More houses by the ground

[Deleted]

A further 200+ coming

www.shropshirestar.com/news/property/2024/08/08/plans-for-more-than-200-homes-on-vacant-land-by-shrewsbury-town-are-submitted/

[zenfootball2]

When are they going to do something about the infrastructure?
Thousands of house but no new dental practices, no new go practices, no extra staff at the hospital. No extra buses.
The only positive about this development is a number of social housing and shared ownership.
If the young people of Shrewsbury are ever going to get a foot on the property ladder we should have at least fifty percent of all new builds as shared ownership.
My daughter lives in Shoreham by sea and works for the NHS without shared ownership she would never have got her in flat.

[Mortgagehound]

More importantly they can’t get a local pint because Smithy’s is always shut😩😩😩😩

[zenfootball2]

The rate they are closing pubs to be then sold for houses you will be lucky to get a pint in some areas.

[The Clash 1966]

I genuinely can't remember the last time I bought a pint in a pub in town.

Pubs aren't the same as they were.

The last time I went boozing was on my cousin's stag do about about 8 years ago. That was in London. If I do drink it's the odd bottle of wine with Mrs Clash at home.

[Chief Inspector Swan]

Anyone else buzzing off the fact a dental practice is zenfootball’s go-to as an example of robust infrastructure?

[stuttgartershrew]

I do wonder what the chances are of us moving again. Whether there are some eyeing up the stadium site for development (housing, etc.).

But still, hopefully one or two more will be attending games once these new houses are completed.

[MartinB]

Aug 9, 2024 7:19:48 GMT 1 stuttgartershrew said:

I do wonder what the chances are of us moving again. Whether there are some eyeing up the stadium site for development (housing, etc.).

But still, hopefully one or two more will be attending games once these new houses are completed.

would be difficult for the Council to say couldn't build housing on the ground if we did move again

[zenfootball2]

Aug 9, 2024 0:02:24 GMT 1 Chief Inspector Swan said:

Anyone else buzzing off the fact a dental practice is zenfootball’s go-to as an example of robust infrastructure?

It may not be robust infrastructure but try and a NHS dentist in town, they are nearly all private and some have closed there books.

[davycrockett]

Aug 9, 2024 16:07:45 GMT 1 zenfootball2 said:

Aug 9, 2024 0:02:24 GMT 1 Chief Inspector Swan said:

Anyone else buzzing off the fact a dental practice is zenfootball’s go-to as an example of robust infrastructure?

It may not be robust infrastructure but try and a NHS dentist in town, they are nearly all private and some have closed there books.

That's the same everywhere, more to do with  the NHS Dentists turning private due to the contract than a shortage of dentists.

Can I ask how long ago your house was built and if you or anyone else criticising has added to the problem 😉

Theres a shortage of housing especial, social and affordable for first time buyers. We need many many more and generating a health housing market helps everyone from builder to those wanting to upgrade and free up an affordable home 👍

[Deleted]

I would suggest that the most important infrastructure project would be to make house builders build a school.

Take around the ground as an example, how many houses have been built?, how many families have moved there? How many children? How many new schools??..the answer to the last one is zero😳

It appears that very occasionally a school is provided by a non council organisation,i.e the giant Bowbrook estate has a new school which Sam Aiston is the Head Teacher and the new Alscott village this side of Telford also has a school,and I believe some shops as well.

House builders should be forced to provide and pay for schools and all the local amenities as part of their planning application

[Deleted]

In theory gainsparkshrew House developer do/ pay for that infrastructure development in the form of s278 works but it never actually happens.

The house developer cries poverty and moves on the minute the houses are sold (and the real problems start). Then it's left to cash strapped councils to try and to pick up the pieces.

[Deleted]

Can't they be legally forced to pay?...taken to court if they don't pay?
It's patently stupid that builders are allowed to get away with it. At the end of the day the poverty blighted councils are paid for by us,the residents,either with our rates or via our taxes which form the government grants to the councils
It really is time to stop being nice about these things

[Deleted]

Councils are Paper Tigers in effect. Not the bad guys, they are getting hit and penalised on the other side from the 'Big' Government.

House Building is a quick way for a very few to get rich quick thus creating bigger problems for everyone else.

