Government to force Hart to increase housing target.
The Government will force Hart to increase its housing target says Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, it is reported in the Telegraph today. The article says:
Families living in some of the most sought-after parts of the country will be forced to accept more homes being built near them to tackle the housing crisis, the Communities Secretary has said.
Sajid Javid said that he wants communities which have benefited from soaring property prices to play their part in solving the housing crisis.
New rules to force councils to increase their housing targets will be published in the next three weeks.
Excerpts from his speech have been tweeted. It is clear Mr Javid has in mind councils that have yet to produce a Local Plan.
From the Javid speech: consultation on new OAN methodology this month. pic.twitter.com/Ny5yygpvuF
— Simon Ricketts (@sricketts1) July 5, 2017
We don’t agree with Government that Hart needs to build even more houses. The 10,185 target adopted in the recent Local Plan Consultation is clearly ridiculous. It is already more than twice the need identified by the Government’s own population forecasts. What we need is more social housing for those who can’t rent and can’t buy. We also need more 1 and 3-bed properties to help the young get on the housing ladder
We certainly don’t need more £1m houses like those for sale in Hartley Wintney at the moment.
Land-banking causing delays to building
We might also address the land-banking in the district, where thousands of houses have not been built, even though planning permission has been granted.
| Year of grant | Net uncompleted dwellings |
| 2003 | 5 |
| 2005 | 1 |
| 2006 | 0 |
| 2008 | 1 |
| 2009 | 2 |
| 2010 | 14 |
| 2011 | 58 |
| 2012 | 591 |
| 2013 | 402 |
| 2014 | 793 |
| 2015 | 1,066 |
| 2016 | 148 |
| Grand Total | 3,081 |
It remains to be seen if the new Hart Council administration can stand up to this bullying from central Government. We need a lower, more realistic housing target.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/04/families-living-wealthiest-parts-country-must-accept-new-homes/
He told council leaders at the Local Government Association’s annual conference: “Nothing is more corrosive to trust than the idea that some areas are being treated better than others.
“Where housing is particularly unaffordable, local leaders need to take a long, hard, honest look to see if they are planning for the right number of homes
”One source at the department said part of the problem was that “you see more active groups locally contesting against decisions” in wealthy areas.
“Sajid Javid said that he wants communities which have benefited from soaring property prices to play their part in solving the housing crisis” – The cynic in me thinks this looks like a great policy for housing developers (easier to sell at high prices) and the government (better tax revenue than in cheaper property areas).
Ageee with you 100% on that. There will also never be the infrastructure investment needed whatever the location, because it is not in the developers or governments interest to spend the money.
Money talks. Fortunately walls could have ears. Nobody can be trusted.
I am afraid I am with you on this Rob, my personal trust with anything that goes on around development has diminished but I still try to make a difference when I can. By getting involved the very least we can do is get the total down and help the developments fit in better, if we say nothing, the developers often do what they want, discussion and appealing does help, not as much as the public want or need but it does something.
I was told a story yesterday by an accountant about HMRC catching people taking backhanders. My faith in anything to do with any part of the establishment has all but died in the last couple of years.
I wish there was . It’s already written in stone.
There is every point to arguing.
It’s always going to be the highest numbers possible. All this the public has a say is rubbish. They just want you to think you have a say. At the end of the day it’s about money. They will build as many houses as possible. Then council or goverment do not care about the damage it causes the countryside or our communities, there is no point arguing. The powers that be want their profits.
To a certain extent that is true but if Hart gets on top of its housing quota or even ahead it can reject applications on basis it is already meeting it’s number set out in its local plan and it will be difficult to appeal. Then Hart can be shaping the district rather than responding to constant attack.
If only they’d listened to us in the first place and gone for a lower target. Now they’ve got to increase it they have to increase it from the higher target they’ve chosen rather than the lower target we recommended.