'We can't deliver 130% rise in housing targets'
A Lincolnshire council leader has described new housing targets as "unrealistic".
East Lindsey District Council leader Craig Leyland is "challenging" the government after being told the area must see a 130% rise in the number of new homes every year.
He says the ambition to build more "must be rational".
The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government said Lincolnshire has to "play its part" in building more homes.
The government has pledged to see 1.5 million new homes built in England between now and the next General Election.
New, mandatory targets for Lincolnshire mean a total of 1,552 a year - a rise of 52 percent on previous targets under the Conservative government.
Within that figure, each district has been given its own target and in East Lindsey it jumps from 437 to 912 homes per year.
Councillor Leyland said that the council is "seeking to understand where the figures have been arrived at".
He says the council is "granting enough planning permissions" which are not always acted upon by developers.
The challenges of building by the coast, because of flood risk, and the Lincolnshire Wolds, a designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, make the targets even more unachievable, he claims.
"That forces the development into our market towns and small communities which are already struggling," he said.
Evie Capps, aged 20, from Horncastle in East Lindsey, is living with her parents, and works full-time in a cafe.
"In order to buy a house, I would have to have £10,000 saved and I would have to earn at least three times more than I do now," she said.
"There should be more houses, not overcrowding. It would be better for the community."
As well as setting the new targets, the government has also promised to overhaul the planning system.
Lincolnshire developer Steve Gelder, founder of the Gelder Group, is sceptical about the targets currently being met "because we don't have the skilled workforce and the planning system gets in the way".
Housing is a key issue in next month's Greater Lincolnshire Mayoral elections.
Conservative candidate Rob Waltham said the targets are "undeliverable" because "the sites to build them haven't been allocated and to do that you'd have to go through a whole new process with local plans".
Andrew Jenkyns, who is standing for Reform UK, said "we need to build more homes but need to ensure local people have a true voice and are properly consulted".
Trevor Young, the Liberal Democrat candidate, said the targets are "unrealistic": "It's okay for the government to come up with idealistic targets but where are the jobs and money coming from?"
Marianne Overton from the Lincolnshire Independents said she "has fought hard against the imposition of over-ambitious targets which are very hard to meet".
Sally Horscroft of the Green Party said "we would do our best to deliver but it has to be the right housing in the right places".
Jason Stockwood, Labour candidate, has been approached for comment.
In a statement, the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government said the targets are "vital given we have inherited the worst housing crisis in living memory".
"Alongside this, we have taken decisive action to build up essential skills in the construction industry, including training up to 60,000 more engineers, bricklayers, electricians, and joiners by 2029 to tackle skills shortages," it said.
Government to fall short of housing target, figures suggest
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdx9gypeqdpo
Some councils ordered to increase home building by 400%, new BBC tracker shows
You can see more on this story on Politics North at 10:00 GMT on BBC One on Sunday or on BBC iPlayer.
Listen to highlights from Lincolnshire on BBC Sounds, watch the latest episode of Look North or tell us about a story you think we should be covering here, external.
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
East Lindsey District Council
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
UK Government ‘betraying Wales' over rail funding, Plaid leader says
Plaid Cymru has called for the First Minister of Wales to condemn the UK government for 'betraying Wales' on rail funding. Rhun ap Iorwerth, leader of Plaid, criticised the UK Labour Government for reclassifying the £6.6 billion Oxford to Cambridge line to an England and Wales project. The designation means Wales will not receive the additional rail funding it would get if branded an England-only project. Mr ap Iorwerth called on Eluned Morgan, the Welsh Labour First Minister, to condemn the reclassification. Baroness Morgan agreed Wales was not getting its fair share but said she was expecting to see positive changes in the UK Government's spending review on Wednesday. Mr ap Iorwerth's comments come following reports that revealed the project had originally been listed as England-only from 2020 to 2024. The Treasury told the BBC the classification was a 'publishing error' and insisted it was always considered an England and Wales development. Speaking First Minister's Questions in the Senedd on Tuesday, Mr ap Iorwerth said: 'We were getting our share until Labour actively moved the goalposts. 'Labour went out of its way to make sure Wales wouldn't get the money when the big spending really began.' He added: 'She should be joining me in condemning the UK Labour Government for betraying Wales. Will she?' Mr ap Iorwerth argued the reclassification was a 'new HS2 scandal' – a rail project that has been controversial in Wales. Despite none of the track being laid in the country, it was also designated an England and Wales project by the last UK Conservative government. Plaid has said this designation cost Wales £3.9 billion in funding. Responding to Mr Iorwerth, Baroness Morgan said: 'I've learned to expect nothing but constant negativity from the Plaid Cymru leader. 