margins.

I don't dispute we need to do something about planning reform as well. It's quite obvious across a whole host of different areas not just housebuilding that planning is now part of the many problems that are actively making it neigh on impossible to build anything in good time. But I wouldn't be so sure to dismiss the idea that housebuilders are quite happy with the status quo.

And I would say the long term solution to social housing is to figure out why not enough houses are being built, then get enough built that prices/rents naturally fall to a level at which people on a lowish salary can afford them - then we won't need to keep mandating social housing in new developments.

Of course another way to reduce the demand on social housing would be to make private renting less inhospitable. Strengthening tenants rights would go a long way to reducing the number of people who want to live in social housing precisely because it offers more security of tenure meaning you can more safely put down roots and more ability to force the landlord to put things right. Personally speaking I would suggest that we need that two pronged approach of more supply of homes to buy for people to live whilst also making the private sector more secure for tenants.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Whilst it certainly isn't a monopoly situation I do wonder if it isn't more akin to an informal cartel. Whilst there are a few dozen housebuilders out there only four or five are really sizeable with significant numbers of completions each year (the sorts that are household names like Taylor Wimpey or Barratt).

Yes it's a fair point that in terms of really big housebuilders, it's perhaps more like an oligopoly than a very competitive market. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure there used to be a lot of smaller builders who would operate only in one geographical area and are therefore not household names (I once bought a house from one of them), and I know someone who has a company doing something similar - but only in one town. I wonder if the existence of those makes things more competitive.

Of course another way to reduce the demand on social housing would be to make private renting less inhospitable. Strengthening tenants rights would go a long way to reducing the number of people who want to live in social housing precisely because it offers more security of tenure meaning you can more safely put down roots and more ability to force the landlord to put things right. Personally speaking I would suggest that we need that two pronged approach of more supply of homes to buy for people to live whilst also making the private sector more secure for tenants.

That's a tricky one. On the one hand I agree that tenants' rights need protecting: I'm sure we've all seen enough horror stories of people renting properties that are not fit for habitation, scared that they'll be kicked out if they complain - and that's clearly not acceptable. On the other hand, even the limited improvements to tenants' rights of the last couple of years appear to have resulted in a lot of buy-to-let landlords choosing to sell up (to be fair, that's also to do with changes to the tax regime), making it even harder for people who want to rent to find somewhere. (Although I guess buy-to-let landlords selling up is good for people looking to buy a house).

 

[Energy]

Too many 5 bedroom houses seem to be being built - I assume more profitabl. Need loads more 1, 2 and 3 bed homes.

I'd rather 2-bed houses are flats. 1&2-bed houses tend to have small rooms, poor density, or both.

Parking is also an issue. It depends on the local authority in London often requiring no parking while for example Charnwood council (I live nowhere near it, first one on Google) requires:

Dwelling with 4 or more bedrooms 3 parking spaces
Dwelling with 3 or less bedrooms 2 parking spaces
Local Authority & Housing Association developments, flats, with 2 bedrooms or less, with communal parking 3 spaces per 2 dwellings

It means that for a non-housing association block of 4, 2 bedroom flats you'd need to find space for 8 parking spaces without people having to block each other in.

 

[cactustwirly]

The problem isn't the number of houses as such, but the pure demand on one particular part of the country.

Houses in the Midlands and North are a lot more affordable, you can take out a mortgage with an average salary and buy a house.

To buy a modest house in the South East you need to be earning 60-70k and then triple figures for a 2 bed terraced in London.

To fix it you need to make the north more attractive with better jobs that pay more, but this takes a lot of time and will.

 

[JamesT]

The problem isn't the number of houses as such, but the pure demand on one particular part of the country.

Houses in the Midlands and North are a lot more affordable, you can take out a mortgage with an average salary and buy a house.

To buy a modest house in the South East you need to be earning 60-70k and then triple figures for a 2 bed terraced in London.

