Poll: Should this bill be passed into law?
As many are of the opinion, Aye (26)
52%
On the contrary, No (18)
36%
Abstain (6)
12%
This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
V1078 – Housing Bill 2016, TSR Government

HOUSING BILL 2016
An Act to address rising house prices and the shortage of homes in the United Kingdom.

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1: Definitions and Interpretation
(1) "brownfield land" is defined as land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure, excluding;
a) land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings,
b) land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill purposes where provision for restoration has been made through development control procedures,
c) land in built-up areas such as private residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and allotments, and
d) land that was previously-developed, but where the remains of the permanent structure have blended into the landscape in the process of time.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, "affordable housing" is defined as homes costing no more than £250,000.
(3) "Green Belt land" is defined as in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

2: Exemption from Stamp Duty Land Tax
Purchase by British nationals or residents of affordable housing built on brownfield land shall be exempt from Stamp Duty Land Tax.

3: Automatic Planning Permission
Local councils will automatically grant planning permission to projects to build affordable housing on brownfield land.

4: Greenbelt review
(1) A national commission shall be established that will meet one year after the passage of this bill and then every five years after that to review areas defined as Green Belt land, with the purview to both add and remove from the list of designated areas regardless of the local authority in which said area exists.
(2) Local planning authorities will still have responsibilities towards land designated in this way pursuant to Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.
(3) The secretary of state with responsibility for Housing shall make provision for this.

5: "Right to Buy"
(1) No local council shall be allowed to sell a social housing property for less than the cost of replacement.
(2) No local council shall be allowed to sell a social housing property unless they are able to build a replacement property within 12 months.

6: Repeals
Part 4 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 is hereby repealed.

7: Extent, Commencement and Short Title
(1) This Act extends to the United Kingdom.
(2) The provisions of this Act come into force upon Royal Assent.
(3) This Act may be cited as the Housing Act 2016.

NotesThis bill takes several approaches to tackling the under provision of housing in the UK. The government has two main objectives in proposing this bill:

1. Encourage purchase of land on brownfield sites for the purposes of house building.
2. Maintain stock of social housing and put downwards pressure on house prices by limiting but not ending right to buy.

The legislation would also more centralise the designation of Green Belt land and the allocation of planning permission to brownfield land so a better, nationwide approach can be taken to tackling these issues. The government believes that whilst direct provision of social housing is also essential, this is a crucial first step.

Costings
In the financial year 2015/6, stamp duty land tax on properties with a value less than or equal to £250,000 accounted for 8% of SDLT revenues which were £10,682 million so, assuming similar revenue in the following financial years, the cost of this bill would be less than 0.08 x 10,682,000,000 = £854,560,000. The reason for the uncertainty is the lack of data on the proportion of affordable housing built on brownfield land matching our definition. A figure from the government archives places the proportion at 80% in 2009. Using this figure we get a cost of 0.8 x 854,560,000 = £683,648,000. This, rounded, is the figure we feel fair for calculating the bill's cost in any upcoming budget.

National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF): https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...77/2116950.pdf
NPPF Impact Assessment: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g...df/2172846.pdf
Tax statistics: https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ease-Sep16.pdf
Tax proportions for costings: http://www.christophernevill.co.uk/n...y-revenue.html
Brownfield definition: https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...tion_Paper.pdf (p.9)
0
wolfmoon88
Badges: 21
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
Aye

Posted from TSR Mobile
1
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
No, it will achieve little but lower private ownership and consequently higher lifetime accommodation costs.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
Aye, let's get building.
0
Quamquam123
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
These houses will have great, great walls and we'll make local councils pay for them.
3
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
I'll be voting aye as I said in the debate thread.
1
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
(Original post by Quamquam123)
These houses will have great, great walls and we'll make local councils pay for them.
:laugh:

Beautiful walls, the best. Really, really great. Believe me.
1
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#8
One Aye has been changed to an Abstention for seat 13 (SoggyCabbages).
0
Quamquam123
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by RayApparently)
:laugh:

Beautiful walls, the best. Really, really great. Believe me.
You betcha :cool:
0
Unown Uzer
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
If these houses were only for British citizens, I would have voted aye.
0
wolfmoon88
Badges: 21
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by Quamquam123)
These houses will have great, great walls and we'll make local councils pay for them.
The walls will be built with the best British Concrete and Steel. It's gonna be huge.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Quamquam123
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by wolfmoon88)
The walls will be built with the best British Concrete and Steel. It's gonna be huge.

Posted from TSR Mobile
It's gonna be great.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
Section 2 though - pretty generous to your lot.

(Original post by Unown Uzer)
If these houses were only for British citizens, I would have voted aye.
0
Unown Uzer
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
(Original post by RayApparently)
Section 2 though - pretty generous to your lot.
But it's still not enough. Either you make stamp duty much higher for non-citizens or you reserve these houses for our citizens.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by Unown Uzer)
But it's still not enough. Either you make stamp duty much higher for non-citizens or you reserve these houses for our citizens.
Still doesn't seem like a reason to vote against, though I can understand why an ideologue might abstain. You'd rather build fewer homes than allow the possibility that some of the new homes might be bought by non-citizens? Sounds crazy to me.

I personally have no problem with non-citizens buying UK homes as long as they're resident in the UK. People living here should have a roof over their heads. My issue is with non-residents buying properties/land as assets, depriving people who do live here of a home.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by RayApparently)
Section 2 though - pretty generous to your lot.
It isn't really that generous, especially when you throw in trapping people into renting which more than offsets a saving of no more than £1,250, 0.5% incredibly rapidly.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
From the context I clearly meant generous to UU's school of thought. And as one is not meant to 'offset' the other you don't really have a point anyway.
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
It isn't really that generous, especially when you throw in trapping people into renting which more than offsets a saving of no more than £1,250, 0.5% incredibly rapidly.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by RayApparently)
From the context I clearly meant generous to UU's school of thought. And as one is not meant to 'offset' the other you don't really have a point anyway.
Are British nationals still subject to being forced to stay in the rented sector for longer, yes or no?

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Are British nationals still subject to being forced to stay in the rented sector for longer, yes or no?

Posted from TSR Mobile
British nationals aren't being forced to do anything, but councils are being made to sell less social housing.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
(Original post by RayApparently)
British nationals aren't being forced to do anything, but councils are being made to sell less social housing.
Which does nothing except make private ownership harder, locking people into rented for longer. I suppose at least this government you've toned down to merely an attack on private home ownership rather than outright having a roof over your head.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

With HE fairs postponed, would a virtual HE fair be useful?

Yes (96)
61.94%
No (59)
38.06%

Watched Threads

View All