Report: Colchester needs more than 1,000 new homes a year to meet demand

Gazette: Report: Colchester needs more than 1,000 new homes a year to meet demand Report: Colchester needs more than 1,000 new homes a year to meet demand

LAND for at least 200 more homes in Colchester must be found every year, according to a new report.

Population growth coupled with the thousands of people a year who choose to move to Colchester means one of the UK’s fastest growing boroughs may have to expand even further over the next two decades.

Currently, around 850 houses and flats are built in Colchester every year, mainly in the north of the town.

But a Strategic Housing Land Assessment commissioned by the council has found there will be demand for between 1,065 and 1,225 a year.

Tina Bourne, councillor responsible for housing, admitted the authority would not be able to please everybody when searching for new housing development sites.

She said: “I’m sure most residents would say: more homes?

“But if we are to address housing of all kinds - rented, owned, affordable, social, then we do know that we need to build more housing.

“There’s a national shortage of homes and we want to go some way to meet the demand.”

She said since 2010, more than 600 affordable homes had been built in Colchester - more than double the number constructed in Ipswich or Braintree.

The report reveals Colchester’s population is growing far faster than its neighbours. By 2021, an estimated 200,324 people will live in the borough, up from 173,614 people in 2011.

That 15.4 per cent rise is more than double the 7.2 per cent population increase predicted for Chelmsford.

Comments (12)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:08pm Fri 13 Jun 14

Misty4 says...

Stop the population growth, then - or at least, reduce it to a realistic level. If the government were to implement an Australian-style immigration policy it would at least be a start. Colchester is spawning houses at a frightening rate. No wonder the roads are gridlocked.
Stop the population growth, then - or at least, reduce it to a realistic level. If the government were to implement an Australian-style immigration policy it would at least be a start. Colchester is spawning houses at a frightening rate. No wonder the roads are gridlocked. Misty4
  • Score: 30

4:31pm Fri 13 Jun 14

angryman!!! says...

I don't believe most of the houses are being built for immigrants so I don't think that would help. But do agree that this certainly nothing to get excited about as the article suggests. We are just building 1,000 of cheap boxes for the boroughs of London to dump their unwanted tenants. Slow the numbers, and increase the number of high quality builds, rather than rabbit warren estates that are cluttered together and have cars parked on any available space.
I don't believe most of the houses are being built for immigrants so I don't think that would help. But do agree that this certainly nothing to get excited about as the article suggests. We are just building 1,000 of cheap boxes for the boroughs of London to dump their unwanted tenants. Slow the numbers, and increase the number of high quality builds, rather than rabbit warren estates that are cluttered together and have cars parked on any available space. angryman!!!
  • Score: 36

4:42pm Fri 13 Jun 14

Scoot says...

So lets build more homes but not think about the infrastructure (roads, schools, doctors etc etc) or creating jobs in the town. All these houses will be built for commuters who will soon grumble when they realise they've paid a fortune to a developer and they are having to stand all the way to London because the trains are overcrowded. What this government needs to do is sit down and think rather than listening to those poor hard done by property developers. Firstly they need to identify companies that are expanding or persuade businesses to relocate in order to create jobs. Once this has been done, they should then allow development and only sufficient for the number of jobs created and if new schools or doctors or road improvements are required the developer should foot the entire bill. Just building without thinking will create more problems in the long run.
So lets build more homes but not think about the infrastructure (roads, schools, doctors etc etc) or creating jobs in the town. All these houses will be built for commuters who will soon grumble when they realise they've paid a fortune to a developer and they are having to stand all the way to London because the trains are overcrowded. What this government needs to do is sit down and think rather than listening to those poor hard done by property developers. Firstly they need to identify companies that are expanding or persuade businesses to relocate in order to create jobs. Once this has been done, they should then allow development and only sufficient for the number of jobs created and if new schools or doctors or road improvements are required the developer should foot the entire bill. Just building without thinking will create more problems in the long run. Scoot
  • Score: 35

1:15pm Sat 14 Jun 14

Colonel Kurtz says...