To fix it you need to make the north more attractive with better jobs that pay more, but this takes a lot of time and will.

Or given the economic benefits of agglomeration, build more housing in the South-East where people actually want to live?

 

[cactustwirly]

Or given the economic benefits of agglomeration, build more housing in the South-East where people actually want to live?

There's loads being built near me and it's like a drop in the ocean, you'd have to cover everything from London to Southampton to make a significant difference to house proces

 

[Enthusiast]

Or given the economic benefits of agglomeration, build more housing in the South-East where people actually want to live?

Fine. So long as you remember to build (and adequately staff) more hospitals, doctors' surgeries, schools, nurseries, social care facilities, dentists, fire stations. That's just a selection of the "essential" stuff. Then there's the "nice to have" stuff such as adequate transport facilities and gas and electricity supplies. The odd new reservoir wouldn't go amiss either. The UK hasn't had one since 1991 since when the population has risen by about 11 million.

There's plenty of room in the South-East - if you're happy to see back gardens built on, agricultural land sequestrated and you're content to see small towns and villages expanded and surrounded by excessive housing inappropriately. But it's no good just sticking houses and flats where "people want to live". You have to make sure they can live there properly and at the moment that isn't happening.

 

[The Ham]

There's loads being built near me and it's like a drop in the ocean, you'd have to cover everything from London to Southampton to make a significant difference to house proces

I think that is your did build a mega city between London and Southampton, that you'd find that you'd have a lot of houses.

Hampshire currently has 380 people per square km, Birmingham has 4,200 (Manchester is 4,750, whilst. Portsmouth and Luton both come in at 5,100 and there's even Tower Hamlets at just over 15,000 - so there's plenty of scope to build fast more densely if that was the desire). As there's 3,679 square km in Hampshire, so if you built on Hampshire at the density of Birmingham you'd be able to home over 9 million extra people.

It would require building 3.8 million homes. It would mean that you could deliver every single house in the governments 300,000 house per year target for the next 12 years without touching any other county.

However, you'd also need to build a LOT of infrastructure.

Interestingly, if you were to build at the density of Tower Hamlets within Hampshire you could host the entire population of the England in Hampshire and Greater London.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

To fix it you need to make the north more attractive with better jobs that pay more, but this takes a lot of time and will.

and good high speed and other transport such as HS2 a,b, eastern leg ————- oh dear

 

[The Ham]

Fine. So long as you remember to build (and adequately staff) more hospitals, doctors' surgeries, schools, nurseries, social care facilities, dentists, fire stations. That's just a selection of the "essential" stuff. Then there's the "nice to have" stuff such as adequate transport facilities and gas and electricity supplies. The odd new reservoir wouldn't go amiss either. The UK hasn't had one since 1991 since when the population has risen by about 11 million.

There's plenty of room in the South-East - if you're happy to see back gardens built on, agricultural land sequestrated and you're content to see small towns and villages expanded and surrounded by excessive housing inappropriately. But it's no good just sticking houses and flats where "people want to live". You have to make sure they can live there properly and at the moment that isn't happening.

Generally, as long as the legals are done well, there are developer contributions to build schools.

Nurseries are an odd one as the LEA should ensure that there's enough spaces, however they are generally privately run and don't often have the capital to provide new building space (although this depends on the setup).

Hospitals are national government, and they don't get funding from developers.

Doctors surgeries are sort of private (although commissioned by the NHS), the issue is that there's not always the staff to run them adequately - due in part to a lot retiring and many who have been in training in recent years going to Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc. as they get a better deal.

Social care is generally private and is something which needs much more capacity - however there's a lack of staff to provide it.

Dentists are generally private, again staffing is the issue.

Fire stations are generally needed at certain distances apart, rather than (unless you are looking at significant population sizes) the number of buildings. As generally the risk of a fire is very low. Therefore, the spacing is now to do with how quickly they can get somewhere rather than a need for a fire station for a given population size. However, once you are at the point in size where you need more than one fire station you're in a fairly urban area and so you've got the council tax payments to cover the extra costs.