'I've been clear and I've been consistent when it comes to rail funding that we have not been getting our fair share of funding, in a position that the Tories left us with for over a decade. 'The difference between the Tories and the UK Labour Government is that they've recognised that injustice. 'I don't know what's going to be in the spending review, but the one thing I do know is that if Labour gave Wales a total land of milk and honey, Plaid Cymru would still find fault.' Baroness Morgan added they were 'expecting something positive from the spending review', but the Welsh government would have to keep on making the case for a fair share of funding. In January, the UK government admitted Welsh railways had been underfunded, with spending at 'low levels' in recent years. However, Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander did not announce any additional funding at the time.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Family visa income threshold should be lower, review says
The minimum income threshold for family visas should be relaxed, a government-commissioned review has recommended. A report by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) has suggested a reduction from the current level of £29,000. It warned against previous proposals to raise the threshold to the same level as for skilled workers - £38,700 a year - saying it could breach the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Conservatives said that the UK should leave the ECHR if it "stops us from setting our own visa rules". Article 8 of the ECHR enshrines the right to family life. The threshold is the minimum income a British citizen or settled resident must earn to bring their partner to join them in the UK. If the partner is already in the UK on a valid visa, their income also counts towards the minimum figure. Most applications are made by people not already living in the UK. The MAC suggested a range of possible new thresholds. It said a level between £23,000 to £25,000 would enable families to support themselves. A threshold of between £24,000 to £28,000 meanwhile would put more emphasis on economic wellbeing - both of the families themselves and for taxpayers. It said it did "not understand the rationale" for setting the family visa threshold at the £38,700 level for skilled workers, as the two visas have "completely different objective[s]". A £38,700 level would be the "most likely to conflict with international law and obligations". It is the government's decision whether to accept any of the MAC's recommendations. Prof Brian Bell, chairman of the MAC, said that balancing family life and economic wellbeing was a "real trade-off". "There is a cost to the UK economy and UK taxpayers of having this route, and we should just be honest about that and say there is a trade-off," he said. "But similarly, on the other side, people who say 'we should set it at very high numbers to make sure that we don't lose any money' ignore the massive impact that has on families and the destruction of some relationships and the harm it causes to children." A higher threshold would also have a "negative impact on the family life of a larger number of people", the MAC said. It noted many families with lower incomes still earn enough to support themselves even if they do not make a net positive fiscal impact on the country. It said an adult would need to earn £27,800 to have a neutral impact on the public finances - and £40,400 for a couple to have no impact in the first year a spouse arrived in the UK. The MAC did not recommend a higher threshold for families with children, saying the impacts on family life for them would be "particularly significant". Net migration halved in 2024 to 431,000, ONS says Home Office rows back on family visa salary level How many people come to work and study in the UK? In 2023 the previous Conservative government announced plans to raise the salary threshold to £38,700, as part of plans to cut the level of migration. But they backed down following criticism that this would keep families apart, settling on a £29,000 threshold with plans to gradually increase it later. Labour did not implement those further rises when the party came into government and asked the MAC to review the threshold. The committee said the threshold of £29,000 was already high compared to other high-income countries it had looked at. The MAC said it "was not possible to predict with any confidence" the impact different thresholds would have on the level of net migration - the difference between those entering and leaving the country. It did suggest lowering the threshold from £29,000 to roughly £24,000 may increase net migration by up to 8,000 people. Net migration in 2024 was an estimated 431,000 people, down almost 50% on the previous year. This followed record high levels in recent years, with the government under political pressure to get numbers down further. The MAC also criticised the Home Office for its data collection, saying insufficient data "greatly hindered" their review. A Home Office spokesperson said the government was considering the review's findings and would respond in due course. Conservative shadow home secretary Chris Philp said migration figures remain too high and that the government "must urgently re-instate the Conservative plan to further increase the salary threshold". "If the ECHR stops us from setting our own visa rules, from deporting foreign criminals or from putting Britain's interests first, then we should leave the ECHR," he said. The ECHR, which was established in 1950, sets out the rights and freedoms people are entitled to in the 46 signatory countries and is a central part of UK human rights law. Last month, the government said it would bring forward legislation to clarify how aspects of the ECHR should apply in immigration cases.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - The Trump-Musk feud can only hurt the GOP, which is weaker than it seems
