Tories plan toscrap targets for new homesin Yorkshire

Jonathan Reed Political Editor

LABOUR’S controversial plans for nearly 250,000 new homes in Yorkshire over the next 11 years could be slashed by a quarter within days of a Tory election win.

The Tories have revealed that if they win power they will move immediately to sweep away the controversial regional strategy in which Ministers demanded far higher levels of housebuilding than initially proposed by the region’s councils.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Instead, councils will be allowed to revert to their own calculations for how many new homes are needed – which could be as many as 60,000 fewer, according to figures obtained by the Yorkshire Post.

The plan has led to accusations that people priced out of the housing market or stuck on social housing waiting lists will be hit and has been branded a “high risk strategy” by the House Builders’ Federation with housebuilding already struggling because of the recession.

But the Tories insist it would actually build more homes than Labour because the current system of Whitehall targets often sparks massive local opposition and leads to projects getting delayed by planning hearings and inquiries.

Shadow Housing Minister Grant Shapps said: “Under Labour, house building is now at its lowest rate since 1946, home ownership is at its lowest for 20 years, and the number of first- time buyers has plummeted to 1974 levels.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“Labour’s planning laws and regional targets have monumentally failed, and have just created a culture of resentment and deadlock where house building is feared by many communities.

“It’s vital that local residents actually get something back in return for seeing new homes and business developments. We want a planning system that actually listens to what the public want and we’ll incentivise local communities to build the homes we need.”

Labour angered many politicians in the region by demanding 242,000 homes are built over the next 11 years as part of a drive for three million homes across the country, prompting fears that swathes of countryside would be swallowed up.

The housing targets are set out in regional strategies. Councils in Yorkshire and the Humber agreed on draft figures in 2005, but Ministers ordered them to be increased from between 15,000 and 19,000 homes a year to more than 22,000.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

But the regional spatial strategies could be scrapped within days of a Tory election win after the party received legal advice which concluded the move would not require legislation.

It is part of a Tory pledge to tear down Labour’s regional structures – which brought the loudest cheers during David Cameron’s conference speech on Sunday – and in order to ensure an “orderly transition” the Tories would allow councils to revert to their original figures.

It means that instead of the Government demanding 242,000 homes are built between now and 2021, councils could allow for just over 180,000.

Labour claims the Tories would fail to tackle affordable housing and some inside the construction industry are worried, but housebuilding came to a virtual standstill in the recession – with just 9,040 homes completed in the region last year.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Instead of imposing homes on areas with little say, the Tories will allow councils to keep council tax receipts from new homes for six years, offering an incentive to build.

But Housing Minister John Healey, MP for Wentworth, said: “When it comes to the crunch, the Tories’ planning proposals will be about as welcome as a hole in the head to a construction industry wanting greater certainty about its future. Put simply, the Tories plans will block investment and wreck the recovery.”

A House Builders’ Federation spokesman said: “Whilst most people recognise the general need for more housing, when it is on their doorstep acceptance of that principle is often lacking.

“Many areas of the country face acute housing shortages and there are inevitable social and economic implications that come with not building enough homes for the local population.”

Comment: Page 12.