In terms of nice to haves:

Gas supplies are going out of favour with many developers with many new home from now onwards being electric only (you save a lot in standing charges, and given how well insulated new houses are the cost of heating them is much less than than it was even in a 20 year old house).

Electricity can be mitigated against a little by having lots of solar (although not too much), however there's a need for significant upgrades to the network anyway.

Transport comes down (a lot) to where people wish to get to/from, however in the case of Hampshire a significant uplift could be created by actually building Crossrail 2 - as that frees up paths into Waterloo for longer distance travel.

 

[najaB]

Yes it's a fair point that in terms of really big housebuilders, it's perhaps more like an oligopoly than a very competitive market. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure there used to be a lot of smaller builders who would operate only in one geographical area and are therefore not household names (I once bought a house from one of them), and I know someone who has a company doing something similar - but only in one town. I wonder if the existence of those makes things more competitive.

Slightly. But the biggest housebuilders have bought up a lot of the best sites, which means that the smaller companies have to make do with less attractive locations.

The Competition and Markets Authority is seeking feedback on land banks and planning rules as part of its probe into the housebuilding market

The 11 largest housebuilders own or control an estimated 1.17 million land plots across more than 5,800 sites in Britain, a Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) working paper has found.

The number of land in long-term land banks is equivalent to around 658,000 plots, while the short-term land bank is smaller, at around 522,000 plots.

The 11 largest housebuilders own or control 1.17 million plots, competition regulator says

The Competition and Markets Authority is seeking feedback on land banks and planning rules as part of its probe into the housbeuilding market

www.housingtoday.co.uk

 

[The Ham]

Short term land bank (i.e. those sites with planning permission) having 522,000 plots perhaps needs to be put in perspective.

In 2021/22 there were 79,000 new homes sold, by the top 11 home builders, that's a little over 6 and a half years of sales.

Given that planning tends to only last for 3 years they're not going to want to hold too much more than that, likewise they'll probably need to hold that number to be sure that they can keep developing (given some sites may have, as an example, 2,500 homes and take over 13 years to build and sell them).

Whilst the long term land banks gives them about 8.5 years worth of sales, that's only certainty of their future sales for up to 15 years. I say up to 15 years, as not all of those sites without planning permission will go on to get planning permission, or if they do it may well be beyond 15 years.

Even if planning is granted, if it's a large site (see the above example) in (say) 5 years time some of those houses may not be possible to be built and sold within 15 years. As such they would need to find further sites to sell within that 15 year window.

 

[Snow1964]

The biggest quick win is open up specific category of build to rent 1-2 bed flats aimed at those at university or within 4 years of university/college, with rent caps at no more than quarter of average wages. Short term rentals, and regardless of how many different locations used, automatic eviction 4 years after graduating when no longer entitled to that category

The simple reason is many developments are bogged down in planning because of lack of doctors and lack of school places, and this group has negligible needs for either. There is also a huge pent up demand as young people often move around bit during first few years of working, but not in a position to commit to same location long term. The rent cap also allows chance to save for a deposit.

To give idea of scale, say 400,000 graduates per year, plus another 200,000 doing teacher training, nursing training, and various other jobs with further on the job training. Could comfortably fill 1.5-2m spaces. Whats more there are long term funds (eg pension funds) that want to invest in long term income generating schemes.

Before anyone says age specific property is wrong, we already have housing schemes where minimum ages of 50 or 55 or 60 apply.

The main advantage of going for quick win, is it indirectly starts to free up other housing. We (UK) currently spends billions on subsidising families to rent private homes, some of which are dreadful quality and privately owned. The reason we do this is due to lack of public housing (at end of 1970s before sell off started, was about 6.5m public (council) homes).