Dear Republican Party: If you don't believe you can blow the upcoming Florida governor's race, the 2026 midterm elections and the presidential election in 2028, you are delusional. Why? Four main reasons: complacency, stupidity, broken promises and President Trump exiting the political stage. The thermonuclear feud between Trump and Elon Musk makes such devastating losses much more likely. How could such a brutal reversal of Republican fortunes come about? First, because I believe that the mainstream Democratic Party will eventually finally find the will and the intestinal fortitude to tell the far-left activists — who are controlling the narrative of their party and destroying their brand with working-class Americans — that the adults are back in the room and will be reasserting their authority. As Politico reported last week in a piece titled 'The Great Un-Awokening,' more and more influential Democrats are seeking to move the party back towards the center. The start of the piece says it all: 'Ambitious Democrats with an eye on a presidential run are in the middle of a slow-motion Sister Souljah moment. Searching for a path out of the political wilderness, potential 2028 candidates, especially those hailing from blue states, are attempting to ratchet back a leftward lurch on social issues some in the party say cost them the November election.' As I have said in this space before, far-left politicians such as Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) — who have managed to make themselves the face of the Democratic Party to many Americans with their transparently attention-seeking rants — continually push two main messages: hatred of Trump and the idea that everything must be viewed and addressed through the prism of identity politics. But more and more mainstream Democrats seem to have had enough. As Politico reported, Rahm Emanuel — the former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, two-term mayor of Chicago and potential 2028 Democratic candidate — said, 'Stop talking about bathrooms and locker rooms and start talking about the classroom.' That message will resonate with working-class Americans. Next, we have the example of the July 2024 election in the U.K. between the Conservative Party and Labour. The left-wing media in the U.K. and the U.S. would have their audiences believe that Keir Starmer and the Labour Party 'crushed' the Conservative Party. While that makes for an effective talking point to the uninformed, it is simply not true. Starmer and Labour won because the Conservative vote fell off a cliff. The number votes for Labour was essentially the same as five years earlier. What changed dramatically was the number of people who came out to vote for the Conservatives — because so many of them felt betrayed, played and outright deceived by the Conservative 'leadership,' they simply stayed home. The same can easily happen to the Republicans in 2026 and 2028. Accountability is a thing to voters. Keeping your word is a thing. Not being part of the D.C. swamp is a thing. Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) made this very point recently when he blasted Republicans in Congress. Speaking of Musk, many do believe he literally put his life on the line when he first bought Twitter, enthusiastically supported the election of Trump in 2024 and became the face of the Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE. Musk has openly talked of the many death threats directed at him because of these moves. To that very point, DeSantis said, 'Musk went into this DOGE effort, he was getting lampooned. I mean, like they're firebombing his Tesla dealerships, media smearing him relentlessly, his business has suffered. All this stuff because he basically said, 'Look, we can't keep doing this, and we need to moderate and reduce the amount of money that the federal government is spending.' And yet, we have a Republican Congress, and to this day … not one cent in DOGE cuts have been implemented by the Congress.' Note to Republican 'leadership': Conservatives pay attention to this. Voters of faith pay attention to this. Independents pay attention to this. If you become what you promise to fight, a substantial percentage of these voters will stay home. Speaking of 'voters staying home,' we come at last to Trump. As I have said in this space in the past, I believe he is the greatest and most effective president in our lifetimes. No doubt many on the left will vehemently disagree with me, as is their right. That said — and what is not in dispute, as it is an irrefutable fact — tens of millions of Americans agree with me. They don't believe in the Republican Party. They don't believe in fictitious Republican 'promises' and they don't believe in any of the Republican 'leadership.' They believe only in Trump. More than that, they are keeping track of who is supporting him and who is seemingly betraying him. And once Trump exits the political stage, that Republican 'leadership' will be staring down the most important question of their political lives: How many of those tens of millions of Trump voters will simply stay home? Trump and Musk are on the outs at the moment, and Democrats are overjoyed. I would caution them that such celebrations are not only premature, but counterproductive. Ironically, given this 'feud,' I and many others happen to believe that Trump and Musk are both 'once in a century' figures, men who have moved the political and entrepreneurial needles like none before, and been viciously attacked by the far left and the Democratic Party. Two men who do — or soon will — realize that not only will the country and the Republican Party benefit from their alliance, but so will they and their brands. No matter the bitter disagreements, they are stronger united than apart. Douglas MacKinnon is a former White House and Pentagon official. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