[zenfootball2]

Aug 9, 2024 16:25:10 GMT 1 davycrockett said:

Aug 9, 2024 16:07:45 GMT 1 zenfootball2 said:

It may not be robust infrastructure but try and a NHS dentist in town, they are nearly all private and some have closed there books.

That's the same everywhere, more to do with  the NHS Dentists turning private due to the contract than a shortage of dentists.

Can I ask how long ago your house was built and if you or anyone else criticising has added to the problem 😉

Theres a shortage of housing especial, social and affordable for first time buyers. We need many many more and generating a health housing market helps everyone from builder to those wanting to upgrade and free up an affordable home 👍

[

If you go back to my post I said that 50% of new builds should be shared ownership, I also think we should be building more flats , which increases the number of people living in a specific area and use up less green land.[br
Also all new houses/ flats should be built up to passive house standards that would use 75% less energy.

]I'm not anti house building but I am against so many houses been built without the relevant infrastructure to support it.

[mattmw]

Aug 9, 2024 16:40:16 GMT 1 @gainsparkshrew said:

I would suggest that the most important infrastructure project would be to make house builders build a school.

Take around the ground as an example, how many houses have been built?, how many families have moved there? How many children? How many new schools??..the answer to the last one is zero😳

It appears that very occasionally a school is provided by a non council organisation,i.e the giant Bowbrook estate has a new school which Sam Aiston is the Head Teacher and the new Alscott village this side of Telford also has a school,and I believe some shops as well.

House builders should be forced to provide and pay for schools and all the local amenities as part of their planning application

Whilst developers haven't directly built new schools in Shrewsbury, the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) they pay on new open market housing has contributed to new school capacity at Meole Secondary School, Shrewsbury Acadamy and new Bowbrook School which were matched by Department of Education funding.

Part of the problem with schools in Shrewsbury is the catchment areas in the town are quite large, which means overall there is school capacity in the town, but parents (understandably) tend to apply for their children to go to the best performing schools, and less to under performing schools who tend to have more capacity.  

As an LA worker it would be lovely if we could force developers to pay for a lot more infrastructure and affordable housing, but national planning rules have really changed in the last 25 years which reduces the amount of money developers have to contribute to infrastructre and afforables. Government policy has been on the principle that less taxation on developers leads to the commercial market producing more and better quality housing. 

When i first started in planning Councils could often get 40% of properties in a new large development to be affordables, and the developer to contribute significantly to roads, schools, health etc as well. Now most developers only offer 10% affordables as they suggest viability of their schemes would suffer if they have to provide more. 

I think you point suggests like many you'd question whether the planning system is really delivering as most people would expect it to. 

[Deleted]

Planners are not there to Plan, they are there to build houses for Central Government.

[davycrockett]

Aug 9, 2024 17:28:14 GMT 1 zenfootball2 said:

Aug 9, 2024 16:25:10 GMT 1 davycrockett said:

That's the same everywhere, more to do with  the NHS Dentists turning private due to the contract than a shortage of dentists.

Can I ask how long ago your house was built and if you or anyone else criticising has added to the problem 😉

Theres a shortage of housing especial, social and affordable for first time buyers. We need many many more and generating a health housing market helps everyone from builder to those wanting to upgrade and free up an affordable home 👍

[

If you go back to my post I said that 50% of new builds should be shared ownership, I also think we should be building more flats , which increases the number of people living in a specific area and use up less green land.[br
Also all new houses/ flats should be built up to passive house standards that would use 75% less energy.

]I'm not anti house building but I am against so many houses been built without the relevant infrastructure to support it.

Cant disagree with that.

I live in Wellington near Telford 😉 they’ve just built 198 energy efficient (high insulation air source heat pumps car chargers +) on a brown field site, Old Charlton School, all built by an investment company (Aviva I think) and they’re all to rent. Starting at around £1200 pm …… Telford does seem better at building / upgrading schools et al  maybe more savvy getting funding?

[Deleted]

Aug 9, 2024 17:52:54 GMT 1 mattmw said:

Aug 9, 2024 16:40:16 GMT 1 @gainsparkshrew said:

I would suggest that the most important infrastructure project would be to make house builders build a school.

