Angela Rayner's Housing Plan 'more difficult than we expected'

[Social Media]

 

Labour’s ambitious goal to address the UK’s housing crisis by building 1.5 million homes by 2030 has been acknowledged as a formidable challenge by Communities Minister Matthew Pennycook. Speaking to the Housing and Communities Committee, Pennycook admitted the target set by Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary Angela Rayner was "incredibly stretching," but emphasized its necessity and insisted it was still achievable.  

 

The plan, unveiled ahead of the general election, promises to deliver 1.5 million homes within five years. Central to the strategy is the revival of top-down housing targets for local councils, which collectively aim to deliver over 370,000 homes annually. Rayner has firmly dismissed concerns that such development would overcrowd the country or deplete green spaces, stating, “The vast majority of England is still very green and will remain so.”  

 

Despite the bold vision, Rayner’s efforts have not been without controversy. Her intervention in a contentious garden town plan near Sittingbourne last week drew significant criticism. Just hours before Swale Borough Council was set to vote on proposals for 8,400 new homes, planning officers received a letter indicating Rayner’s Ministry for Housing, Communities, and Local Government was taking over the decision-making process.  

 

The original proposals included 7,150 homes, primary and secondary schools, and a hotel under one application, with an additional 1,250 homes, care facilities, a school, and a motorway relief road under a second. Local planning officers had recommended councillors reject the plans, citing widespread objections from the community. Over 700 residents submitted letters of opposition, voicing concerns about the project’s impact on the area.  

 

Now, with the ministry set to make the final decision, councillors and residents fear the plans will be approved despite strong local resistance. The situation highlights the tension between the government’s national housing targets and local opposition to large-scale developments.  

 

Rayner’s intervention underscores the government’s determination to meet its housing goals, even in the face of local objections. However, the Deputy Prime Minister’s actions have also raised questions about the balance of power between central and local authorities in planning decisions.  

 

The Labour government maintains that its housing agenda is essential to easing the ongoing housing crisis, with Rayner dismissing arguments against further development. The challenges of implementing such an ambitious plan, coupled with opposition from communities, illustrate the complexity of resolving the UK’s housing shortage while maintaining public support.  

 

While the goal of building 1.5 million homes remains a cornerstone of Labour’s housing policy, the path to achieving it is proving to be far from straightforward. The coming years will determine whether the government can deliver on its promises while addressing the concerns of the communities it seeks to transform.  

 

Based on a report by Daily Mail 2024-11-22

 

 

 

[Purdey]

Good to enable people to buy cheap housing. Bad that urban areas will worsen.

[billd766]

It sounds (another election promise) like a great idea.

 

Where will the money come from to pay for it all, and will the government take heed or simply ignore the protests that have already started locally?

 

Prefabs can be built fairly cheaply in factories and easily assembled on site, but would anybody want to but them. assuming that they can afford to?

[RichardColeman]

1 hour ago, Purdey said:

Good to enable people to buy cheap housing. Bad that urban areas will worsen.

Sorry but I think you are very misguided.

 

Liebour will not be building homes for tory voters to buy they will mostly probably be building homes for low earners, unemployed and migrants to live in. 

 

Any liebour plan to build homes should have the important figure of the estimated amount of benefit claimers that will live in these homes. They are in fact building homes that they will probably have to pay out rent indefinitely to themselves on !

 

[Purdey]

2 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

ot be building homes for tory voters to buy they will mostly probably be building homes for low earners, unemployed and migrants to live in. 

Agreed, that is why I wrote "cheap housing."

[Maybole]

I recall "cheap housing" being built in Glasgow in the 1960s. Within 30 years they had to be demolished due to their dangerous state while the post war prefabs were still viable

[Watawattana]

15 hours ago, billd766 said:

Where will the money come from to pay for it all, and will the government take heed or simply ignore the protests that have already started locally?

Maybe farmers will have to sell their land to the Government to pay for the inheritance tax.

[BritManToo]

6 hours ago, Maybole said:

I recall "cheap housing" being built in Glasgow in the 1960s. Within 30 years they had to be demolished due to their dangerous state while the post war prefabs were still viable

No need to build any housing, just remove planning laws and building regulations and people will build their own. The houses cost nothing, it's land, planning and building regs that force the prices beyond most people's reach.

A lot of homeless/poor would be happy enough to live in a shed/camper/van but there's nowhere to park it (planning).

Edited Friday at 10:30 PM by BritManToo

[JonnyF]

I'm sure Rachel (from accounts) Reeves can steal some more money from the indigenous British people to pay for this.

 

There might be some cheap farm land available soon. Build a few mosques and the immigrants won't even complain that the free WiFi is slow. 

 

 

[RayC]

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

I'm sure Rachel (from accounts) Reeves can steal some more money from the indigenous British people to pay for this.

 

I doubt that stealing from indigenous tribes of Britain will raise much revenue.

 

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

There might be some cheap farm land available soon. Build a few mosques and the immigrants won't even complain that the free WiFi is slow. 

 

 

 

How will that help achieve the goal of building 1.5m homes by 2030?

[JonnyF]

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

I doubt that stealing from indigenous tribes of Britain will raise much revenue.

 

Tribes?  This is Britain old chap, not New Zealand.

 

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

 

How will that help achieve the goal of building 1.5m homes by 2030?

 

Houses require land to build them on. 

[RayC]

34 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Tribes?  This is Britain old chap, not New Zealand.

 

Anthropological speak. Applies to any country.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/british_prehistory/iron_01.shtml

 

34 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Houses require land to build them on. 

 

Indeed they do, my good fellow. I'm well aware of that.

 

What I don't understand is how your suggestion - which I admit I was somewhat taken aback by - that we built more mosques will help meet the target of 1.5m more new homes by 2030?

 

Perhaps Reeves isn't the only one not thinking through their ideas?😉

[JonnyF]

23 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Anthropological speak. Applies to any country.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/british_prehistory/iron_01.shtml

 

 

Indeed they do, my good fellow. I'm well aware of that.

 

What I don't understand is how your suggestion - which I admit I was somewhat taken aback by - that we built more mosques will help meet the target of 1.5m more new homes by 2030?

 

Perhaps Reeves isn't the only one not thinking through their ideas?😉

 

You can't build houses for Muslim immigrants without mosques nearby.

 

It would breach their human rights, or something. 

 

I hope Rachel from accounts has factored this in before she buys up the land from the recently bereaved farmers.