Let me translate.
Build down to a (very low) price using poor quality materials.
Remove planning controls from local authorities.
Make building control an irrelevance.
Convert redundant office accommodation into sub-standard resi hovels of sub-optimal size with inadequate/non-existent light and ventilation.
This is what johnson's gammon supporters - get on the property ladder, you can't lose - are lining up for their own children but they're too self-obsessed (and stupid) to see it.
If a country is defined by it's leadership the UK, particularly England, is much diminished.
Loads of money to be made! Selling shit for top brass. **** the kids, grandchildren anyone else, that's how the two-faced lying generation roll.
Standards at work, costs of higher education and life in general they would not tolerate, benefited from in the past and are now insulated and removed from.
Once able to inflict it on other people they grab it with both hands.
Housing solutions worse than post WW2 minimum standards, which were later eroded in the late 60's and throughout the 70's. Disguised as futuristic/experimental architecture, but was actually increased density and reduced cost. With the mostly, disastrous and unmortgageable system built offerings, which feature in a book of Defective Buildings.
Tory housing solutions to go with the fake portacabin hospitals. Progress such a wonderful thing no!
Those with a chip on their shoulder should read the facts before spouting off.
All dwellings have to conform to the building regulations, over the years they have been increased not decreased. The quality of building materials has also increased over the past few years.
One of the only ways that more houses can be built is to shift lots of the construction into factories which turn out a highter quality product and cheaper.
Modular construction?
OK for student accommodation and budget hotels; not for resi.
Housing density? Increasing.
Quality of building materials may have increased but, if the build quality is poor which it too often is, that is not compensated for by 'quality materials'.
'Wooden doors' which are made from pressed fibreboard and poor sound insulation are two examples of unacceptable quality.
No chip on my shoulder and very well aware of the facts based on significant construction experience.
Properties are, generally, built down to a price not upto a quality standard.
Recent proposals will accelerate a race to the bottom; can be summarised as nirvana for developers and 2 fingers to local planners.
Worth noting that development of sites with upto about 50 properties will be exempt from the levy which is intended to replace S106.
All dwellings have to conform to the building regulations, over the years they have been increased not decreased.
On paper maybe, but have you checked how many building control officers there are these days. Plus building regs has no effect on quality. Building down to a cost in extremis = Grenfell
One of the only ways that more houses can be built in order to make obscene profits for the government's chums/financial backers
FTFY
They should look at green belts, replacement dwellings, increasing second home stampduty and help to buy schemes which are better then low interest ISAs.
Actually investigating whats holding up planning would probably result in more houses being built.
Frankconway, I can see you have never looked at factory construction, take a look at Huf Haus, Baufritz, Scandia Hus, Stommel Haus, Hanse Haus the list goes on, some of these houses run into millions of pounds.
Modular construction?
OK for student accommodation and budget hotels; not for resi.
Maybe you should take this up with folk lifting prefab timber kits off lorries, they seem to be doing rather popular up here. Not completely modular in that they're not arriving fully assembled and ready to plug in but still prefab.
Huf Haus and the others are not standard modular construction; they are high-end, bespoke, expensive and will only ever account for a tiny proportion of the market.
If you have enough land, an architect on retainer and want to make a 'statement' they may be of interest.
They are not relevant in the context of the expansion johnson and jenrick envisage.
For the record, I have been aware of them for decades.
From the Stommel Haus website...
The Budget
A high quality, luxury bespoke off site manufactured house, transported from Germany to your site in the UK and assembled by highly skilled craftsmen and kitted out to the highest standards with top brand materials by experienced and qualified German craftsmen is of course more expensive than a bespoke house built by your local builder. The difference in quality and typically the energy efficiency is huge. A fully fitted house (excl. kitchen) from concrete slab upwards costs typically around 2,800 £ to 3,800 £ per square meter living space. A three bedroom house with around 150 m² living space starts from around 350,000 £ and the 4 to 6 bedroom houses with 200 m² to 350 m² are around 480,000 £ to 1 Mio £+
Note these are starting prices.
They will supply the shell only for c60% of the price quoted above.
You need a site so, unless you have an acre or two with planning permission, that'll be another chunk of money.
So assume you've got to buy a site; next you pay for the slab; high spec kitchen as you wouldn't want anything from wren kitchens; garaging; landscaping.
Before you know it, you're talking serious money.
Most of the companies you list are aimed at the self-build market.
Take Scandia Hus - if you project manage it's c£180/sq ft; using a main contractor c£220/sq ft; their smallest offering is 1100sq ft bungalow - note they calculate area using external dimensions.
