Housing, Housing, Housing we need more affordable housing
There is no doubt we need to build more affordable homes in our district. I expect every candidate in this election, whether they belong to a party or not, would agree we need more affordable homes. But for any of them to say they’ll build more council homes and cut the waiting list in four years, they are I personally believe, living in cloud cuckoo land.
1,300 affordable homes are already planned as is made clear in the Folkestone & Hythe District Council Housing Asset Management Strategy 2022-2027. It states at page 18, Para 75:
The Council has set an ambitious target to develop 300 affordable new homes during the period 2015 – 2026 and a further 1,000 new affordable new homes over the period 2025 – 2036. This will include those built at Otterpool Park, acquisitions and s106 contributions from private housing developments
But what does affordable mean? Well the official definition is as follows:
Affordable housing: housing for sale or rent, for those whose needs are not met by the market (including housing that provides a subsidised route to home ownership and/or is for essential local workers).
This is broken down into the following types of affordable homes
Affordable Housing for rent
Shared Ownership
Discounted Market Sale
First Homes
Rent to Buy
Help to Buy
A fuller definition of each type of Affordable Housing can be found here by clicking this blue link
Building council homes is risky business, as tenants can buy them and once they’re gone, they’re gone.
In March 2023, research by Savills for the Local Government Association, indicated 100,000 homes are likely to be sold through the Right To Buy (RTB) scheme by 2030, with just 43,000 replaced as significant discounts leave councils without funding to replace the much-needed homes on a like-for-like basis.
Since 1980/81, Folkestone & Hythe District Council have sold 2,313 Council homes through the Right To Buy scheme, according to DLUHC. We currently have 3,393 Council. And since 2012/13, we’ve sold 155 homes raising £13,240,000 over the last ten years.
So as you see, building Council homes is a risky business. But it should not stop any party from building them
Where would the money come from to build these homes (not including the 1,300), and to build them in sufficient quantity to ease the pressure on the lack of affordable housing in our district?
Well Banks is an obvious answer; from the PWLB is another, as this borrowing is mainly for capital projects, or using reserves, or selling assets (Connect 38) and going into partnership with developers who know how to build, and deliver new homes. Can you think of other ways?
If I had my way, I’d allow Councils to issue mortgages again, that would really help, but alas Mrs T burnt that bridge.
But building affordable homes as set out above is not all a future Council should consider. There are those who would like the opportunity to buy their own home and it is possible to design a house that could be sold for less than £180,000 and still make a profit. Saying that, I just don’t think the Council should build them, as there is not the expertise within the Council. I personally believe partnership working with developers is possible, but not ones who’ve donated to the Tories, Labour or Lib Dems.
So stating something as simple as “Build more council homes to cut the waiting list“, is easy to say, but very very difficult to achieve. The party who has stated it has given no indication of how they’ll achieve this, given that retrofitting council homes to meet Net Zero Carbon targets has risen from £100m to £132m. The Council need to cut emissions from these homes, and retrofitting them will make them warmer and less expensive to heat.
So are there any solutions. Well yes of course there are. We could sell Connect 38 and collect £20m – £25m on it. Then using the proceeds to go into partnership with developers who have a proven track record on delivery. Also when the Council move its offices to Otterpool, the old offices can be sold after planning permission is granted.
Selling Princes Parade is NOT an option as “it is one of the finest vistas in the district”, and we “need to preserve the open character of a site, and its relationship to both the sea and the canal…”
As for Otterpool, the Labour party are now all for it, even though their two Cllrs on planning voted against it.
Where do I stand on Otterpool, well I am personally against it, as my great uncle owned Lympne airfield. Also I spoke to some friendly lawyers who looked at a potential Judicial Review, but after careful consideration saw no realistic chance in winning. Of course, they could be wrong, so if anyone out there has a spare £50,000 plus to spend, then you have until the 15 May to launch one.
Yes we need more housing in our district, that’s easy for any candidate, or party to say. But one has to ask:
How will they deliver them?
How much will it costs the ratepayers of the district?
And when will they deliver them by?
