How will increased housing targets impact the North?
Labour is aiming to deliver 370,000 a year over the course of the parliament. To do so, it has raised local authority housing targets by as much as 1,300%.
Angela Rayner announced yesterday that the standard methodology for calculating housing need would be changing. As a result, local annual housing targets are going up everywhere except for cities; London, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, and Salford would all be required to supply fewer houses under Rayner’s new formula.
Redcar and Cleveland will see the largest increase in the North. Under the current methodology, the authority has to deliver just 45 homes a year. Rayner’s revised methodology will require Redcar and Cleveland to build 642 homes a year, a 1,300% increase.
Burnley has also seen a steep increase in housing need under Rayner’s new algorithm with the annual target rising from 51 to 396 – a 676% increase.
These increases seem large but Place North West has had confirmation from the government that they are correct.
The tables below show how local housing need will change under the new methodology.
North West
Yorkshire
North East
Related Articles
Analysis
VIDEO | What do we want for our homes and neighbourhoods in 2034?
Property professionals from a wide range of sectors – including incoming Homes England interim chief executive Eamonn Boylan – gathered to re-examine how we can design our communities for the future in this roundtable discussion hosted by TP Bennett.
The table for the north west is missing the two Cumbrian authorities
By Anonymous
Hi Anonymous! Thanks for letting us know. I’ve fixed the table now so it includes Cumberland, Westmorland & Furness, and Rossendale – which had somehow also missed our initial roundup.
By Julia Hatmaker
The mutant algorithm re-emerges, and a sense of de ja vu here. It would be useful as a simple reality check to show actual housebuilding rates on average by authority compared with current and proposed targets. Building houses requires more than simply coming up with a new and also flawed methodology, now completely detached from any other projections of growth in people or households. Is there a market within these areas for significant new housing for example or anything like the capacity of the industry to deliver in local areas.
Worth noting of course that the GM PfE plan took the bold step to release strategic housing sites from the Green Belt in a plan only adopted in March. The level of pain and opposition even for that scale was considerable. New numbers for most of GM, if the draft methodology does goes forward, would make that look pretty straightforward.
I predict there will be considerable opposition from many northern authorities who have borne the most significant levels of uplift and a relative sigh of relief for London and the south east shires.
By Informed planner
Good to see boroughs like Stockport, Trafford, and Bury being forced to deliver more. NIMBY luddite councils which currently reject seemingly any planning application that comes before them. They need to start playing their part and stop relying on Manchester and Salford to deliver GM’s housing need.
By Anonymous
Would be interesting to have a third column on how many houses are actually being built by area
By Anonymous
Does this mean more lower-class folk will come and live where we posh people live? Will this lower our house prices? Will their oiks go to the same kindergarten and primaries as Pippa and Rupert? One hopes not or somebody has messed up. This is an awful mistake, surely?
By Anonymous
So much brownfield land available in Liverpool`s Central areas, ex dockland, ex industrial, and ex residential, great communities uprooted from Scotland Rd, Vauxhall, Chinatown, Liverpool 8,etc.
The Government could take a look in these areas and see the potential.
By Anonymous
There’s no distinction between family houses and flats for students and young folk
By Anonymous
Couple of thoughts. Some political incentives for PfE v2 if Salford and Manchester are prepared to take more volume. I think it’s also quite good for GM outer boroughs to get higher targets because places like Rochdale and Oldham need a bigger middle class, and Manchester needs places it can send all those apartment dwellers when they hit family stage.
By Rich X
A big step up for Cheshire West. I can think of the all the smart places you could put those extra dwellings, like around Chester and the two east west rail lines, but they are surrounded by greenbelt.
By Rich X
Angela Raynor doing more for the regeneration of the north west than any of the councils have done. And Manchester and Salford have done lots. So, for the north west, this is ambitious indeed. Less so for London.
Will they overlay the growth with the transport network or build new towns/estates in the middle of nowhere.
By DenSity
I agree that housing numbers need to increase, but some of these authorities are subsequently being penalised for having plans in place and delivering their required numbers in recent years..
By Anonymous