Take around the ground as an example, how many houses have been built?, how many families have moved there? How many children? How many new schools??..the answer to the last one is zero😳

It appears that very occasionally a school is provided by a non council organisation,i.e the giant Bowbrook estate has a new school which Sam Aiston is the Head Teacher and the new Alscott village this side of Telford also has a school,and I believe some shops as well.

House builders should be forced to provide and pay for schools and all the local amenities as part of their planning application

Whilst developers haven't directly built new schools in Shrewsbury, the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) they pay on new open market housing has contributed to new school capacity at Meole Secondary School, Shrewsbury Acadamy and new Bowbrook School which were matched by Department of Education funding.

Part of the problem with schools in Shrewsbury is the catchment areas in the town are quite large, which means overall there is school capacity in the town, but parents (understandably) tend to apply for their children to go to the best performing schools, and less to under performing schools who tend to have more capacity.  

As an LA worker it would be lovely if we could force developers to pay for a lot more infrastructure and affordable housing, but national planning rules have really changed in the last 25 years which reduces the amount of money developers have to contribute to infrastructre and afforables. Government policy has been on the principle that less taxation on developers leads to the commercial market producing more and better quality housing. 

When i first started in planning Councils could often get 40% of properties in a new large development to be affordables, and the developer to contribute significantly to roads, schools, health etc as well. Now most developers only offer 10% affordables as they suggest viability of their schemes would suffer if they have to provide more. 

I think you point suggests like many you'd question whether the planning system is really delivering as most people would expect it to. 

Matt,as always thanks for your contribution.TBH when I was writing my comments I was thinking "Matt will be along to explain things from a local government perspective.Thanks also to Mr Cricket,I assume that you are also a council employee?

I assume that when reference is made to "government policy" we are talking of decades of conservative party policy? TBF it's too late for me,as a pensioner,but good grief this stinks.Placing the profitability of private enterprise ahead of any social need is just so wrong

[Deleted]

Its not a case of Conservative Policy the Labour Policy is equally as bad and potentially more frightened.

[Deleted]

With regards the Telford situation it's the starting at 1200pm that is a huge problem. Who can afford that?

Then there is the problem of 'getting into Bed' with a Governmental scheme. No thanks.

[zenfootball2]

Aug 9, 2024 18:16:16 GMT 1 davycrockett said:

Aug 9, 2024 17:28:14 GMT 1 zenfootball2 said:

[

If you go back to my post I said that 50% of new builds should be shared ownership, I also think we should be building more flats , which increases the number of people living in a specific area and use up less green land.[br
Also all new houses/ flats should be built up to passive house standards that would use 75% less energy.

]I'm not anti house building but I am against so many houses been built without the relevant infrastructure to support it.

Cant disagree with that.

I live in Wellington near Telford 😉 they’ve just built 198 energy efficient (high insulation air source heat pumps car chargers +) on a brown field site, Old Charlton School, all built by an investment company (Aviva I think) and they’re all to rent. Starting at around £1200 pm …… Telford does seem better at building / upgrading schools et al  maybe more savvy getting funding?

That is good to hear such projects are possible but it needs the political will and to encourage private developers to do more projects like the one you mentioned. They should be the norm not the exception.
my only issue would be the affordability £ 1,200 is out of the range for many people.

[zenfootball2]

Aug 9, 2024 17:52:54 GMT 1 mattmw said:

Aug 9, 2024 16:40:16 GMT 1 @gainsparkshrew said:

I would suggest that the most important infrastructure project would be to make house builders build a school.

Take around the ground as an example, how many houses have been built?, how many families have moved there? How many children? How many new schools??..the answer to the last one is zero😳

It appears that very occasionally a school is provided by a non council organisation,i.e the giant Bowbrook estate has a new school which Sam Aiston is the Head Teacher and the new Alscott village this side of Telford also has a school,and I believe some shops as well.

House builders should be forced to provide and pay for schools and all the local amenities as part of their planning application

Whilst developers haven't directly built new schools in Shrewsbury, the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) they pay on new open market housing has contributed to new school capacity at Meole Secondary School, Shrewsbury Acadamy and new Bowbrook School which were matched by Department of Education funding.

