From the BBC:
Communities Secretary Eric Pickles has lost a court battle over his decision to scrap the last government's regional housing targets in England... Housing developers had asked the court to block it, arguing Mr Pickles had abused his powers...
Ian Ginbey from Cala Homes' lawyers... said scrapping the targets without anything to replace them had "left a policy vacuum, caused confusion throughout the industry and directly resulted in proposals for tens of thousands of new homes being abandoned" (1).
... But junior communities minister Bob Neill said it "changes very little... Later this month we will be introducing the Localism Bill to Parliament, which will sweep away the controversial regional strategies. Top-down targets don't build homes (2) - they've led to the lowest peacetime house-building rates since 1924. (3) The government remains firmly resolved to scrap this layer of confusing red tape." (4)
1. Who do you think is more likely to have a more realistic forecast of whether The Morbidly Obese One's plans would have increased or decreased the number of new homes being built? The home builders, who brought the case, or a politician who is desperately pandering to the NIMBY vote?
2. Mr Neill claims that "top-down targets" decrease the number of new homes being built* - surely, if this were true, then the home builders wouldn't have brought the case to try and keep those "top-down targets" in place, and would have welcomed the decision to scrap them?
3. Let's not forget that reducing the number of homes being built is seen as A Good Thing on Planet Tory, see point 1). The Tories' new "top-down target" will of course achieve its purpose in full: the new "top-down target" is zero and that's one target that's fairly easy to meet.
4. This "localism" may well reduce the amount of "confusing red tape" involved. But the red tape he is talking about is not the bureaucratic hurdles faced by home builders - he is talking about the bureaucratic hurdles faced by NIMBYs who want to prevent new construction. The Tories want to make it easier to prevent new construction, and not easier to obtain planning permission.
Once this all pans out and new construction is down to its lowest level ever, the Tories will proudly announce that all demand for new housing is being met in full, and as evidence for the lack of demand they will present all the petitions that have been submitted asking the local council to prevent new construction.
Which is all a bit like the Politburo deciding that this year's quota for shoes is one million pairs, telling the factories to make exactly one million pairs, and then Stalin proudly announcing that demand for shoes has been met.
* In a literal sense, he is correct, it's home builders who build homes, not "top-down targets".
Pooling
57 minutes ago
10 comments:
I am a little more tolerant of Pickels than you. Not much, a little.
It's another right idea/wrong action problem. New lab was wrong about 'targets' - it's top down Socialism, which Doesn't Work. But Pickles solution only frees half the market. Localism frees us from central diktat (or dick tat?) but then doesn't free up local planning rules as well. Localism in essense is right (IMHO) but that means properly local.
In any event none of this tackles other issues like developer land stockpiling, big retailer land stockpiling, utilities bullying occupiers etc etc.
What, just what the Hell happened to neighbourliness?
L, top down Socialism doesn't work, but if you are a young family desperately trying to buy a house, whether the local NIMBYs are opposing national targets or local targets is neither here nor. All oppression is 'top-down' and state-backed by very definition.
"... just what the Hell happened to neighbourliness?"
It fell victim to Home-Owner-Ism (which explains the stock piling as well) about thirty or forty years ago.
3. Let's not forget that reducing the number of homes being built is seen as A Good Thing on Planet Tory, see point 1). The Tories' new "top-down target" will of course achieve its purpose in full: the new "top-down target" is zero and that's one target that's fairly easy to meet.
So inevitable, the whole thing.
Lola,
It's another right idea/wrong action problem. New lab was wrong about 'targets' - it's top down Socialism, which Doesn't Work. But Pickles solution only frees half the market. Localism frees us from central diktat (or dick tat?) but then doesn't free up local planning rules as well. Localism in essense is right (IMHO) but that means properly local.
The problem is that if we took a "properly local" approach then it doesn't just apply to housing but also to nuclear power stations. If the people of Wokingham can veto housing being built on the grounds of the effect on their local area then the people in various coastal areas should have the right to prevent a reactor being built in their area.
MW,
Roger Pielke Jr. notes the existence of Super NIMBYs, called BANANAs - Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody.
Sounds accurate?
Ch, as JT points out, there are things that everybody needs or uses - like motorways, railways, power stations, sewage works, gasometers etc - but which no homeowner wants to have near them.
The overall gains to everybody in general vastly exceed the 'cost' to a small group of homeowners who might live near them - by reverse logic, just imagine we tore up all the motorways, railways, and tore down all the power stations. Would we be better off or worse off?
JT. Quite. And relevant to my parish, Sizewell C is being built and they want to run 400(?) kv power lines over a lot of 'parishes' to supply electricity to London. Clearly these are eyesores. They could bury the cables but that costs more, about 2% of the capital costs and a negligible %age of the whole life cost. They could send the power underwater to London. Again at extra cost.
My view is that if they want to have an 'easement' for these o/h lines then they should pay us. Either we could have a negative CT/LVT or we could sort out some other payment. But we are being steamrollered by the planning laws brought in by NL. I do not see why we should not receive payment for this, and set our requirments, so that Sizewell can make money and London can have power. If Sizewell and London were foreign countries we would seek payment for them to transfer their product from one to the other over our land.
For the avoidance of doubt I wish Sizewell C all the best. I am not anti nuclear. So this is not nimbyist. Furthermore it will only reduce the curtrent price of very few properties. (Mine's not one of them). This is about making people think about what they are doing. Localism would help this.
L, as to all these 'things we need but nobody wants near them', there is no need for 'negative LVT'.
LVT would automatically adjust downwards underneath or within sight of the cables, end of.
The government is perfectly entitled to send Sizewell B an invoice for the resulting LVT shortfall, and if Sizewell B decides that it would actually be cheaper to run cables underground than to pay for the reduced LVT, then that is what would happen.
Does it really matter?
There are a million empty homes spread evenly across the uk in the most desirable locations.
We dont need any more houses.
Matrix!
MW - Exactly. They have a choice. Pay the money to bury the cables / put them under the sea or pay us the money. I think this is what is called 'pricing for the externalities'.
Localism may just force this issue, if it isn't pirated by nimbyism, and put the way you and I have, and as I've put it to the 'committee' they start to think the right way.
Post a Comment