'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
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Rachel Reeves may have just killed Nato
There will be a moment, some time in the next few years when the US will genuinely consider leaving Nato. And if it does, we should not be surprised. It wasn't as if they didn't warn the rest of us. About the only thing Donald Trump and Barack Obama ever agreed on was that Europe must make a much bigger financial contribution to Nato. In 2014 at the Cardiff Summit, the Treasury furiously resisted the demands. All sorts of tricks were pulled and definitions were stretched to get the UK to 2 per cent of GDP. The Americans, in their polite way, asked nicely. They've been asking ever since. Because as they command all Allied forces in Nato they knew the truth about the state of everyone's forces. While public scrutiny was kept at bay using secrecy and 'operational reasons', SACEUR – Supreme Allied Commander Europe, the military boss of Nato and always an American – grew increasingly concerned as Russia got more and more aggressive. And still European capitals, including London, carried on cutting. Not until 2019 and Boris Johnson did the Ministry of Defence turn the corner with real money and real reform. Previous Conservative and Labour governments had used the Red Arrows and Trooping the Colour to pretend that all was well. But Ukraine found us out. Nato and the international community needed to act: and as we examined our inventory ministers could see just how weak we had become. I remember when we debated gifting the AS90 155mm long range artillery to Ukraine I was informed that while we had 73 guns on the books only 19 worked! Or when I tried to increase the number of tanks to be upgraded to Challenger 3s I was told it was impossible because so many of our tanks had already been stripped of parts to keep others running. You might say that I should have known all that detail on day one. But you'd be surprised how well the services can hide bad news when they want to. Last week we witnessed Labour's first defence review for more than 20 years. It was heralded by re‑announcing many Conservative procurements. As a review it was weak: clearly budget-led not threat led. The big decisions had been made beforehand, and without 3 per cent by 2030 the review would clearly be hollow at birth, as it was. It was also an insult to the men and women of the Armed Forces and the equivalent of sticking two fingers up to the White House. Today's spending review confirmed what we all feared. Rather than making tough decisions on public spending priorities, Rachel Reeves chose to use Treasury tricks to deceive us all. The Government has folded in intelligence spending, Ukraine spending and even Foreign Office money to the notional 'defence' figure. The result is that core defence spending will not even be 2.5 per cent as promised: not even close. There was no path to 3 per cent either. It was just a con all along. If John Healey spent as much time battling the Treasury as he did repeating my government's plans or deceiving the public with spin then he might have had some success. But it is clear he is Labour first and UK defence second. How dare this Government avoid the solemn duty to defend our shores and properly equip the men and women of the armed forces. Labour was the government that sent our troops to war in Snatch Land Rovers and they are destined to repeat that betrayal. Next week Donald Trump will arrive in Holland for the Nato summit. He will bring with him a message that we must all spend 3.5 per cent of GDP on actual defence, not counting spies or diplomats. The Donald will not be bought off with Treasury tricks. I was in Washington last week and some very senior people in the White House and the Pentagon genuinely believe Trump may leave Nato in two years. They are serious. So we need to either demonstrate we are pulling our weight or we need to compensate for the 70 per cent loss to Nato capability if the US leaves. Based on Rachel Reeves's efforts we will do neither. History may point to this as the moment when the UK surrendered its place in Nato and triggered its demise. And all the while, Putin and Xi will be licking their lips. Waiting for their moment. For that little bit of Estonia or Finland. The best Donald Trump can do next week is say that Nato is a club with a subscription. No money should mean no entry. Ben Wallace served as Secretary of State for Defence from 2019 to 2023. He is a former British Army officer Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
BC Ferries deal with Chinese shipyard makes waves in Ottawa
