I read with interest the comments by Coun Gammba-Jones reference affordable housing at a site in Crowland.
Why do we have a third affordable housing policy in this area when others around us have less, King’s Lynn being an example?
The article of course doesn’t explain the raft of rules and regulations that any new development is now forced to contribute to. These include provision of an eco-friendly element that equates to ten per cent of the houses’ energy use, better insulation, requirements to over engineer every aspect of construction to gain a mortgage with an NHBC guarantee, payments to drainage boards, education funds, community infrastructure levies, bat surveys, tree surveys, air testing, sound testing, soil testing, environmental levies – the list is endless.
Most of these requirements have been added in since the third affordable policy was set.
All of this is against a back ground of naïve government decisions with regard to the much-needed housing the country needs.
The vote winning “let the tenant buy their Housing Association home at a cut price” has in effect stopped all commitment from housing associations to develop more new housing. These housing associations operate as businesses borrowing bank money against their stock.
I would say that if the country needs more housing then let the council have the option to buy a third at the market rate. They can then rent them out the same as the private market. It is easily achievable for these councils to borrow government money at a cheaper rate and of course while they own them and maintain them they will increase in value subject to the usual rise and falls in the housing market.
I would also suggest that there would be no shortage of developers and builders queuing up to sell to them.
Des Ford
Holbeach
