Birmingham Housing Developments

[sefton66]

I'm pretty sure when there was uproar from Labour when the conservatives were in charge and the possibilty of building on green belt was bought up...


Anyway I think the idea of a new "city" inbetween Birmingham and Coventry in the Meriden Gap is a great idea when HS2 is up and running, will help better link up both cities in my opinion. Talk of Redditch, Tamworth and Bromsgrove also helping out to reach the number of homes, should do good for a "closer" Greater Birmingham feel

Houses may be built on green belt to meet Birmingham homes target
by Jonathan Walker, Birmingham Post Jul 5 2012

Birmingham’s Labour administration has refused to rule out building on the green belt as it looks to solve the city’s increasing housing crisis.

The group was elected with a manifesto pledge to build 70,000 new homes by 2026, but now claims the city may need up to 90,000.

Labour was challenged by Liberal Democrat councillors to rule out house building on the green belt, parks and public open space and garden grabbing until every inch of previously developed brown field land has been used first.

But in a heated city council debate the Labour group hit back saying that homes and jobs were the priority, claiming the Lib Dems were wilfully ignoring the housing crisis.

The projected need for 70,000 new homes is the conclusion of a strategic housing market assessment by the council’s development directorate earlier this year, but now new evidence suggests the city may need even more.

A strategic land availability report found that there is only capacity for 43,000 homes within the existing built up area.

The growing crisis is a result of general population growth in one of Europe’s youngest cities and changing households as more couples and families live apart.

It is meeting this shortfall of at least 26,500 homes which could prove a headache for the Labour administration and make it difficult to deliver the ambitious target.

Labour leader Sir Albert Bore revealed last month that he would approach neighbouring boroughs to see if they are able to help the council find the space for extra homes.

The council’s core strategy allows for it to offset its housing demand by showing that demand can be met in a neighbouring authority and the council already has a deal with a Black Country authority and is in talks with Bromsgrove and Solihull.

Council leaders are keen to encourage house building as it will not only meet demand, reduce waiting lists of up to 99 years for larger four and five bedroom family council homes, but also create construction jobs and boost the city economy.

But Lib Dem David Radcliffe (Selly Oak) said: “Building 70,000 homes will be an environmental disaster, leading to the loss of public open space, loss of gardens in our mature suburbs and ultimately building on the green belt.

“We are proposing 70,000 homes in a city which will not have an environment worth living in.”

His colleague Jerry Evans (Springfield) questioned the validity of the 70,000 estimate and said that the proposal would amount to the city giving up 5.3 square kilometres of green space for residential development.

He warned that if the council opens up the possibility of green belt land then ‘developers will simply go where there are greater profits’ rather than tackle the more difficult inner city sites or contaminated and previously developed land.

Deputy leader Ian Ward pointed out that the previous Tory-Lib Dem council had earmarked green belt land near Coleshill Lane in his own Shard End ward for 400 homes.

They had also been prepared to sell off parkland to build superstores at the Swan Centre, the Fox and Goose and Woodgate Valley. And sites such as the Martineau Centre, a former school and playing fields in Harborne, had been last year earmarked by the council for housing development – amid much local protest.

He said: “It is ridiculous to suggest that we shouldn’t build these houses until every shred of brown field land is used. That would mean we would never get the 400 homes in Shard End.”

Coun Ward stressed that all options will be explored. “The total according to the housing strategy is going up.”

There will be a survey of available land, including land which may be suitable but not currently classified as residential. Then the council will look at housing densities.

Once those options, and neighbouring authorities have been explored, then the council will look at the gap and the options. “We also need to protect industrial land,” Coun Ward explained, “We are going to need those jobs.”

His cabinet colleague in charge of jobs and development Coun Tahir Ali (Nechells) added: “Without this housing our life chances and economic prospects will be damaged.

“With a long term capacity of 43,000 homes in the built up area, development in the green belt cannot be ruled out.”

He added that the council’s own mature suburbs policy and the new National Planning Policy Framework offers protection from garden grabbing and that the council would guarantee industrial land for job creation.

The policy was backed by Coun John Clancy (Lab, Quinton) who said: “It is essential we invest in houses. We will make long term savings on health, education and the welfare budgets. It is the best way to bring down the deficit.

