1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

House builders open licence to build - all carrot and no stick?

Discussion in 'Personal' started by frodo_magic, Aug 6, 2020.

  1. frodo_magic

    frodo_magic Occasional commenter

    Why does the Government constantly do this? Fair enough, have a look at the planning laws and procedures, encourage doing away of red tape etc, but it could have done so much more with a bit of thinking:

    a. Insist that only building companies that have voluntarily corrected properly every single one of the houses they sold on dodgy leasehold rather than freeholds can be part of any new application to build under the new less stringent planning regs.

    b. All new builds, new houses must have solar power for at least 50% of their power, and insulation that goes way beyond the pathetic current specs.

    c. All new builds must have rain water reclamation schemes e.g. that recycle water to toilets.

    d. New builds on brownfield sites, rundown areas, poorer cities must be developed and linked closely to new builds in more affluent areas.

    e. Companies who want to be part of the scheme must undertake to train X number of apprenticeships in the trades.


    I don't have a problem in principle with measures that encourage business, but it needs to be done in a way that encourages these companies to be greener, nicer, less sneaky and more socially responsible.

    Why does Boris and his advisers not think these things through?
    Doitforfree likes this.
  2. peakster

    peakster Star commenter

    Because they are corrupt and incompetent ?
    jellycowfish and monicabilongame like this.
  3. hplovegame48

    hplovegame48 Occasional commenter

    Because they are incompetent, incapable have vested interests and don't care. Look to Grenfell and the cladding scandal.

    In decades to come, it will turn out to be a foolish move on an epic scale.
    jellycowfish and monicabilongame like this.
  4. gainly

    gainly Star commenter

    I'm sure they have thought it through and decided to concentrate on the most important criterion.
    You missed out the only criterion that actually matters:
    f. Only companies that have made substantial donations to Tory party coffers may be part of the scheme.
    jellycowfish and monicabilongame like this.
  5. Ivartheboneless

    Ivartheboneless Star commenter

    Because it is all about profit and profit only. Profitable businesses have fat cats at the top who donate to the Tories for their knighthood/peerage. They pay as little tax as they can get away with, build where it is easy for them (and on flood plains), not where there is real shortage and get away with not building affordable homes, and even if they do then using a definition of affordable that stops anyone on minimum wage ever getting on the housing ladder. And of course landlords can buy the new houses straight off plan and add them to the lucrative rental market and even get favourable buy-to- let mortgage terms. They call it "business".
  6. hhhh

    hhhh Star commenter

    Even when things ARE stipulated, it doesn't mean that it'll happen. 'Name of company' that built on fields near my town were supposed to build a new road before the houses were completed. Now we have regular gridlock on the 'old' road-not surprising when you have three times the number of people using it every day. Terrible for the environment and mental/physical health. Years later, still no new road.

    On the one hand, I suppose people are hard up/out of work, and there's more and more people needing housing. On the other hand, I agree we need greenspace and that only quality, safe and decent homes should be built, and that if companies say they can't afford to stick to these rules, then they just have to refrain from building.

    I suppose you COULD have a government refuse to have more houses built, but would we want to stop immigration? Limit the number of children people can have? Stop people divorcing, as that would mean one partner is likely to need an additional home alone? If not, new homes being built is inevitable, but I agree it would be nice to see companies having to be ethical.
  7. Doitforfree

    Doitforfree Star commenter

    If a building company broke any of the rules I'd make them have to stop building for a month, and correct any problems they'd caused before they were allowed to continue. We had terrible trouble with two lots of builders - name of a fruit and a coloured terrace - dumping vast quantities of mud onto the road and never cleaning it up. The council told them to clean it up once and then gave up. If they'd had to stop building and clean it up before they could start again they'd have been a lot more careful. And the lies they told! And then a lot of the houses had sloping floors and wrongly mixed mortar and had to be sinister completely rebuilt. I would never ever bit a new house from a mass builder. It fills me with staff that the airway feeble control of these people is to be filled yet further.

    The new levy will be administered nationally. So you can bet that poor areas won't get any of it even if they have to put up with the awful new houses.
  8. LondonCanary

    LondonCanary Star commenter

    And you? How much more tax do you pay than is necessary.
    artboyusa likes this.
  9. monicabilongame

    monicabilongame Star commenter

    You forgot the Tory votes against a law that landlords had to ensure their rental properties were fit for human habitation.
  10. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    Never mind the homeless or those who are struggling to get on the property ladder.
    Housing shortages push prices up and make Landlords very rich.
  11. Ivartheboneless

    Ivartheboneless Star commenter

    Sorry. Was I supposed to be comprehensive and all-encompassing in my scorn?
  12. Stiltskin

    Stiltskin Star commenter

    I imagine they pay what is expected, but they could probably get away with paying less through various loop holes and tricks (like many companies do). I imagine that is what they are suggesting that companies should not be allowed to do.

Share This Page