The other very fast win is to stop sale of council houses (and it's quasi equivalent housing association). There will always be reluctance to invest if got to give it away at a discount few years later. Perhaps more palatable would be only houses over 50 years old can be sold.

The experts advise not really a shortage of family homes, just lot of them are currently being used by non-families. Two main categories: split into multiple rentals, a category that can be controlled as there are licences for HMOs (houses of multiple occupation) which need renewing at intervals; and older people still living in big family houses due to lack of suitable retirement homes.

You don't need to be a genius to work out family homes are attractive and profitable for builders, so they will keep building more if we continue with turning them over to HMOs and encouraging older people to stay in them. In simple terms it is often seen as cheaper and easier for the retirees to employ a cleaner and gardener than spend thousands in one go moving to suitable retirement home. That's if they can even find a suitable retirement estate, they simply don't exist in most towns (it's often small flats in retirement apartment blocks, or nothing), no intermediate downsize homes.

The other area where UK is poor is co-building, self build estates, there is lot of brownfield land, and a few pilot schemes eg Graven Hill, Bicester, but negligible opportunities to build your own home in majority of towns. In theory legally councils are supposed to have list of available self build plots to peruse, but I bet getting hold of your local one is as easy as looking for needle in a haystack. We need lot more of these build own house approach.

So for all good intentions (and silly short term policies subsidising things like heating unsuitable homes), we have no strategy. The two categories desperately needed (early career rentals, and intermediate downsize retirement homes) are virtually never built, so family homes get tied up instead.

 

[Magdalia]

build more housing in the South-East where people actually want to live?

This needs to take a step further back. What matters is where businesses want to locate, the houses are then needed to accommodate the workers within commuting distance. The extreme example of this is Cambridge.

you'd have to cover everything from London to Southampton to make a significant difference to house proces

This is not correct. My favourite land use stat is that in Surrey golf courses take up more land than houses. There is still plenty of land to build on, especially if people stopped playing golf!

The odd new reservoir wouldn't go amiss either. The UK hasn't had one since 1991 since when the population has risen by about 11 million.

In Cambridge water supply is the critical constraint. It isn't a "nice to have", it is essential. Already many large planning applications are being held up by objections from the Environment Agency over water supply.

Electricity can be mitigated against a little by having lots of solar (although not too much), however there's a need for significant upgrades to the network anyway.

Reconfiguring the National Grid to deliver electricity from where it is generated to where it is used is also essential, not just a "nice to have". That's critical for offshore wind, and means new pylon lines.

 

[najaB]

Short term land bank (i.e. those sites with planning permission) having 522,000 plots perhaps needs to be put in perspective.

In 2021/22 there were 79,000 new homes sold, by the top 11 home builders, that's a little over 6 and a half years of sales.

Given that planning tends to only last for 3 years they're not going to want to hold too much more than that, likewise they'll probably need to hold that number to be sure that they can keep developing (given some sites may have, as an example, 2,500 homes and take over 13 years to build and sell them).

Whilst the long term land banks gives them about 8.5 years worth of sales, that's only certainty of their future sales for up to 15 years. I say up to 15 years, as not all of those sites without planning permission will go on to get planning permission, or if they do it may well be beyond 15 years.

Even if planning is granted, if it's a large site (see the above example) in (say) 5 years time some of those houses may not be possible to be built and sold within 15 years. As such they would need to find further sites to sell within that 15 year window.

While it is true that planning permission is usually only granted for a limited time period, it's not like they lose possession of the land after it expires. So they still have a lot of attractive plots locked up.

 

[cactustwirly]

This needs to take a step further back. What matters is where businesses want to locate, the houses are then needed to accommodate the workers within commuting distance. The extreme example of this is Cambridge.


This is not correct. My favourite land use stat is that in Surrey golf courses take up more land than houses. There is still plenty of land to build on, especially if people stopped playing golf!


In Cambridge water supply is the critical constraint. It isn't a "nice to have", it is essential. Already many large planning applications are being held up by objections from the Environment Agency over water supply.