“We need to build something the people want us to build. This city has built enough prestige buildings, large offices and retail parks, now is the time to build houses and homes. We are in crisis, but the Lib Dems are trying to stop us building houses.”

There are currently an estimated 30,000 on the waiting list for the city’s 65,000 homes, with an average six year wait. There was little, if any council house building in Birmingham for 30 years until 2009, when the Birmingham Municipal Housing Trust was set up to deliver 500 homes a year and fill the gap at a time when private sector housing development was drying up.

Read More http://www.birminghampost.net/news/w...#ixzz1zlxkhepb

[Nacho]

Housing regeneration scheme re-launched : http://birminghamnewsroom.com/2012/0...ed-by-council/

[sefton66]

As above, great news. I wonder when icknield port loop will get off the ground?

Birmingham City Council decides to proceed with Lyndhurst estate regeneration

Regen.net, 1 August 2012 by John Geoghegan

Birmingham City Council has approved plans to start work on a housing regeneration scheme that stalled when a private finance initiative (PFI) funding programme was cancelled as a result of government cuts.

http://m.regen.net/article/1143906/B...e-regeneration

[Nacho]

I hadn't even heard of the Pype Hayes area : http://birminghamnewsroom.com/2012/0...ransformation/

[sefton66]

I know tower blocks aren't exactly liked by many people, but with such a housing shortage should we really be demolishing structurally sound buildings that offer so much accommodation on such a small plot of land? we should be renovating the blocks and replacing the housing estates around them


Anyway, Brent Council are seeking deals with landlords in Birmingham and Coventry for some of its tennants, further adding to our housing shortage....

South London council could send poorest families to live in Brum
16 Nov 2012 18:26

A SOUTH London council could solve a high-rent housing crisis by sending its poorest families to live in Birmingham.

More than 3,000 people in Brent will be unable to pay their rent when a new £500 per week benefit cap is introduced next April.

Brent Council plans to rehome as many affected families as possible in lower-rent areas near London, including Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire.

But housing chiefs in the London borough are also looking at striking deals with private landlords in Birmingham, Coventry, and Swindon, where rents are even cheaper.

A report to the council’s executive said: “With the introduction of the overall benefit cap in April 2013, benefits are to be capped at £500 a week – this includes all benefits including housing benefit.

“The Department for Work and Pensions states that approximately 3,000 families will be affected in Brent and for these, rents will no longer be affordable.

“For example, a couple with three children on Universal Credit will have a personal allowance of £332.

“With benefits capped at £500, their maximum rent allowance will be £168.

“The local housing allowance rent for a three-bed property in the south of the borough is £340 per week, leaving a weekly shortfall of £172.

“In this example the household will lose nearly £9,000 per year.

“The largest households will lose substantially more.”

According to tables produced by Brent Council, a family of two adults and three children could afford to live in a three or four bed house in Coventry within the benefit cap.

Only families with four children would still struggle to afford a suitable property in Coventry.

And yet the region is struggling with its own housing crisis, as the Mail has reported previously.

In October it was revealed that the housing waiting list in the West Midlands topped 183,000 at the end of last year – 45.3 per cent higher than the 126,629 hoping for a home in 2006, according to statistics released by the National Housing Federation.

The federation said the slump in supply of homes has seen house prices in Birmingham rocket to an average of £153,660 – more than seven times the income of city workers.

House prices in Birmingham have increased by 78 per cent in the last decade alone, while wages have only risen by 25 per cent.

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news...poorest-313558

[sefton66]

Birmingham Development Plan consultation
BY GEOFFC – NOVEMBER 14, 2012
POSTED IN: DEPUTY LEADER, NEWS
Click on the following link to take part in the consultation: http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/plan2031

Birmingham’s rapidly expanding population means the city needs to plan for around 80,000 new homes and more than 100,000 new jobs by 2031.

Experts have calculated that the city’s current urban area only has enough space for up to 43,000 new dwellings – a shortfall of 30,000 homes. For this reason, the council is now exploring options to release some of the city’s Green Belt land for housing development.

It is also considering options for a new site for economic development of at least 50-hectares on Green Belt land to bring new investment and jobs to the city. This is because there is a shortage of land available for economic development in the city’s urban area.

These Green Belt considerations come as a direct result of the latest Census figures which indicate that Birmingham’s population grew by 88,000 to 1.074 million between 2001 and 2011 – a growth 40,000 higher than earlier estimates. The total population is predicted to grow by up to 150,000 to more than 1.2 million in the next 20 years.

