2 thoughts on “Panel discussion: The future of social housing”

  1. Posted 08/11/2017 at 11:47 | Permalink

    An interesting statement on the causes of the current problem, that unusually highlights the surprisingly high amount of ‘social housing’ in the UK. Unfortunately, it also falls into the same trap as most commentators on the housing issue, by refusing to deal with the issue of immigration. The only time this issue gets mentioned is with the statement “Britain has been building fewer new houses than any other Western European country (relative to population size)”. Relative to population size is right – yet the other side of the supply/demand conundrum (increased population) does not get addressed at all. It may well be that a decision is made that the UK will continue to increase the number of new people in the country – that seems likely – but to do so without providing the homes for these people to live in is immoral. It is simply ridiculous to discuss the shortage of housing, without at least mentioning one of the main drivers for the increased demand.

  2. Posted 17/11/2017 at 09:28 | Permalink

    Good piece Kris.

    In my opinion, the planning height restrictions are the number one problem as they force developers to waste land on low-rise ‘toytown’ developments which are necessarily spread, out forcing greater car use to access local shops, schools, etc.. We could build at least twice as many dwellings on the same land, each with more floorspace if this were addressed.

    Planning regulations should be changed to allow a default assumption of up to four or five storeys – unless objectors can demonstrate very good reasons why not. This would be a simple change.

    Council Tax should also incorporate an element of Land Value Tax to encourage efficient land use (inefficient land use is more expensive for councils to provide services and raises less revenue currently). For new dwellings, this should represent perhaps (say) half the Council Tax valuation immediately and for older properties, it could be started at a low level and increased gradually over (say) 25 years to encourage more space efficient redevelopment.

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published.