angryman!!! wrote:
I don't believe most of the houses are being built for immigrants so I don't think that would help. But do agree that this certainly nothing to get excited about as the article suggests. We are just building 1,000 of cheap boxes for the boroughs of London to dump their unwanted tenants. Slow the numbers, and increase the number of high quality builds, rather than rabbit warren estates that are cluttered together and have cars parked on any available space.
With 250,000 net migration per year they obviously have to live somewhere. That's the size of Birmingham every 4 years (and that's not counting the illegals). 90% want to live in the southeast. We are the most densely populated place in Europe and its going to get worse. This should not be treated as a racist issue but a social and practical problem with lack of infrastructure
[quote][p][bold]angryman!!![/bold] wrote: I don't believe most of the houses are being built for immigrants so I don't think that would help. But do agree that this certainly nothing to get excited about as the article suggests. We are just building 1,000 of cheap boxes for the boroughs of London to dump their unwanted tenants. Slow the numbers, and increase the number of high quality builds, rather than rabbit warren estates that are cluttered together and have cars parked on any available space.[/p][/quote]With 250,000 net migration per year they obviously have to live somewhere. That's the size of Birmingham every 4 years (and that's not counting the illegals). 90% want to live in the southeast. We are the most densely populated place in Europe and its going to get worse. This should not be treated as a racist issue but a social and practical problem with lack of infrastructure Colonel Kurtz
  • Score: 5

1:19pm Sat 14 Jun 14

Colonel Kurtz says...

Anyone who drives in Colchester would know the roads can not simply handle anymore. That's not including schools, hospitals. Build the infrastructure first or put a block on any large scale building.
Anyone who drives in Colchester would know the roads can not simply handle anymore. That's not including schools, hospitals. Build the infrastructure first or put a block on any large scale building. Colonel Kurtz
  • Score: 19

4:06pm Sat 14 Jun 14

jut1972 says...

The King* was in his counting house counting all his money**

*CBC
**additional Council tax revenue
The King* was in his counting house counting all his money** *CBC **additional Council tax revenue jut1972
  • Score: 3

6:54pm Sat 14 Jun 14

brooks says...

This town is dirty, gridlocked and needs more doctors etc etc....it does NOT need more cheap houses and undesirables/unwante
ds being sent here from the parts of London that they want to keep nice for the richies to live and buy second houses etc in!!!!!! I am beginning to dislike what this town has become..... there is no real vision!!! and if there is a vision then it is being envisaged by people who do not care or even live here!!! The place has become disgusting! and when I walk in the town I sometimes feel as If I am living in a different country.....and No that is not a racist statement, just a fact!
This town is dirty, gridlocked and needs more doctors etc etc....it does NOT need more cheap houses and undesirables/unwante ds being sent here from the parts of London that they want to keep nice for the richies to live and buy second houses etc in!!!!!! I am beginning to dislike what this town has become..... there is no real vision!!! and if there is a vision then it is being envisaged by people who do not care or even live here!!! The place has become disgusting! and when I walk in the town I sometimes feel as If I am living in a different country.....and No that is not a racist statement, just a fact! brooks
  • Score: 14

7:04pm Sat 14 Jun 14

Carlosfandangles says...

Typically a developer makes between a quarter and a third of the value as profit. Take a typical house value in colchester, multiply by the number of jouses on these proposed developments and you have a mind boggling profit. Make it a condition of any new development that a percentage of this propsed profit is ring fenced for the local infrastructure which directly relates to that new development whether it is primary schools roads or doctors.... if the developer doesn't like it then they can go elsewhere. ...
Typically a developer makes between a quarter and a third of the value as profit. Take a typical house value in colchester, multiply by the number of jouses on these proposed developments and you have a mind boggling profit. Make it a condition of any new development that a percentage of this propsed profit is ring fenced for the local infrastructure which directly relates to that new development whether it is primary schools roads or doctors.... if the developer doesn't like it then they can go elsewhere. ... Carlosfandangles
  • Score: 5

11:31am Mon 16 Jun 14

romantic says...

Carlosfandangles wrote:
Typically a developer makes between a quarter and a third of the value as profit. Take a typical house value in colchester, multiply by the number of jouses on these proposed developments and you have a mind boggling profit. Make it a condition of any new development that a percentage of this propsed profit is ring fenced for the local infrastructure which directly relates to that new development whether it is primary schools roads or doctors.... if the developer doesn't like it then they can go elsewhere. ...
In theory, that is what should happen, but in recent developments, CBC planning dept has been so incompetent that they have forgotten to include the clauses in the contract. Or maybe they were overridden, we don't get told such things.
[quote][p][bold]Carlosfandangles[/bold] wrote: Typically a developer makes between a quarter and a third of the value as profit. Take a typical house value in colchester, multiply by the number of jouses on these proposed developments and you have a mind boggling profit. Make it a condition of any new development that a percentage of this propsed profit is ring fenced for the local infrastructure which directly relates to that new development whether it is primary schools roads or doctors.... if the developer doesn't like it then they can go elsewhere. ...[/p][/quote]In theory, that is what should happen, but in recent developments, CBC planning dept has been so incompetent that they have forgotten to include the clauses in the contract. Or maybe they were overridden, we don't get told such things. romantic
  • Score: 4

11:38am Mon 16 Jun 14

romantic says...

