“When morality comes up against profit, it is seldom that profit loses.”
Shirley Chisholm
Taken from March’s edition of The Trumpit.
We are constantly reminded by the main political parties how much we need to build thousands of new houses each year to solve our housing “crisis”. One stick used by central Government to persuade local authorities to build has been the imposition of five-year plans. In simple terms, authorities have to agree these and allocate the land to facilitate. Quite often this means – Bradford is a case in point – that the ineptitude of the local authority allows powerful developers free reign. How ironic that a socialist Council, in effect, lines the pockets of big business?
As a case in point, if you needed reminding about how little local opinion matters, wind back to 2014 here in Idle. The decision to overturn several previous refusals for planning permission on Idle Moor illustrates the point perfectly. A beautiful part of the moor is now covered in houses; once completed this opens up the next piece of the jigsaw. Here are extracts from the appeal adjudicated by Ian Radcliffe, Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, dated 19/1/15. Stick with it and you will see how flawed the system is.
…the development of Urban Greenspace will not be permitted…I agree with that position…the Urban Greenspace had an atmosphere of tranquillity and a peaceful quality…development would cause some harm to the character and appearance…Local Planning Authorities should have deliverable sites to provide at least 5 years of housing against their housing requirements. The Council’s latest assessment is that it has a 2.3-year supply…local primary schools are full…local secondary schools have insufficient capacity… For the reasons that I have set out…the proposal would be contrary to the development plan…However, the Council does not have a 5-year housing land supply.
Here follows the crux of the issue which defies all logic.
…the principle of housing on the appeal site would be contrary to the development plan for the area. However, given the conflict between the Framework and the approach of the development plan…these considerations are of limited weight…the appeal should therefore be allowed. In reaching this decision the views of local residents and councillors have been taken into account.
Despite numerous objections, developers won the day because the Government have a policy and the Council don’t. Little has changed since, especially so in North Bradford where certain areas have been concrete bombed. And it could get worse. According to Steve Hartley, Strategic Director of the Department of Place in a letter to Philip Davies, MP, in response to representations made on my behalf, here is the official line.
“The current 5-year supply is between 2.3 and 3.3 years depending on the approach taken…The 5-year supply statement is derived from the Strategic Housing Land Availability (SHLAA)…based currently on the 2015 SHLAA.” Whichever “approach” is taken the result is the same.
The guiding target figure is 42,100 homes, chosen by the Council for the period 2013-30; this has been proven to be wholly inaccurate. The figures to date – see Bradford Council Housing Land Supply Update at 31st March 2018 (copies available to insomniacs and owners of open fires) – demonstrate how ridiculous the target was and remains. Completions are way off the pace needed to get anywhere remotely close. As at 31/3/18 there had been 774 against a target of 4,400 (17.6%) and the bulldozers currently ripping up the remainder of Cote Farm in Thackley, are another example of local impotence. The SHLAA for North East Bradford shows what is left for the developers to cherry pick.
However, the irony here is that the vast majority of houses built do not go any way to solving the housing needs of locals. It has been argued, with merit, that all we have done is extended the Leeds boundary, providing homes to those priced out of LS postcodes.
An industry insider commented “eventually all the green belt will be built on as it is prime land for builders to maximise return on…we are one of Bradford Council’s jewels in the crown…almost a suburb of Leeds…bringing first time buyers from Leeds…you get more bang for your bucks…they bring with them a Leeds mentality, thus not supporting our beloved City’s shops and culture, just hop on a train to Leeds from Shipley or Apperley Bridge, that is, if you can find somewhere to park your car, once again due to overcrowding and little infrastructure in return.”
But surely clever councillors negotiate infrastructure payments known as Section 106 agreements – agreements made between local authorities and developers attached to planning permissions to make acceptable development which would otherwise be unacceptable in planning? Not so as developers often find ways to reduce these markedly.
“Do not get me going on Help To Buy which has assisted the builders in over inflating the price of new homes by 20% because someone in Government thought hey let’s get jobs going and land banks fired up…known in the industry as Help to Build scheme, which has made the builders huge profits and given them an opportunity to ask 20% more on the prices due to Taxpayers subsidies…”
And here are some interesting observations from another insider. “I don’t know if it’s possible to provide a five-year plan based on the number of homes the Government require. I guess other cities are doing it though. Did you know that Help to Buy extends to £600k meaning that the tax payer subsidises the deposit of a guy who can borrow £540k, mental? Most people think this is for young first-time buyers.” From which you can see the developers are having a field day. As for social housing…pull the other one!
All these factors have driven the greed that results in £75m bonuses to CEOs in the right place at the right time and have facilitated a land grab of prime sites. To further compound this, significant areas of brownfield land, ideal for house building, have been ring-fenced for commercial use by the Council. The whole policy is a shambles and given the time it will take should the Council ever get its act together, it remains open season for developers.
Wave your placards all you like but these guys have deep pockets. It is not hopeless though were the Council to formulate a serious response by safeguarding our green belt, in the process, coming up with a more realistic plan. Unless, however, there is an ulterior motive? Central Government funding of local authorities disappears in the next few years leaving Councils to raise their own budgets. Compare the Council Tax take on “executive” detached houses to low-occupancy social housing? Surely a Labour Council would not allow this?
Footnote
This is an interesting article by Shipley MP, Philip Davies – see here – proposing the break up of Bradford Council. Whatever your political stance, Bradford’s wails at austerity are muted by its abysmal council tax collection.
Finally, with perfect timing see this – Profits have topped £1bn for the first time at housebuilder Persimmon…under scrutiny over its continued involvement in the Help to Buy scheme.
Nothing wrong with profit…plenty wrong with greed and sharp practice.
Leave a Reply