4 ms·

Developers only built half the homes that they were approved to build over a 10 year period[0]. The destruction of the provision of social housing has been a d

• candiodari 3y ago
  The issue (elsewhere than the UK) is that regulations have also made building so expensive that it's actually not worth it. People cannot pay for new houses, even on very cheap land. I don't even understand how it's supposed to work, by the current building standards in .be I'd say about 80% of all houses (mostly older ones) would be torn down if we follow the letter of the law. And a lot of those building standards (e.g. electrical safety, piping safety) apply to existing housing, not just to newly built ones. Social housing used to be famous for the government simply not following building codes (whether that meant maximum land occupancy or isolation/material standards), and disclaimed responsibility when it lead to accidents. But it made a lot of people home owners.
• Silhouette 3y ago
  That's partly because developers of large estates often have conditions on their planning permission such as including a certain proportion of "affordable" homes within their mix and funding various community facilities. So on paper they have approval to build all of that. The reality is that they can often make far more profit by building the expensive houses first, drip feeding them onto the market, and possibly never finishing the whole estate as originally approved. It's no accident that many homes are approved but never built. It's just a small group of wily giant building firms playing the system and getting away with it. In theory local authorities who administer the planning system should call them on it. In reality it's a David and Goliath situation. Attempting enforcement actions can result in years of expensive legal battles ultimately funded by local taxpayers with no guarantee of success even in what appear to be cut-and-dried cases.