The new Birmingham Development Plan is proposing to consider options in four Green Belt areas to the north and east of Sutton Coldfield. These areas are:

Hill Wood, east of Watford Gap, north of Mere Green/Roughley
land west of the M6 Toll, east of Roughley and Whitehouse Common
land west of Sutton Coldfield Bypass(A38), near Walmley
land east of Sutton Coldfield Bypass(A38), also near Walmley
It is estimated that between 5,000 and 10,000 new homes could be built in the Green Belt, along with the potential for a new 50-hectare site for economic development.

Councillor Ian Ward, Deputy Leader of Birmingham City Council, said: “We need to create a city fit for a growing, successful population.

“The latest official figures tell us that Birmingham’s population has grown faster than previously thought, and that it will grow substantially again by 2031. As a result, we have developed a number of options for new housing and economic developments.

“There is simply not enough room left in Birmingham’s urban areas for this growth, and so potential Green Belt options have to be explored.

“These are carefully laid out in the new Birmingham Development Plan’s Options Consultation document. It is important to stress that no preferred option has been identified at this stage, and there is no intention that all of the options should be developed. But we need to understand that there are some difficult issues that need to be addressed.

“We cannot ignore the growth in population and the related increase in housing and employment needs, because to do so would be a failure that could easily be challenged by developers. And to do so would lead to more overcrowding, increased poor health and further deprivation.

“Instead, we want a robust plan that will meet future housing needs and at the same time will diversify and strengthen the city’s economic base.

“The plans will now be put out for public consultation. All views expressed and comments made will be assessed and will help us to define which option, or combination of options, if any, are selected.”

Click on the following link to take part in the consultation: http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/plan2031

You have until 14 January 2013 to let us know what you think about the different options.

http://birminghamnewsroom.com/2012/1...-consultation/

[brum2003]

Interesting - why not build up density instead of more suburban development. Redevelop the appallingly wasted inner city areas adjacent to the city centre.

[sefton66]

the plan includes that land too, but to meet the demand we need to build on green belt, and even then we will have a shortfall

its not just the housing, with it comes the jobs needed, schools, hospital places, shops etc.


Interestingly they appear to want Sutton Coldfield to become a "second centre" for considerable retail expansion and offices

[lbrown]

Why don't we convert all the usused office space in the city centre into residential. Its obvious we have too much office space theres a to let sign on every building. Some would be very nice residential flats in some of the old buildings in the Colmore Business District.

[Engels]

Originally Posted by lbrown

Why don't we convert all the usused office space in the city centre into residential. Its obvious we have too much office space theres a to let sign on every building. Some would be very nice residential flats in some of the old buildings in the Colmore Business District.

This has been happening anyway and there us not as much as you think.

J agree with the notion that we should be building more density and the assumptions in these numbers don't allow for as much density as we could manage with different funding models

The problem is the way we have not invested in public housing... We have tried to get the market to deliver the housing we need by taxing private developers through the requirement for them to fund social housing yet this had led to a shortage of homes and increasing rent cost.we should move to local authorities selling off the most expensive properties they own when they naturally become vacant and using the proceeds to buy properties from developers (up to 20% of developments) which should see councils able to negotiate a bulk buy discount and invest in more sustainable forms development such as higher densitys near transport nodes and in the city centre. It its the same principal but with the funding reversed

[djay]

not every office block with a sign on is empty, some just have some empty floors

[morestoreysplease]

I agree Engels - there's nothing wrong or any stigma attached to living in social housing nowadays. I had to apply a few years ago and lived in some nice refurbished flats that were 20% cheaper than private landlord leasings. And of course it means that more money goes into the council's coffers.

[djay]

Originally Posted by Engels

This has been happening anyway and there us not as much as you think.

J agree with the notion that we should be building more density and the assumptions in these numbers don't allow for as much density as we could manage with different funding models

The problem is the way we have not invested in public housing... We have tried to get the market to deliver the housing we need by taxing private developers through the requirement for them to fund social housing yet this had led to a shortage of homes and increasing rent cost.we should move to local authorities selling off the most expensive properties they own when they naturally become vacant and using the proceeds to buy properties from developers (up to 20% of developments) which should see councils able to negotiate a bulk buy discount and invest in more sustainable forms development such as higher densitys near transport nodes and in the city centre. It its the same principal but with the funding reversed

That would be open to so much abuse, i could see house builders artificially inflating prices for the public sector.