In an ideal world, the MD of the developers should be compelled to live in one of his company's places for a year. Most of what I see going up around Colchester is shoddily-built, and seemingly (as on the Hythe) backed up by 2-year guarantees scarcely worth the paper they are written on. There are whole soulless estates of boxes with no infrastructure, no life. The builders I know say don't touch these new-builds with a bargepole, because they'll scarcely last a lifetime they're that badly built.

Houses on flood-plains, houses on land so toxic they can't have gardens, houses in areas already classified as polluted by traffic fumes. They just keep on building, and it's changing the feel of Colchester, not in a better way.
In an ideal world, the MD of the developers should be compelled to live in one of his company's places for a year. Most of what I see going up around Colchester is shoddily-built, and seemingly (as on the Hythe) backed up by 2-year guarantees scarcely worth the paper they are written on. There are whole soulless estates of boxes with no infrastructure, no life. The builders I know say don't touch these new-builds with a bargepole, because they'll scarcely last a lifetime they're that badly built. Houses on flood-plains, houses on land so toxic they can't have gardens, houses in areas already classified as polluted by traffic fumes. They just keep on building, and it's changing the feel of Colchester, not in a better way. romantic
  • Score: 4

12:03pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Checkout says...

I see the city of Chelmsford seems largely exempt from this building spree. Perhaps one of our many Conservative County Councillors can explain this to us given that the greatest part of the tax revenue raised will go to ECC. Will ECC distribute the lions share of this income fairly to Colchester, let's all have a guess. Soon enough Chelmsford will be dwarfed by Colchester in every respect save intelligence.
It seems to me that the very considerable amount of land currently being cleared around Tollgate will probably supply all the land that's required - this year!
I see the city of Chelmsford seems largely exempt from this building spree. Perhaps one of our many Conservative County Councillors can explain this to us given that the greatest part of the tax revenue raised will go to ECC. Will ECC distribute the lions share of this income fairly to Colchester, let's all have a guess. Soon enough Chelmsford will be dwarfed by Colchester in every respect save intelligence. It seems to me that the very considerable amount of land currently being cleared around Tollgate will probably supply all the land that's required - this year! Checkout
  • Score: 5

3:57pm Tue 17 Jun 14

William George says...

brooks wrote:
This town is dirty, gridlocked and needs more doctors etc etc....it does NOT need more cheap houses and undesirables/unwante

ds being sent here from the parts of London that they want to keep nice for the richies to live and buy second houses etc in!!!!!! I am beginning to dislike what this town has become..... there is no real vision!!! and if there is a vision then it is being envisaged by people who do not care or even live here!!! The place has become disgusting! and when I walk in the town I sometimes feel as If I am living in a different country.....and No that is not a racist statement, just a fact!
If the reduction of further building of cheaper houses is made that then would help to lower the amount of people coming in to Colchester and its surrounding areas.

That would not be making a restriction of any people from other countries or London. Because it would still be one as optional to them if still chosen.

It would then help the residents of Colchester that are already here in many ways in life.

As a result of that a more normal and manageable way and not by a restriction way; a slowing down of our population from people from abroad and London would be a slowing down of Colchester's overflow.
[quote][p][bold]brooks[/bold] wrote: This town is dirty, gridlocked and needs more doctors etc etc....it does NOT need more cheap houses and undesirables/unwante ds being sent here from the parts of London that they want to keep nice for the richies to live and buy second houses etc in!!!!!! I am beginning to dislike what this town has become..... there is no real vision!!! and if there is a vision then it is being envisaged by people who do not care or even live here!!! The place has become disgusting! and when I walk in the town I sometimes feel as If I am living in a different country.....and No that is not a racist statement, just a fact![/p][/quote]If the reduction of further building of cheaper houses is made that then would help to lower the amount of people coming in to Colchester and its surrounding areas. That would not be making a restriction of any people from other countries or London. Because it would still be one as optional to them if still chosen. It would then help the residents of Colchester that are already here in many ways in life. As a result of that a more normal and manageable way and not by a restriction way; a slowing down of our population from people from abroad and London would be a slowing down of Colchester's overflow. William George
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree