The Labour Party pledged in its manifesto to build 1.5m new homes over the next Parliament if it got into power. But does the UK have the necessary skills, capacity and infrastructure to achieve this target?
In September’s episode of the 21CC podcast, three experts gather to answer this question and identify the challenges standing in the way of its delivery.
The speakers are:
- Tim Balcon, CEO of the Construction Industry Training Board
- Ben Denton, chief executive at housebuilder L&G Affordable Homes
- Jonathan Werran, chief executive at independent think tank Localis
The discussion tackles some of the burning issues concerning large housebuilding targets in a short period of time, including:
- Will house build quality be affected by rushed construction?
- Could this large construction project negatively impact the other UK target to become net zero by 2050?
- What about NIMBYism?
Tune in to listen to what our podcast guests have to say about it.
If you would like a transcript of the episode, please email [email protected]
Story for CM? Get in touch via email: [email protected]
In 2022, 225,000 dwellings were constructed. Assuming the same level of construction over a five year period gives 1.125 million.
At target of 1.5 million over a five year period doesn’t sound all that difficult it only additional 375,000.
No, pie in the sky politics, out of their depth in running this country and havnt got a clue about building houses.
why so negative?
Why not approach it from positive perspectives
The discussion tackles some of the burning issues concerning large housebuilding targets in a short period of time, including:
• How will Labour really build 1.5 million new homes by 2029?
• How Will house build quality be unaffected by rushed (accelerated) construction?
• House can such a construction programme maintain the UK target to become net zero by 2050?
o How will the planners / planning committees avoid or eliminate the age-old issue of NIMBYISM
I don’t believe we should care about trying to achieve UK Net Zero by 2050. Both Labour and Tories have encouraged the final dismantling of our industrial capabilities chasing this mirage. Whether we build the homes or not, more and more product will be imported from countries that do not give a fig for this so called “Saving the planet”. All we are doing is exporting jobs, making buildings more expensive (ask the funders), and killing the future of our children. The Sun will continue to determine our climate as it has since the Earth was formed. The sheer arrogance of politicians and academics that should know better is astonishing. They suggest that we, mere mankind can alter climate trends, it’s absolute poppycock. This industry used to be full of people that could speak sound common sense, now it seems full of people bleating about Net Zero, diversity and inclusion and equal rights. Can we please open our brains and stick to erecting good buildings that will last whatever the weather does to us?
One restraining element to building more dwellings (upon which most commentators remain silent), is the effect of the new Building Safety regime overseen by the HSE. To knock out 1.5m dwellings by 2029 will almost certainly require building up (high rise flats) as opposed to building out (houses). As a consequence and quite apart from the lack of tradespeople, there is a continuing and increasing lack of senior Building Control professionals exacerbated by a lot of the more experienced surveyors electing early retirement rather than jump through the hoops and wade through the bureaucracy introduced by the plethora of new and oft confusing legislation.
If we achieve quantity, quality may not follow.
I hope I am wrong but I can see this taking years to settle down.
Sadly whilst this target might be achievable it will be at what cost.
Design being compromised as it will be easier and quicker to construct multiple units of the same basic style.
Quality being compromised due to the need to volume build with a lack of quality professionals and trades people.
Greenfield sites being used in preference to brownfield sites, just because it will be easier and therefore quicker.
Sites being over developed to maximise house numbers.
We should be building for future generations that should stand the test of time for years to come and be somewhere that people actually want to and will enjoy living in, not some ill thought out poorly constructed property that has been rushed on an over developed site.
Appreciate this is all really negative, let’s hope the reality is the complete opposite of all this!
From the early 60s working in the housing industry the target figure for p/a completions was 250,000. The average over the last five years is circa 239,000 -the highest achieved in 22 was 252.000 pre-Brexit. Skilled labour was not good back in the 70s it is worse today- moreover the site management’s even worse. The skilled labour is just not there. Answers on a postcard! Good luck to them it would be good to achieve but the institutions won’t like it as to will bring prices and equity down.
John
Labour can’t build any new homes, they do not have the necessary skills. Whether they can encourage builders and construction companies to do so is another question. The other things will be whetehr they can reform the planning rules quickly enough to facilitate the new homes.
I suspect the answer will be no, but that wont stop them form wasting money (tax payers money) showboating about their dreams.
Labour redefined borrowing, who says they won’t redefine the meaning of new homes?
Everyone assumes more mock Tudor in wet fields and concrete high rise. Yes, but more lightweight prefab single space boxes dropped off the back of a wagon could add significantly to low cost and first time housing numbers. It requires planning rules changes but hey, that’s what this new government is about.