Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Gary

Draft Local Plan

Recommended Posts

Think there may be one too many letters in that first word of the topic title Gary.:roll:

Apart from the money angle, i do wonder why brownfield sites are not being used up first before greenfield sites. (i think i have just answered my own question there)

You would think that a brownfiled site would be cheaper to develop as housing as all the utilities infrastructure would already be in place.

Apparently this not the case due to possible contamination of the land.

Didn't stop them building on the old bus station site at the end of chester road or the scrapyard next to the railway lines in bewsey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the policy of the last few governments was for brownfield development first? Of course ,we mustn't forget the big selling point for new houses , good motorway access &  what could be better than sites on the outskirts of town ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've got a Town Centre dying on it's feet, which imo needs re-populating in order to revitalise it, there's a need for low rented,.  high-density (high rise) dwellings to cater for youngsters, currently having to live with parents , a need for similar for the elderly.   Also a need to reduce reliance on private, air polluting, car journeys and shift to traffic reducing public transport..  Can't see how building unaffordable  private dwellings in the countryside will help.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obs, the problem the plan has to solve is one you rant on about regularly. The government listened to all the liberal handwringing that there weren't enough houses being built so they asked why not. The answer was that the planning system stops it because people don't want them in their back-yards! However the same people want more housing supply for their kids and they want the price rises from scarcity to stop, so there needs to be an excess of houses available.

So the government decided to act by encouraging councils to draw up local plans, they have so far only intervened by forcing the councils to write their own plans. What they also did was to put a common process for establishing housing need and specified one. The baseline is set by the independent office of national statistics extrapolating census data and using historical data and economic performance in a model. Then the number is inflated to encourage more build if prices are such that house prices are over four time average pay, which Warrington is at 6.3. The plan must deliver that many houses. The point is to deliver the home people will need and to spread the load to the places that will have the demand.

So the next problem is that the places that have the need are already quite built up,  so they may need to build on green belt land. Green belt land is to separate urban areas one from another. the green lung story is nonsense.

So the problem is that folk want more and lower cost homes, but they don't want them to be near to them or reduce the value of their houses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem planning needs to solve, is to ensure sufficient land to meet the housing need for a growing population into the future. there are simply two directions in which to go, either "out "(into the green belt) increasing the size of built up areas until they merge; or "up" (using existing brown field sites), thus providing adequate anticipated units within the confines of existing urban areas. Other factors, such as transport infrastructure need to be taken account of, the latter being easier to sustain enviromentally.  Of course. there are political factors involved in the issue; everyone wants the traditional semi with a garden, but those who have attained that goal, don't want them building "in their backyard"; hence the regular clash over planning issues.  Another factor is the Housing policies of Gov;  whether to build sufficient units to meet projected need, which poses the political question as to whether "the market" should be allowed to do it, or whether Local Authorities should directly fund it (IE Council Houses).  For private developers, green field is a preferable choice, in that virgin land should prove cheaper to develop as there are no contamination issues, also, in terms of choice, most folk would prefer their abode to be that sub-urban semi.  However, high density, high rise units can prove cheaper to provide in the sense that more units can be provided for any given area. The other factor of course is "affordabilty";  the majority of folk simply cannot afford the ideal semi,  and are destined to rent; but even renting has become unaffordable  - so where do we go from here ?    The Government's obsession with home ownership won't allow for subsidised social provision, which would sate demand, leading to a knock on effect of reducing prices up the food chain; so bring in such ideas as "help to buy"; which subsides the better off, whilst still not catering for those worse off, and making no impact on the supply V demand equation.   Now I appreciate, that high rise is not the preference for most folk, but alas sometime the bigger picture needs to take priority;  and it doesn't seem to adversely affect the residents of Cities like New York. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The Government's obsession with home ownership won't allow for subsidised social provision, which would sate demand, leading to a knock on effect of reducing prices up the food chain; so bring in such ideas as "help to buy"; which subsides the better off, whilst still not catering for those worse off, and making no impact on the supply V demand equation. 

This just isn't true there is a programme for capital to build social housing in areas where the cost of social hosing is £50 a week or more less than private sector renting. Not everything is a conspiracy. There is a standard method for working out how much affordable housing is needed too, it goes into the local plan and for Warrington comes out at close to 30%. High rise is a disaster, no one with kids likes it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The attempts by developers to provide "affordable" housing are frankly a joke;  you can get an estate of £500,000 houses, with a small portion at £200,000, which they consider affordable; the fact is young people in a precarious employment enviroment simply cannot afford to buy;  and the supply V demand equation has knocked on to the rented sector to make that unaffordable too.  High rise is inevitable;  not for those with kids; but for those without kids, such as the young or old adult demographic, with an increasing single occupancy demographic.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to look at house prices properly since there are few for sale at over 500k, not least because of the punitive stamp duty differential. The houses in south Warrington are priced higher, I had always assumed because of the high costs of all that landscaping and because the government had to buy some of the land for the New Town Corporation. North Warrington in contrast was free because they already owned it but it needed decontamination. Now the purchase price of the land in the south has deflated over time so the relative prices will be lower just like Homes England have said.