Reconfiguring the National Grid to deliver electricity from where it is generated to where it is used is also essential, not just a "nice to have". That's critical for offshore wind, and means new pylon lines.

How many houses need to be built?
Thousands of houses have been built in my local area in the last few years and yet prices are still rising

 

[Magdalia]

How many houses need to be built?
Thousands of houses have been built in my local area in the last few years and yet prices are still rising

Thousands isn't enough, it needs to be hundreds of thousands.

Gove wants to build "northwards of 150,000 homes" at Cambridge alone.

Development corporation set to 'liberate' Cambridge potential

The Housing Secretary wants to deliver "tens of thousands" of new homes near the city of Cambridge.

www.bbc.co.uk

A new development corporation will oversee a massive expansion of Cambridge and "tens of thousands" of homes near the city, Michael Gove said.
The Housing Secretary wants "to liberate its potential" and build "northwards of 150,000 homes".
Addressing issues of water supply locally, he promised to "say more about new sources of water" in 2024.

 

[najaB]

Addressing issues of water supply locally, he promised to "say more about new sources of water" in 2024.

I don't detest Michael Gove as much as some of his colleagues since he mostly appears to mean what he says and says what he thinks, but good luck to him on finding "new sources of water" - unless some kind of conjuring is involved!

 

[The Ham]

Reconfiguring the National Grid to deliver electricity from where it is generated to where it is used is also essential, not just a "nice to have". That's critical for offshore wind, and means new pylon lines.

National Grid say that over the next 7 years they need to deliver 5 times the infrastructure they've delivered over the last 30. A lot of this will be down to a shift to generation at the cost (or off shore).

While it is true that planning permission is usually only granted for a limited time period, it's not like they lose possession of the land after it expires. So they still have a lot of attractive plots locked up.

They would just switch from the shirt term supply to the long term and then back again. They will still likely be the to to 15 year supply.

I don't detest Michael Gove as much as some of his colleagues since he mostly appears to mean what he says and says what he thinks, but good luck to him on finding "new sources of water" - unless some kind of conjuring is involved!

Part of the conjuring will be water neutrality policies - basically a developer would need to show that they are doing things to save water within the existing built environment to the point where no additional water is needed - even though there's more homes.

 

[HSTEd]

National Grid say that over the next 7 years they need to deliver 5 times the infrastructure they've delivered over the last 30. A lot of this will be down to a shift to generation at the cost (or off shore).

Well that's mostly because they've set themselves a very low bar.

They've built virtually nothing since privatisation. In the late 1960s electricity demand was rising by about 10% per annum and the Grid Operators managed then, so it is certainly possible.


I think the only way to get remotely enough houses built is to build a super Milton Keynes, new city with a million or two homes. Otherwise you will end up in endless fights with NIMBYs. In a new city you can utilise prefabrication and "manufactured" homes (in the American sense) to throw up huge numbers of housing units very rapidly.

I don't detest Michael Gove as much as some of his colleagues since he mostly appears to mean what he says and says what he thinks, but good luck to him on finding "new sources of water" - unless some kind of conjuring is involved!

Well a modern megascale desalination plant, if operated properly unlike the one at Beckton, would solve all of these issues for the forseable future.

500,000m3 per day would be enough for 2 million people or so.

 

[najaB]

They would just switch from the shirt term supply to the long term and then back again. They will still likely be the to to 15 year supply.

Exactly. If I was a developer getting heat for sitting on land and not doing anything with it, I would obtain planning permission, start mobilising for development, find that "market conditions weren't right", let the permission lapse and start the cycle again in a few years.

Not that I'm saying that's what the big developers do, but I'm also not not saying it.

Part of the conjuring will be water neutrality policies - basically a developer would need to show that they are doing things to save water within the existing built environment to the point where no additional water is needed - even though there's more homes.

Water efficiency only gets you so far. 150,000 homes means the better part of half a million people drinking, bathing and pooping.