OTTAWA — BC Ferries set off a tidal wave of controversy on Tuesday after announcing a major shipbuilding deal with a Chinese state-owned enterprise, with the ripple effects of the decision reaching Ottawa. Vancouver Island Conservative MP Jeff Kibble raised the issue in Wednesday's question period, accusing the Liberal government of rewarding the provincial carrier for selling out Canada's national interest. 'The Liberals are set to hand over $30 million (in federal subsidies) to BC Ferries while BC Ferries hands over critical jobs, investment and industry to China,' said Kibble. BC Ferries said in a press release that it had awarded China Merchants Industry Weihai Shipyards (CMI Weihai) a contract to build four new vessels after a 'rigorous' global bidding process. Company CEO Nicolas Jimenez was quoted in the release as saying that CMI Weihai was the 'clear choice' for the contract given, among other factors, its 'proven ability to deliver safe, reliable vessels on dependable timelines.' Kibble blasted BC Ferries in the House of Commons for buying the ships from China instead of a 'proven Canadian shipbuilder' and pressed the Liberal government to tie federal ferry subsidies to buying Canadian-built ships. Liberal Transportation Minister Chrystia Freeland said that she shared Kibble's concerns about procurement 'at all levels of government' but wouldn't comment directly on the BC Ferries contract, calling it a provincial matter. One politician who hasn't hesitated to criticize the deal is the provincial minister responsible for BC Ferries. B.C. Transportation Minister Mike Farnworth was quick to distance himself from the decision, saying he was worried about the message it sends in the midst of Chinese economic aggression. 'I do have concerns around procuring services from any country that is actively harming Canada's economy through unfair tariffs or other protectionist trade practices. I have shared these concerns with BC Ferries,' Farnworth told the media. Yet, despite his reservations, he ruled out blocking the BC Ferries-CMI Weihai deal. 'BC Ferries is an independent company responsible for its own operational decisions,' said Farnworth. He added that he was 'disappointed' that the contract didn't include more involvement from Canadian shipyards. BC Ferries' head of fleet renewal, Ed Hooper, told Postmedia that no Canadian shipbuilders bid on the contract won by CMI Weihai. Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney promised to ramp up Canadian shipbuilding during this spring's federal election campaign. The federal government previously awarded the Chinese state-owned company a contract to build a new vessel for east coast ferry operator Marine Atlantic, according to a 2023 filing from Transport Canada. The ship began service between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland in July 2024. Federal Procurement Minister Joël Lightbound didn't respond to an inquiry from the National Post about the BC Ferries-CMI Weihai deal, and didn't indicate whether the federal government would continue to take bids from the company. A spokesperson with Public Services and Procurement Canada told the National Post that CMI Weihai does not appear on the agency's database of active bids. National Post rmohamed@ Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what's really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here. Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
MAGA Melts Down Over Trump ‘Deep State' Deportation Deal
The tech billionaire who bankrolled J.D. Vance's political rise is at the centre of a new MAGA war over fresh plans to use Big Brother surveillance to deport illegal immigrants. As protests rage in Los Angeles over Donald Trump 's immigration crackdown, some of the president's most loyal supporters are outraged over a 'deep state' contract awarded to Palantir Technologies, the controversial data mining company co-founded by venture capitalist and Vance campaign donor Peter Thiel. Government documents seen by the Daily Beast show the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) awarded Palantir the $30 million contract to develop a new surveillance platform known as 'ImmigrationOS' to help the agency identify and arrest illegal immigrants, make it easier to deport people, and track and report self-deportations with 'near real-time visibility'. Trump acolyte Laura Loomer embraced the idea, posting on X this week: 'Time to deploy @PalantirTech to Los Angeles to deal with the illegals. You know you'd love to see it.' But the right-wing provocateur faced a fierce backlash online from people ideologically opposed to government surveillance. Some viewed Palantir, which is named after the 'seeing stones' in The Lord of the Rings, as a tool of the Deep State; others warned Palantir 'won't stop there.' 'Laura, I don't care what the excuse is. One CANNOT in any way, shape or form claim to be a Conservative or Patriot and support this,' replied John Sabal, founder of Texas-based conservative event group 'The Patriot Voice', whose outraged response was one of thousands. 'It is literally antithetical to the notion of 'smaller government' and IN FAVOR of a big government totalitarian system.' Palantir has until September to develop a prototype of the ImmigrationOS software. Not having it, ICE warned, 'severely limits' its ability to expedite Trump's deportation plans and target the gangs MS-13 and Tren de Aragua. But the plan is particularly contentious because it comes after reports that the administration may also be using Palantir to build a database of personal information on American citizens. The New York Times reported earlier this month that the Trump administration had expanded Palantir's work across the federal government, giving it more than $113 million since Trump took office, as well as new contracts with the Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon.
