MCHLG confirms McVey was talking out of her ”a***”

Planning

Comments made by the housing minister in a speech in which she said that greenfield land should only be developed in “the most exceptional circumstances” do not represent a shift in planning policy, the government has confirmed.

Isle of Wight to Challenge Government Over Housing Numbers (guess who will win)

Islnd Echoe  So Ventor Parish Council are world experts on demography are they – I never knew

Government-driven housing targets, which could see almost 10,000 new homes built on the Island over the next 15 years, look set to be challenged by the Isle of Wight Council.

The authority intends to prepare an evidence-based case that demonstrates the real housing needs of the Island.

The move comes in direct response to comments and concerns raised by residents in respect to housing numbers contained in the draft Island Planning Strategy – or Local Plan. Isle of Wight MP Bob Seely has also been fighting for a reconsideration of the target and has held a number of meetings with residents across the Island.

Using a new common formula set down by government for councils to “objectively assess housing need”, the plan proposed an annual housing target for the Island of 641 homes.

Council leader Dave Stewart said the authority had listened to Islanders’ concerns and would now seek to put forward its own calculation based on fact, rather than a formula. As part of that, he said he would work closely with Isle of Wight MP Bob Seely to argue the Island’s unique circumstances and what could realistically be achieved in terms of housing delivery.

McVey Treating ”Every Blade of Grass” as if it were Green Belt – is this the most incompetent and unhelpful speech ever made by a planning minister

From the full text of here speech isued by the ministry press office, so clerly not a mis-statement

Property Eye

Because greenfield land, greenfield sites, should not be what we turn to, not what we look at first.

Every blade of grass must be looked at before it is changed – and it is only in the most exceptional circumstances we turn there and I can announce today councils will receive a share of nearly £2m to crackdown on illegal development, including in the green belt.

You have to be patient with new planning minister as they grow into there brief and before they issue there first policy statement.

But this is a shocker

1.  It makes the common error of confusing green field and green belt\
2. Seems to reintroduce the discredited and unworkable sequential approach to homes
3. Is a Nimbys wet dream
4. Will set back every local plan in the country two years
5. Is a pre-election pitch to a government nervous after losses in local elections in May

Clearly there will be request for clarification.  Was this cleared by the SOS, by the PM, buy the Prime Minister?

What I suspect happened in that civil servents prepared careful text and a green in the tooth spad over edited it to conflate the Green Field and Green Belt paras.  Every planner will recognise this as the same mistake is commonly made by new cllrs.

She is not a details person and given the Spinal Tap drummers curse that planning and housing ministers face she wont last long – especially after such a spectacular cock up.  It is every NIMBY BANANA local groups dream.

Allocating land for housing on non Green Belt sites is not exceptional.  Almost every local plan HAS to do it to meet NPPF policy.  Delivering all brownfield sites first is not practical because so many brownfield sites dont meet NPPF policy (deliverable viable etc.) , and because the data shows there are not enough of them, not nearly enough only around 1 5th of housing in strategic plans year 15-20 years even by the CPRE best estimates.  So is Mc Veys new policy to slow down housing, to allocate less ‘green field housing’.  Her lack of understanding over the realities of english planning is just staggering.  Its like her normal practice of withdrawing disabilities benefits from somewhat after they have died because that is what she has done today, killed off every controversial local plan in the country.  PINS everybody will be seeking clarification

-What did she mean

-Did she understand what she said

-Is it a change of policy

Clearly not I think because she didnt understand in the slightest the meaning or impact of her statement and how it would completely screw up the government’s housing targets.

 

 

 

KPMG Brexit will ‘make government housing delivery targets impossible to achieve’

Guardian

UK house prices could crash by as much as a fifth if Boris Johnson pursues a no-deal Brexit, and the biggest falls would be in London and Northern Ireland, a leading accountancy firm has said.

Reflecting the potentially vulnerable state of the property market as Brexit looms, KPMG said house prices would fall by between 5.4% and 7.5% across different regions next year if a new agreement with Brussels was not in place by 31 October.

The analysis of average house prices across the country showed no deal could trigger a nationwide decline of about 6% in 2020 and that and a drop of between 10 and 20% was “not out of the question” if the market reacted more strongly than expected….

Jan Crosby, the UK head of housing at KPMG, said Britain leaving without a deal would probably lead to a sharp drop in sales volumes as wary homeowners wait for the turbulence in the property market to clear. This in turn would “make government housing delivery targets impossible to achieve and slow new building across the sector”, he said.

Against a backdrop of falling owner occupation in Britain as first-time buyers find it difficult to get on the housing ladder, the government has promised to deliver 300,000 homes a year by the mid 2020s.