Client to provide site; some items included but based on pc sums; long list of excluded items.
So £220k plus cost of site plus cost of enhanced spec over pc sums plus exclusions.
Clearly not compatible with the stated aspiration of johnson and jenrick.
I am fed up with these patronising 3 word slogans.
Another meaningless 3 word slogan. Kit houses at £2,800/m2? You're kidding - there was a guy on radio 4 saying they were doing residential conversions of commercial units of 30m2 with no windows - welcome to the new utopia. The big builders like Persimmon budget for £700-800/m2 and wee all over building regs - they build one house properly, get it signed of by Building Control and the next 20 units are done on the 'nod' with no regard to the quality of construction.
Actually investigating whats holding up planning would probably result in more houses being built.
Is planning really holding anything up though? 90% of applicants are approved and there are about one million permissions unbuilt. It is true though that planning may put an unknown number of people off.
It's certainly not a perfect system but replacing it with a crude zoning system seems to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
You’re kidding – there was a guy on radio 4 saying they were doing residential conversions of commercial units of 30m2 with no windows – welcome to the new utopia
Many of those commercial to residential conversions (under permitted development) are ok but yes a significant number are terrible being built as a means to battery farm tenants on housing benefits. Poor housing in the wrong places filled with all the wrong people just like some of the high rise mistakes of the 60/70s.
FYI only about 8% of UK homes are self-build. It's always about the volume builders and the mooted new system is being designed with them in mind primarily.
The wonderful private sector has delivered Land Banking during the last few decades because the prices (record highs) just aren't high enough to build and sell to the idiots. But we can use investment speak to make it sound more reasonable if you like.
It's true the engineered solutions have improved over time and widespread adoption of modern construction methods has occurred. However the material quality has been endlessly reduced in many respects and the best proven engineered solutions are not cheap in the slightest.
Huf houses (millionaire's homes, not what's actually needed) for the masses I nearly died laughing!
The real intent behind the Government's policy on housing:
- appear to be doing something to improve housing supply (to keep the votes of the people who don't have houses)
- on no account actually improve housing supply, as that would result in prices falling (and losing the votes of the people who do have houses)
- make sure our friends can make money
It's got Cummings' fingerprints all over it; the disruption, the castration of existing bureaucracy and centralisation of power to the executive (and himself), all topped off with a three-word slogan to appeal to the Gammons drinking in Wetherspoons.
Never mind the blanket discrimination from above of people who choose to use Wetherspoons (I don’t since the brexit vote), this white paper is for the benefit of the housebuilders who are one of the largest, if not the largest contributors to the Conservative party. 11-12 million pounds over the last few years. Housing standards have been going down rapidly, near me we have what at one time would have been called terraced houses - with no back doors, a metre of space in front and an inaccessible metre of space behind. No space for bike storage, no space for pushchairs, nearest shop a good 3 mile walk. These have been built after the last Tory government bonfire of standards. As regards the gammon argument... perhaps we should engage constructively? More in common?
The 'gammon argument' is nothing more than a generic description used in frustration.
We all know what it means; it's short-hand.
There is a book, not available to the public for obvious reasons. Which lists system built houses (mostly LA properties) UK lenders will not mortgage.
Still we won't make those mistakes again eh!
chester - postwar prefabs fit that description; here we go - again.
There's not many of them left. Loads of precast/cast in stiu concrete (all over the country) that have cost the taxpayer (us) loads to overclad because of severe condensation problems and concrete cancer.
The cladding may or may not be flammable!
I went to an interesting talk by a housing association that had invested in a modular home factory. They brought the price down and pushed quality up. It’s much easier to build to tolerance in a factory than in a muddy field.
I agree that some of the finishing standards are a bit poor unfortunately cost cutting in materials will always show.
Property tycoons have given over £11m to the tory party in the last year alone. Such munificence.
(The ‘gammon argument’ is nothing more than a generic description used in frustration.
We all know what it means; it’s short-hand.)
Short-hand for what?
I don’t actually know what you mean, I think I do but and if that’s the case it destroys a perfectly good argument for better quality housing and inclusivity.
Still we won’t make those mistakes again eh!
To be fair, these were never built to be owned by the public, and weren’t expected to last as long as a mortgage.
Of course you can build modular homes for the masses, even without heating in them. Just not of brick which we seems to be hell bent on keeping, although in a lot of cases the brick is just a cladding.
We don’t because the big house builders are purely driven by profit so we build awful houses generally.
