| Topic: | Reply | |
| Posted by: | Gordon Southwell | |
| Date/Time: | 25/06/26 14:19:00 |
Private market housing in desirable locations is always going to sell particularly waterside locations so it shouldn't be a surprise that this continues to be built. There seems to be some confusion about what affordable actually means in this context. In the generally understood sense, all housing is built to be affordable as no developer would construct something they couldn't sell. 'Affordable' housing when we are talking about councils is effectively subsidised with the cost of provision being put on the developer, effectively a tax on house building. My view is that it is very dangerous for the state to start concerning itself with profit margins of businesses. Your belief that both affordable housing and infrastructure should be paid for by developers is shared across government both local and national. This system work reasonably well when interest rates were low and construction was more affordable. A combination of Covid, Ukraine, Brexit and now Iran has meant that developers have to carry the burden of both increased costs and the quasi taxes that you want to levy on them. The result is that housing starts have collapsed. This is compounded by Housing Associations not having the means to take on affordable units due to their own costs rising as a result of increased regulation. As I said, it is a complex situation with no apparent straightforward solution. I believe complaints about infrastructure are often overstated and most affordable housing other than that for social rent is not particularly attractive for people looking for homes so I would waive any such requirements for new developments that meet the needs of the local area e.g. for Ealing, family housing. You could also fast track the planning process for schemes that clearly are a response to local need and not speculative. |