New building limit

[Ronzx6r]

has there ever been a limit to building new houses/using up more land in a country?

[RSTurboPaul]

Local Plans limit development boundaries / densities at a local level, the Green Belt also achieves the former.

[John D.]

National Parks preserve land.

[alscar]

RSTurboPaul said:

Local Plans limit development boundaries / densities at a local level, the Green Belt also achieves the former.

In the past I’ve seen developers quote these LP’s as justification especially in number terms per development but then objections raised quoting the same LP as not including ?!
LA Planners appear to then make their own decisions and where this results in a refusal it tends to go to appeal where the Inspector makes his or her decision.
The last few locally I saw the Inspector overruled the LA planners and permission was granted.

[ITP]

If councils now say no to a developer they just appeal to national govt and they overturn and approve.

Even if they are inappropriate developments all the govt is interested in is trying to hit 1.5 million so someone can come on telly and say they’ve hit a target.

We all know the homes needed are cheaper ones on brownfield sites for young adults and young families to get on the ladder. Developers just want to build on green belt in expensive areas.

The govt doesn’t mind as they believe its quicker to build there (less issues in the ground) to get the numbers quoted quicker, but the reality is there is little demand for 700k average price houses these days.
It could take decades to actually sell 1000 homes priced between 500k and 1.5 million on an expensive greenfield suburban site, but they’d sell 1000 200-400k homes off plot in months as they are the ones needed…..
Pretty much all decision powers now being removed from councils and local people. Basically a dictatorship.

[RotorRambler]

Ronzx6r said:

has there ever been a limit to building new houses/using up more land in a country?

For the United Kingdom, there has never been a legal limit saying “only this many houses can ever be built.” Instead, the UK controls development through planning policy.

Some key points:

• 1947 – The Town and Country Planning Act 1947 fundamentally changed development. Before then, landowners had much greater freedom to build. After 1947, almost all new development required planning permission from the local authority.
• Green Belt – From the 1950s onwards, Green Belt policy was expanded to stop towns and cities sprawling into the countryside. Around 13% of England is designated Green Belt, where new housing is heavily restricted.
• Protected land – Large areas are also protected as National Parks, National Landscapes (formerly AONBs), Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and other designations, making large-scale housing development difficult or impossible.

The UK therefore has an indirect limit on where housing can be built, rather than a limit on the number of houses.

Is there enough land?

Surprisingly, yes.

Roughly:

• Around 8–10% of the UK is developed.
• About 70% is agricultural land.
• The remainder is woodland, mountains, rivers, wetlands and other natural areas.

If the government chose to, it could release more land for housing. However, that would involve difficult trade-offs over farming, biodiversity, flooding, infrastructure, and the character of the countryside.

Could the UK ever impose a hard limit?

It could in theory, but it has never done so. Instead, governments adjust planning policy depending on housing demand. In recent years, the debate has been whether to:

• build more on brownfield (previously developed) land,
• allow more development on parts of the Green Belt (sometimes called “grey belt”),
• or increase the density of existing towns and cities instead of expanding them.

So, in the UK, the constraint has always been planning policy, not a national cap on the total number of homes. Whether more homes are built is ultimately a political decision about balancing housing need against protecting the environment and countryside.

[hidetheelephants]

House builders control the number of houses they build according to whether the market will absorb them without affecting their ability to pay dividends, so they aren't ever going to meet govt targets no matter how nicely the minister for housing asks them to, planning policy is largely irrelevant. Housing associations/councils have not received funding to construct adequate social housing provision since the 1970s.

[-Cappo-]

RotorRambler said:

• Around 8 10% of the UK is developed.

I’d be really interested to know what that figure is for other European countries.

I live in the SE. When I moved to this area around 30 years ago, it was very much semi-rural. It’s now very close to being part of a conurbation of the nearest main town, some 8 miles away. Along the main A-road to said town, almost every chunk of green space has now become a housing development, and it’s the same driving out of that town in the opposite direction. Green belt? Pah, we’ll have that. Local Plan? Central Govt says No. Village designated as conservation area? Well we can squeeze another 20 in that corner.

The usual infrastructure penalties (for the residents) are more than evident, but it’s now trickling down to things like frequent domestic water shortages, because of course the water companies haven’t planned ahead/been made to do so/been held accountable/expanded infrastructure. So where you have a mains and sewer system which was built to supply, let’s say. 50,000 properties and you’ve now built an extra 30,000 properties, is it any wonder that those systems can’t cope and you end up with frequent episodes of low or no pressure. And all the excess sewage goes into the local watercourse.

And still they build.