Planning uplift

[Exfarmer]

Suggestion in the Times yesterdayday that land bought by Compulsory Purchase should be limited to existing value plus a percentage for disturbance. Suggested that to Farmers would limit value paid to 200% of current land value. This would enable houses to be built very much cheaper when currently land value can be near 50% of house price ( more commonly 20%+)
How do people feel about losing land for housing at twice the lands value, if they knew it would help the next generation get a house?

 

[Andrew1983]

Suggestion in the Times yesterdayday that land bought by Compulsory Purchase should be limited to existing value plus a percentage for disturbance. Suggested that to Farmers would limit value paid to 200% of current land value. This would enable houses to be built very much cheaper when currently land value can be near 50% of house price ( more commonly 20%+)
How do people feel about losing land for housing at twice the lands value, if they knew it would help the next generation get a house?

Sod that.

It’s not like house builders are going to sell the houses any cheaper, it’s more they will make a bigger profit…. Think it’s something like £35k per house the land costs for a housing estate…. So that’s probably already the cheapest part. Maybe they should put caps on how much tradesmen can charge or quarries for concrete etc

 

[HarryB97]

The land is one of the cheapest bits about a house. The fact developers have to pay for all the roads, schools and infrastructure which they get no return from as well as the increased area of green spaces and the astronomical planning and survey fees are the problem. Buying a house isn’t hard. The main problem is most people can’t make good decisions so move out to early, rent for to long and have kids to early to name a few reasons. The worst part is most of the reasons above are normally combined.

 

[BRB John]

The land is one of the cheapest bits about a house. The fact developers have to pay for all the roads, schools and infrastructure which they get no return from as well as the increased area of green spaces and the astronomical planning and survey fees are the problem.

They have to pay for the schools?
I guess they can increase the value of the properties if it has a fancy new school nearby with lots of amenities and green spaces... And a road without potholes must be worth something?

But totally agree about the ridiculously planning red tape

 

[Exfarmer]

Sod that.

It’s not like house builders are going to sell the houses any cheaper, it’s more they will make a bigger profit…. Think it’s something like £35k per house the land costs for a housing estate…. So that’s probably already the cheapest part. Maybe they should put caps on how much tradesmen can charge or quarries for concrete etc

The land is one of the cheapest bits about a house. The fact developers have to pay for all the roads, schools and infrastructure which they get no return from as well as the increased area of green spaces and the astronomical planning and survey fees are the problem.

The idea was that local authorities could use this money to put in the infrastructure instead of it going straight into farmers or more often Land Bankers pockets

 

[Exfarmer]

The land is one of the cheapest bits about a house. The fact developers have to pay for all the roads, schools and infrastructure which they get no return from as well as the increased area of green spaces and the astronomical planning and survey fees are the problem.

The land under many houses is at least 50% of its value, it certainly is for my property

 

[Clive]

Suggestion in the Times yesterdayday that land bought by Compulsory Purchase should be limited to existing value plus a percentage for disturbance. Suggested that to Farmers would limit value paid to 200% of current land value. This would enable houses to be built very much cheaper when currently land value can be near 50% of house price ( more commonly 20%+)
How do people feel about losing land for housing at twice the lands value, if they knew it would help the next generation get a house?

legalised robbery

i don’t expect the developers profit would be limited !

 

[HarryB97]

The land under many houses is at least 50% of its value, it certainly is for my property

Definitely not the case unless it’s in a city centre or other prime location

 

[Goweresque]

As above. If the land was expropriated for zero value and all that taken off the sticker price on new houses would fall by maybe 20%. Except that it wouldn't because everyone else in the chain would take a extra cut - Local Authority, house builders, contractors, materials suppliers etc etc, and everything would steam on just as it is today. Its also a one off price cut, because all the other elements would go on demanding more and more as inflation rose over time. So any benefit would be lost very quickly. House prices can rise by 20% in a year in a boom market, so in 5 years time you'd not even notice the difference from today - houses would be just as unaffordable.

Lets face it the UK can't make houses truly affordable by collapsing their price by 50% and keeping it down because that would destroy the financial system overnight. Why do you think we had to bail the banks out in 2008/9? House prices only fell by about 20% during that slump.

 

[Clive]

any government that makes houses cheaper is doomed even more so that a government that makes food expensive !

voters obsess with those house price as for most it’s their entire wealth/ retirement etc so they want to see go up not down !


no government REALLY wants cheap house prices

 

[Exfarmer]

how much uplift was paid to farmers for HS2?

 

[Exfarmer]

any government that makes houses cheaper is doomed even more so that a government that makes food expensive !

voters obsess with those house price as for most it’s their entire wealth/ retirement etc so they want to see go up not down !


no government REALLY wants cheap house prices

But we have a generation coming on who see it as being impossible to get on the housing ladder, they would love to see prices drop.
I do agree though that it would cause more than a few hiccups

 

[Clive]

But we have a generation coming on who see it as being impossible to get on the housing ladder, they would love to see prices drop.
I do agree though that it would cause more than a few hiccups

to many home owners to upset …….. yet

 

[lloyd]

A lot of new housing has only been available due to new roads ,infrastructure
paid for by the tax payers .The uplift in value has been fat too generous to the
landowner and a rebalance is well overdue.
I expect to see major changes with a new labour government who look like
winning with a large majority.

 

[HarryB97]

A lot of new housing has only been available due to new roads ,infrastructure
paid for by the tax payers .The uplift in value has been fat too generous to the
landowner and a rebalance is well overdue.
I expect to see major changes with a new labour government who look like
winning with a large majority.

Nothing ever changes no matter the party who wins, just empty promises and incompetence!

 

[Clive]

how much uplift was paid to farmers for HS2?

none - same with m6 toll - VERY wrong imo when private companies then profit from that

 

[neilo]

A lot of new housing has only been available due to new roads ,infrastructure
paid for by the tax payers .The uplift in value has been fat too generous to the
landowner and a rebalance is well overdue.
I expect to see major changes with a new labour government who look like
winning with a large majority.

Section 106 demands have increased hugely in recent years, which pay for improvements in that infrastructure (unless the Council choose to pocket it instead). That all comes out of what the landowner gets.

 

[ISCO]

Whilst I don't agree with the proposal I am surprised it has not been suggested before and it would not surprise me if it happened.

Many would see this to be in the best interests of the general public rather than a few wealthy landowners benefitting. Whilst on a different level they capped phone mast rents for a similar reason I recall.

The vast sums a single landowner can make from selling building land together with the benefit of rollover relief will be seen as unfair by a generation struggling to to buy a House.

 

[David.]

As above, the developer pays for nothing.
All the 106 goodies like schools, improvements to sewage works, roads, new library; all taken into consideration when valuing/bidding on the land.
There ought to be a commemorate plaque in the new school, in honour of Farmer Brown the generous benefactor. But there never is; he is just the dirty, greedy barstool who ruined the village.
Developer expects his profit from a site to equate to roughly what the seller was paid.
If the land was free, the house value would still be determined by local comparables.
If the house were covenanted otherwise, it would in reality only benefit the first buyer.

 

[Nearly]

If land was free the price of houses wouldn't drop.
We've some that might get a crop on in my lifetime.
It's damn tempting to auction it now with no uplift and watch what it makes the use the money for something which does have an annual income rather than a vague promise.