Part of the problem with schools in Shrewsbury is the catchment areas in the town are quite large, which means overall there is school capacity in the town, but parents (understandably) tend to apply for their children to go to the best performing schools, and less to under performing schools who tend to have more capacity.  

As an LA worker it would be lovely if we could force developers to pay for a lot more infrastructure and affordable housing, but national planning rules have really changed in the last 25 years which reduces the amount of money developers have to contribute to infrastructre and afforables. Government policy has been on the principle that less taxation on developers leads to the commercial market producing more and better quality housing. 

When i first started in planning Councils could often get 40% of properties in a new large development to be affordables, and the developer to contribute significantly to roads, schools, health etc as well. Now most developers only offer 10% affordables as they suggest viability of their schemes would suffer if they have to provide more. 

I think you point suggests like many you'd question whether the planning system is really delivering as most people would expect it to. 

Thanks for that it really helps to have such a well informed opinion explaining the realities of local government.

[mattmw]

Aug 9, 2024 18:40:42 GMT 1 @gainsparkshrew said:

Aug 9, 2024 17:52:54 GMT 1 mattmw said:

Whilst developers haven't directly built new schools in Shrewsbury, the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) they pay on new open market housing has contributed to new school capacity at Meole Secondary School, Shrewsbury Acadamy and new Bowbrook School which were matched by Department of Education funding.

Part of the problem with schools in Shrewsbury is the catchment areas in the town are quite large, which means overall there is school capacity in the town, but parents (understandably) tend to apply for their children to go to the best performing schools, and less to under performing schools who tend to have more capacity.  

As an LA worker it would be lovely if we could force developers to pay for a lot more infrastructure and affordable housing, but national planning rules have really changed in the last 25 years which reduces the amount of money developers have to contribute to infrastructre and afforables. Government policy has been on the principle that less taxation on developers leads to the commercial market producing more and better quality housing. 

When i first started in planning Councils could often get 40% of properties in a new large development to be affordables, and the developer to contribute significantly to roads, schools, health etc as well. Now most developers only offer 10% affordables as they suggest viability of their schemes would suffer if they have to provide more. 

I think you point suggests like many you'd question whether the planning system is really delivering as most people would expect it to. 

Matt,as always thanks for your contribution.TBH when I was writing my comments I was thinking "Matt will be along to explain things from a local government perspective.Thanks also to Mr Cricket,I assume that you are also a council employee?

I assume that when reference is made to "government policy" we are talking of decades of conservative party policy? TBF it's too late for me,as a pensioner,but good grief this stinks.Placing the profitability of private enterprise ahead of any social need is just so wrong

Without drifting too much into politics the short answer is yes

Between the end of WW2 and 1980 the UK on average was building around 220,000 homes a year and around half of those were built by Local Authorities - who in large metropolitan areas would effectively have their own building departments. These were primarily rented “council homes” but Councils also built homes for sale, and profits they made got reinvested into the system to build more houses.

Since the 80s only around 160,000 homes have been built each year and only a tiny percentage are now council built

The big change really came when the 1980 right to buy legislation came in and allowed council house tenants to purchase their homes. No bad thing in itself, but the money gained from the sales wasn’t ring fenced for more housing so the ability and finance for councils to build homes pretty much disappeared

It should be said that council led housing had its issues and was often very Union dominated; saw poor quality in some areas and didn’t encourage competition and innovation so build costs were high.

Again giving people the right to buy their homes has helped people gain security and assets they never had, but equally the ever increasing cost of private homes is now stopping many people getting on the ladder

Government policy over the last ten years has broadly tried to get more houses built by reducing the obligations on developers to deliver affordables and infrastructure, numbers are still way below what was being delivered in the 70s. The rise of the relatively unregulated buy to let private market hasn’t helped either as most rented property is in private hands now and rent levels are in some areas are higher than average monthly mortgage payments

The new Labour government say they want to see 300,000 homes built a year, but personally this looks a big task without a very big reform of housing legislation and much more state intervention.

[dachshund]

Shared ownership is not a silver bullet, buying a shared ownership flat was the worst financial decision I’ve ever made

[Deleted]

I'm sorry to hear it