Purchasing the land, designing the scheme, acquiring planning permission on a site can take two to three years, if not more and building out a small number of homes can take a year or more, it might be possible to deliver new council homes within four years, but I doubt it. Of course, one could buy the land with planning permission; which cost a lot, and then one could deliver homes in two to three years.
I wish it was possibly to build more affordable and council homes more rapidly, because things are going to get a whole lot worse given the number of new homes built is predicted to fall to 110,000, forcing up house prices, and rents, due to shortages, and the only winners will be the developers not our residents who need much needed affordable and council homes.
VOTE RYLANDS
FOLKESTONE CENTRAL
MAY 4
Promoted & Published by Bryan Rylands,Flat D, Avenay Court, Sandgate Rd, Folkestone, CT20 2LN
I thought the Council were in advanced negotiations to sell Connect 38 back in December 2022. So was that another of Monks pipe dreams ?
I thought the Council were moving into the FOLCA building and if so why don’t they sell Westenhangar Castle . Yet another of Monks vanity projects that cost us millions .
Vote the Tories out on May 4th
Affordable houses are only affordable the first time they’re sold.
Will building more houses at the Otterpool solve local housing shortages or merely encourage more people to move into the district from other areas?
@ Dean
Clearly, occupiers will primarily be external, this is NOT, a housing solution, this is simply the creation of ‘New Luton’, a general agreement amongst the public appears to agree on this point. Not going to be a nice place, and down hill from there. Not in our name.
Fully agree with you, housing or lack of it, is a ever developing crisis. All levels of government have a duty of care to the people and those local government entities responsible for the supply of sufficient housing stock, must step up. It’s a matter that has become complicated since the Conservatives government in the 1980’s enacted the right to buy from Councils – Councils that then failed to reinvest the revenue gained or indeed, lost it to central government. Bottom line – we need to find a better housing delivery model than we currently have and quickly. Perhaps this could be our first re-nationalised industry…
@ Andy
Agreed. Long over due.
When it was pointed out to the chamber some years back, that houses retailing at £660,000, in the Shepway house building plan, are not affordable by the homeless, a certain councillor was heard to remark, quote>
‘Yes, but we have 6,000 homeless people on the register, we have to build houses for them’.
Some people, well, you can never explain to them, not much at all, really……..!
Not an expert on RTB legislation but I have never agreed with tenants getting large discounts for just occupying them for 3 to 5 years. The 155 properties sold in the last 10 years have been sold at an average price of £85,000. At these prices the council is then limited to how many more more properties they can build. Not could economics and no help to the homeless.
Local families want the opportunity of affordable housing for their children in their own towns/villages, not have them shunted to some super-estate.
Otterpool is probably too big a project for what is effectively a start-up company. Should have started with a smaller project such as Ship Street as it would be less risky. Ship Street needs a lot less infrastructure for energy, water, transport and refuge etc. It is also located near town centre so only 5-10 minute walk. It also has a stops nearby along with takeout food within 5 minutes. Radnor Park and Seafront are also close by.
I would have preferred it to be fully run as a cooperative housing association on councils behave as a lot of people are unable to get a mortgage to buy. This could help reduce housing benefits that costs the council a lot from private providers. Non-profit organisations do not need to make large profits. We need more homes for those on low income, disabled, retired, homeless and unemployed.
The child who is not embraced by the village will burn down it down to feel its warmth. African Proverb.
Now the thing is, nothing is affordable. No matter the design or plan materials are up nearly 60% in the last few years. Also why is it acceptable to provide discount housing for some and not others. Utilising a joint agreement between a specific builder and client is illegal, the design and construction will need to be tendered, but then add on variations they will be expensive and over budget due to fluctuations during build, that’s why so many contractors are going bust! As there tied into contracts! If councils charged national rents then maybe councils will actually have money to spare but until then it’s just hard working tax payers paying for other people.
@Lora
100% agreement on that.
Long, long, long, over due!
As a Labour Party Member, the manifesto, including the Otterpool Park pledges, was at the printers prior to the vote at planning. The local party’s behaviour and duplicity to the people of Folkestone is deplorable, and I among others, will be leaving the party because of this treachery.
Respect to you. Thank you.