Well a modern megascale desalination plant, if operated properly unlike the one at Beckton, would solve all of these issues for the forseable future.

They aren't cheap to build, nor cheap to run. And you still need a decent source of brackish water and somewhere to put the brine.

 

[BrianW]

I think the only way to get remotely enough houses built is to build a super Milton Keynes, new city with a million or two homes. Otherwise you will end up in endless fights with NIMBYs. In a new city you can utilise prefabrication and "manufactured" homes (in the American sense) to throw up huge numbers of housing units very rapidly.

Sounds like 'East-West Rail'. More trains for more houses. MK was an approach to 'garden cities'/ new town with shops/ centre/ facilities without 'new town blues'. Bicester with its Garden Suburbs was an 'answer' to Weston Otmoor etc- a Prescott 'green' initiative. Much is already possible IF there is political will and impetus.

'Great' Britain has lost a lot of its 'get up and go'- gone; subverted by establishment, heritage, bats, newts, inheritance, entitlement and NIMBYs. Small minded Little Britain.

Surely (?) there are many 'urban centres' needing revitalisation by larger populations accessing them to supplement Working From Home (WFH) and to refocus the former and much reduced 'Commuter Belt' well-served by existing rail infrastructure., eg Hampshire?

It must be cheaper (and better/ fairer?) to build on poor quality 'Green Belt' land and 'green over' rather than build on derelict and poisoned 'brownfield' post-industrial sites- addressing the green space deficit of Tower hamlets etc.

Green Belt = golf courses and horsey paddocks, NOT Grade 1 agricultural land.

Maybe coastal former 'resorts'- Scarborough, Hastings, Lowestoft, Blackpool might have their deprivation issues addressed by infusions of new housing providing WFH and leisure facilities and jobs for locals? Pigs flying?

New Year- new 'vision' and hope? Yes we can.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think the only way to get remotely enough houses built is to build a super Milton Keynes, new city with a million or two homes. Otherwise you will end up in endless fights with NIMBYs. In a new city you can utilise prefabrication and "manufactured" homes (in the American sense) to throw up huge numbers of housing units very rapidly.

The problem with that is, you're relying on finding 2-3 million people who actually want to live in this one new town. Finding that many people wanting to live in the same place is rather ambitious and requires a lot of optimism about businesses wanting to relocate there!

 

[najaB]

Finding that many people wanting to live in the same place is rather ambitious and requires a lot of optimism about businesses wanting to relocate there!

Make it impossible for them to refuse. High-quality office, retail and warehouse spaces, with gigabit Internet and relocation grants.

 

[HSTEd]

The problem with that is, you're relying on finding 2-3 million people who actually want to live in this one new town. Finding that many people wanting to live in the same place is rather ambitious and requires a lot of optimism about businesses wanting to relocate there!

You'd probably get a load of work from home types moving in when the housing there turns out to be new and cheap.

And sixty or seventy thousand from a University that you can establish, plus all the incidental businesses to cater to that university

The housing crisis is now bad enough that it won't take much to tempt lots of people to move, especially if you put it somewhere relatively near other major cities.

 

[The Ham]

Water efficiency only gets you so far. 150,000 homes means the better part of half a million people drinking, bathing and poopin

Based on current house occupancy rates is about 360,000 people (at 2.36 people which is the current rate, is 354,000 people).

However, whilst you're right that reducing water use in toilets and taps from existing houses only gets you so far, there are other measures which can be used.

For example, a lot of new houses already have permeable paving for their driveways, if you made that deeper and added a pump you could use rainwater for car washing and flushing loos. If you go further you could have a greywater tank (water from sinks, baths & showers) which can be used for flushing loos and running washing machines.

The problem with that is, you're relying on finding 2-3 million people who actually want to live in this one new town. Finding that many people wanting to live in the same place is rather ambitious and requires a lot of optimism about businesses wanting to relocate there!