Affordable housing is priced relative to the market price for the whole town and not just Appleton!. High rise is only ever justified where there simply is no other land and buyers need to be in a particular place. That really does not apply in Warrington at all, anywhere. I think that there is no issue with getting the non-family homes in the Town Centre as they are already built in medium rise blocks. High rise would just ruin the townscape, the council recently rejected a seven story proposal on Palmyra Square for that very reason.

People in a precarious employment environment indeed - I don't remember when it was ever any better, I do not remember a single year of my working life when I was certain that I would not be made redundant. You are chasing unicorns - life isn't certain you just have to get on with it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what your saying, you sound quite young; as there was a time when jobs for life were rife, you could leave school and get a job the following weak, and if you didn't like it, another job the weak after; and lots of jobs could be described as "jobs for life" or at least, the life of a mortgage;  but even then, it took years to save for a deposit; but those that couldn't had the safety net of relatively cheap Council renting. Today's youngsters may have the minimum wage, but they also in general have minimum job security; so saving for and paying for a mortgage is out of the question; in a world of house price inflation; fed by demand exceeding supply. So, unless the population level starts to reduce, thus reducing demand, the issue will continue.  However there has been changes in the demographic, with an increase in elderly care and increasing demand for units for single folk, for whom a flat may be sufficient, making high rise more viable, which then raises the factor of the elderly downsizing, to allow suitable homes for families. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you want to shove all the elderly into high rise flats, out of sight out of mind Obs? I think we've seen this experiment in the past and it wasn't very successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My ex wife moved into a block of flats about 6 years ago , it was supposed to be for younger working people who were wanting to buy & just a few older residents. She had to move out this year  because with her health issues it was no longer suitable for her....the lift was always breaking down & she can't climb stairs. Oh,& the previous upwardly mobile tenants had long gone leaving the place mostly populated by idiots & drug addicts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Observer II said:

From what your saying, you sound quite young; as there was a time when jobs for life were rife, you could leave school and get a job the following weak, and if you didn't like it, another job the weak after; and lots of jobs could be described as "jobs for life" or at least, the life of a mortgage;  but even then, it took years to save for a deposit; but those that couldn't had the safety net of relatively cheap Council renting. Today's youngsters may have the minimum wage, but they also in general have minimum job security; so saving for and paying for a mortgage is out of the question; in a world of house price inflation; fed by demand exceeding supply. So, unless the population level starts to reduce, thus reducing demand, the issue will continue.  However there has been changes in the demographic, with an increase in elderly care and increasing demand for units for single folk, for whom a flat may be sufficient, making high rise more viable, which then raises the factor of the elderly downsizing, to allow suitable homes for families. 

Well my working life has been 43 years so you got that wrong. The change in types of housing need according to the predictions for Warrington are :

2017          2037

30%             32%     One person households

29%             25%     Families with children

41%             42%     2 or more adults, no children

The total number of households grows from 2017 to 2037 by 12.6%

You have got the scale of the problem way out of proportion by listening to the tales of woe for Guardian readers. There is a need for fine tuning in the types of homes built which is addressed in the Local plan. The loss of Green Belt is not as serious as people are making out,  the council say It is only 10% of the green belt. Some of the Green Belt in the south would never have been green belt if the proper procedures were followed because they wouldn't have been allowed at a public enquiry. WBC thought they didn't have to prove it needed to be green belt , it seemed virtuous to do so!The inspector at the first Peel Hall inquiry corrected their understanding of planning law.

Frankly this is being blown out of all proportion by vested interests, and not the ones that the conspiracy theorists usually point to. If you want to know the real issue today that makes it more difficult to own a home that I found it to be, well it is monetary policy. Inflation makes past borrowing cheap and pushes up wages so mortgage debts deflate. The problem is that savings devalues and so does pension income based on savings. Reducing inflation has had massive side effects.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 😉I'm well aware that large tracts of what are commonly referred to as green belt -  are not green belt; but reserved for later release, in the previous LP.   But I'll leave that argument to the Nimbys.  My argument is quite simply, that ultimately there is a choice between building out or building up; as land is a finite source; and we're facing other enviromental issues such as increasing transport congestion and extreme flooding scenarios; so the same old, same old, just won't cut it. At the same time, we have the inner core of the Town (centre), rotting away - and re-population is one way to restore a semblance of vitality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×