[Engels]

Originally Posted by djay

That would be open to so much abuse, i could see house builders artificially inflating prices for the public sector.

A competitive market means this wouldn't happen as the public sector could buy from any developer they want and would have a strong position as bulk buyer. If the private sector was charging too much then the authority would have the cash to invest instead in building homes themselves.

Right new local authorities turnover their properties to the next tenant with no thought whether it would be better to sell to the private market and reinvest in new build.

[djay]

No offence Engles but the market hasn't really worked as the last 5 years have shown us.. up to the other energy companies are being investigated for price fixing.

Basically they should be building the homes anyway, there is no need for them to be going cap in hand as a bulk buyer or telling developers they can't have permission unless they have 30% affordable.

Developers do not want to provide affordable housing at all and will look for anything they can to not provide it and if they do, then they will cut costs as far as they can. However i do think private developers should provide affordable housing but unfortunately (bit of a wider point) attitudes towards affordable in the uk are not good and no one wants to live near affordable houses and quote "those people who don't work or have jobs" (someone said that to me in a consultation)

You will always have the tension between weather to sell to the private market or not, but we need a mix of housing and right now we have far to much market housing that people cannot afford to buy... therefore the model is broken.

To solve our housing issues its simple, the council need to start building houses themselves with mixed tenure communities at higher densities in places which allow. They just built houses behind broad street which look good but are too low density for a city centre location. Sell some on the private market, keep some for discounted market sale, some for market rent and some for social. Much of the cost is gained from the sales with the longer investments in social and rented. The idea of the Tories to allow developers not to provide affordable is stupid too. Also the houses we build in the UK are cheap quality, over priced and small without space for every day living. That needs to change too.

[nigeman]

Originally Posted by brum2003

Interesting - why not build up density instead of more suburban development. Redevelop the appallingly wasted inner city areas adjacent to the city centre.

I agree that in certain areas high density is the answer, but our transport infrastructure is so poor, we would be just building gridlock problems for the future...From another standpoint why shouldn't wasted city or brownfield sites be turned into greenspace to improve quality of life for folks in the inner city..Why do the money folks think its ok to cram housing in the inner city, but not in their backyard..then complain about those same inner city folks and how they behave.
The city is g-r-o-w-i-n-g and yet nobody seems to accept this will mean expansion and change. The housing plans need to incorporate sympathetic consideration and green space in the green belt and the brownfield sites too, to improve the w-h-o-l-e city.
For me though the transport infrastructure is the main reason we are caught between a rock and a hard place.

[Soul_13]

Park central is a brilliant project, combines higher density, green spaces and a good mix of social and economic backgrounds.There should be 10 similar schemes under contruction all around central Birmingham

[Engels]

Originally Posted by djay

No offence Engles but the market hasn't really worked as the last 5 years have shown us..
.

The market is failing because developers cant be assured of being able to sell properties and make a profit and therefore cant raise enough capital. Between about 2002 and 2008 developers could buy land, gain planning permission advertise properties for sale 'off plan' - get a 10% deposit of buyers and build the property. Now nobody will buy off plan so the developers need to complete construction before they can sell whivh takes a lot longer as nobody is buying - this makes the whole venture more capital intensive, riskier and slows the process down meaning less is built. That is why the marktet cant deliver enough housing.

If the public sector negotiated to buy 20-30% of a developers properties off plan for social housing then the developer could build at lower risk, raise capital cheaper and quicker and the whole process would be quicker meaning the same money is tied up for less time ergo more properties would be built. Councils would only have to buy from whom they wanted to and if they wanted to but by making them sell existing properties that have value as they become vacant the market will start to move as the public sector invests its substantial capital in leveraging a further significant amount of private sector house building as well as the 20/30% of properties they buy for social rent.

[Engels]

Originally Posted by nigeman

I agree that in certain areas high density is the answer, .

Put simply high density is appropriate within local centers and within a short walk of public transport nodes (such as rail stations / bus interchanges) - it is not appropriate 'anywhere' however most of Brum citiy centre is appropriate on the basis of the obvious proximity to public transport and local shops services jobs

[sefton66]

..