It very much depends on where it's built. If you were to locate it at (say) Whitchurch, Hampshire (although it'll probably stretch to Overton and Micheldever) you'd have fairly good rail links to London (with the scope to increase this further once Crossrail 2 is built).

You could also build a new line south to Southampton and North to Newbury and maybe even on to Didcot. You could then extend the Newbury services to the new city (connecting Reading) and onto to Southampton.

You'd have fairly good road links with the A34 and A303 passing near (or through) the new city. Although both would likely be upgraded to cater for the extra traffic.

You could easily justify the cost of those upgrades to the rail and road networks, as the developer would be paying a few thousand pounds each towards infrastructure improvements. Even at £2,000 per dwelling you'd have £2bn towards the cost of the schemes.

However, Hampshire County Council's (2007 value) is £3,745 per dwelling with business use would add further funding.

It's also worth noting that if you built 1.5 million homes the new city would be on a par with the population of Hampshire, Surrey and Berkshire combined and would be larger than Manchester. As such it's likely that actually that it would need it's own tram system and most of the existing local population would wish to travel to the new city for employment.

 

[BrianW]

Based on current house occupancy rates is about 360,000 people (at 2.36 people which is the current rate, is 354,000 people).

However, whilst you're right that reducing water use in toilets and taps from existing houses only gets you so far, there are other measures which can be used.

For example, a lot of new houses already have permeable paving for their driveways, if you made that deeper and added a pump you could use rainwater for car washing and flushing loos. If you go further you could have a greywater tank (water from sinks, baths & showers) which can be used for flushing loos and running washing machines.



It very much depends on where it's built. If you were to locate it at (say) Whitchurch, Hampshire (although it'll probably stretch to Overton and Micheldever) you'd have fairly good rail links to London (with the scope to increase this further once Crossrail 2 is built).

You could also build a new line south to Southampton and North to Newbury and maybe even on to Didcot. You could then extend the Newbury services to the new city (connecting Reading) and onto to Southampton.

You'd have fairly good road links with the A34 and A303 passing near (or through) the new city. Although both would likely be upgraded to cater for the extra traffic.

You could easily justify the cost of those upgrades to the rail and road networks, as the developer would be paying a few thousand pounds each towards infrastructure improvements. Even at £2,000 per dwelling you'd have £2bn towards the cost of the schemes.

However, Hampshire County Council's (2007 value) is £3,745 per dwelling with business use would add further funding.

It's also worth noting that if you built 1.5 million homes the new city would be on a par with the population of Hampshire, Surrey and Berkshire combined and would be larger than Manchester. As such it's likely that actually that it would need it's own tram system and most of the existing local population would wish to travel to the new city for employment.

So here is (was) a plan for South Hants/ Solent City: https://andrewlainton.wordpress.com...-city-and-lessons-for-todays-strategic-plans/

Ok so it was produced 60 years ago by Colin Buchanan of Marples and Milton Keynes era and author of Traffic in Towns, creator of many a ring road and urban motorway ... but a 'planner; not a NIMBY

Who of us today would say MK was a mistake, that it should be deconstructed and the houses recreated somewhere/ somewheres else- where?

Hook New town, Bracknell and Basingstoke, Andover, (and New Ash Green in Kent) all testify to possibilities tahtb could be built on/ agglomerated- in much the same way as Liverpool- Manchester- Sheffield- Hull- Leeds- York was envisaged as Northern Powerhouse, or Derby- Notts- Leicester. Plans, not piecemeal bites by 'developers'.

 

[oldman]

And sixty or seventy thousand from a University that you can establish, plus all the incidental businesses to cater to that universit

We have plenty of universities already distributed across the country. They are major generators of economic activity, often in relatively deprived areas - Liverpool and Dundee for example.

It seems bizarre to actively seek to concentrate everything in the southeast of England. The trend may be irreversible, but that does not mean it should be deliberately encouraged.