It’s been nearly 18 months since Sajid Javid, the Tory
Government’s Housing Minister published the White Paper “Fixing the Broken UK Housing
Market”, meanwhile Stoke-on-Trent property values continue to rise at 4.5%
(year on year for the council area) and the number of new homes being constructed
locally bumps along at a snail’s pace, creating a potential perfect storm for
those looking to buy and sell.
The White Paper is important for the UK and Stoke-on-Trent people,
as it will ensure we have long-term stability and longevity in property market
as whole. Stoke-on-Trent home-owners and Stoke-on-Trent landlords need to be
aware of these issues in the report to ensure they don’t lose out and ensure
the local housing market is fit for purpose. The White Paper wanted more homes
to be built in the next couple of decades, so it might seem counter-intuitive
for existing home-owners and landlords to encourage more homes to be built and
a change in the direction of housing provision – as this would appear to have a
negative effect on their own property.
Yet the country needs a diversified and fluid property
market to allow the economy as whole to grow and flourish ... which in turn
will be a greater influence on whether prices go up or down in the long term. I
am sure every homeowner or landlord in Stoke-on-Trent doesn’t want another
housing crisis like we had in 1974, 1988 and most recently in 2008.
Now, as Sajid Javid has moved on to the Home Secretary role,
the 17th Housing Minister in 20 years (poisoned chalice or journeyman’s cabinet
post) James Brokenshire has been given the task of making this White Paper come
alive. The White Paper had a well-defined notion of what the issues were.
The first of the four points brought up was to give local
authorities powers to speed up house building and ensure developers complete
new homes on time. Secondly, statutory methods demanding local authorities and builders
build at higher densities (i.e. more
houses per hectare) where appropriate. The other two points were incentives
for smaller builders to take a larger share of the new homes market and help
for people renting.
However, lets go back to the two initial points of planning
and density.
(1) Planning
For planning to work, we need a robust Planning
Dept. Looking at data from the Local Government’s Association, in Stoke-on-Trent,
the council is above the regional average, spending £46.08 per person for the
Planning Authority, compared the regional average of £30.13 per head – which
will mean the planning department should have no problems meeting those targets.
Also, 83% of planning applications are decided
within the statutory 8-week initial period, on target with the regional average
of 83% (see the graph below). I am
pleased with the numbers for our local authority when it comes to the planning
and the budget allowed by our Politician to this vital service.
(2) Density of Population
26.6 people
live in every hectare (or 2.471 acres) in Stoke-on-Trent
It won’t surprise you that 248,337 of 249,008 Stoke-on-Trent
residents live in the urban conurbations of the authority, giving a density of 27.3
people per hectare (again – much lower
than I initially thought), whilst the villages have a density of 2.6 people
per hectare.
I would agree with the Governments’ ambition to make more
efficient use of land and avoid building homes at low densities where there is
a shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs, ensuring that the
density and form of development reflect the character, accessibility and infrastructure.
It’s all very good building lots of houses – but we need the
infrastructure to go with it.
Talking to a lot of Stoke-on-Trent people, their biggest
fear of all this building is a lack of infrastructure for those extra houses (the
extra roads, doctors surgeries, schools etc.). I know most Stoke-on-Trent
homeowners and landlords want more houses to be built to house their family and
friends ... but irrespective of the density ... it’s the infrastructure that
goes with the housing that is just as important ... and this is where I think the
White Paper failed to go as far as I feel it should have done.
Interesting times ahead I believe!
No comments:
Post a Comment