When agents for house builders are making millions in bonuses just for getting houses ready for decoration and signed off by the joke that is building control now then that is the only motivation for them. These people get more in a bonus for one unit than a lot of the trades get for actually doing the work.
@Kelvin the expected lifespan was/is longer than a typical mortgage term and most dwellings have throughout history been maintained way beyond there design lifespan, in modern terms, often 60 years.
The government blame the private sector and the private sector quite rightly point out it's not their responsibility.
Have people started to recognise the very British way of ensuring nothing happens. I wonder in what other sectors have we seen this pattern of behaviour, one side blaming the other, with no one taking responsibility in a contrived limbo.
How about promising a certain level of income then pulling the rug out years later and going "what's up mate" and wondering why standards drop/corners get cut and cooperation is no longer forthcoming.
I think it’s clear from the comments above that no ones has read the planning white paper!
The key is the return to proper plan-making; simple, easy to produce and interpret plan, which is a plan and say’s what can be built where. Local plans will now have to be produced by council a within 3 years, and not the current 7, where policies are out of date by the time the plan is published.
This is where it was many years ago, but has now been weakens by the hands of successive governments to deliver the current over complicated system that now exists.
It will likely see a push to build entire new towns or city’s, which is far more sustainable. Within the growth zones, developments will benefit from outline permission, allowing the planning system to work quicker.
Those of you who work within the planning system (and not construction) will understand that it can take some sites several years to gain full approval, with delays costing a hell of a lot of money due to arguing about trivial points. each council has been allowed to interpret policy/framework in their own way, which may be vastly different from neighbouring boroughs.
the white paper proposes that the system is streamlined, thus allowing more houses to be built.... and hopefully they do.
If you think most developers want to spend millions upfront obtaining planning permission, and then sit on it before selling to a house builder, or having to re-apply after 3 years, you’re wrong.
Those with a chip on their shoulder should read the facts before spouting off
This. Housing is an important issue, disappointed to see from the off this is going to be another thread with the same few posters launching off increasingly bizarre and conspiratorial rants about the tories.
Having a look at the white paper, it does seem at least to be pretty bold and good get some movement in areas where there's a real shortage but not a lot happening currently. There's some mad stuff in it for sure - the fast track for beautiful buildings. Who will be on this new aesthetics committee?! I worry it could end up with going for loads of nostalgic pish.
Also buried in there is all new homes to be carbon neutral by 2050, which presumably most people would support. Could argue it's not ambitious but it would at least allow time for the technology to catch up and costs to drop to affordable levels.
Maybe you should take this up with folk lifting prefab timber kits off lorries, they seem to be doing rather popular up here
Yup the wonderful Scottish system because we don't insist on twin leaf brick. Nowt to do with millionaires houses fancy Dan houses.
Houses fly up....and still Stuart milne cuts corners...... Trusses up..... Roofshield stapled in and tile battons /tiles fitted......
Those with a chip on their shoulder should read the facts before spouting off
You're new to the internet aren't you?!
Glad to read Klaus know's what he is talking about.
For those that say house builders are building tiny poorly constructed boxes. They are building to the current regulations or the properties would be unsaleable as no one could get a mortgage.
Houses and flats constructed now are so thermally efficient there is no comparison with the Voctorian Terraces of the past. I presume those moaning about house size would prefer the green spaces near them to be built on as larger houses require more land to be used. I do agree Housebuilders let themselves down with poor finishing and customer service but this is a sign of the market - purchasers are prepared to accept it as they need to buy / move.
Permitted Development has produced some awful residential schemes but if you were an owner of redundant office building would you spend years trying to secure a residential consent with expensive planning obligations including affordable housing or convert the existing building quickly and cheaply?
They are building to the current regulations or the properties would be unsaleable as no one could get a mortgage.
Eh naw they are building vaguely near the regs .
The mortgage lenders have no idea what they are lending against .
It has BC sign off and as above the sample house passes .....what happens in the rest is on the site manager.
trail-rat overstretched Building Control is rarely used in volume house building.
Most builders rely NHBC inspectors. The NHBC are funded by the housebuilders but they happen to provide an independent warranty for the buyers of new homes so it would be daft for them to sign off on work that will lead to future claims. Each individual property is inspected at each key stage to ensure no structural or dangerous defects are hidden - there is no sample property. Mortgage surveyors rely on on the NHBC certificate to lend.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-46454844
Yes key points.... Like the walls.
Inevitable Jonathan Pie (warning: bit sweary as always)
