Planning uplift

[Clive]

My partner is Austrian, and she said, in Europe a house is a home, not an investment. It took her a while to understand the British way of thinking about a house as an investment vehicle, and our obsession with price rises. In Austria, you buy or self build one house then live in it for the rest of your life.

yes it's a very British thing ............. but it is as it is for this generation of 40 plus homeowners) , upset that and you loose a lot of voters, not just those homeowners but their children who will inherit well thanks to their parents life long mortgage slavery

generation after that ? ....... well they are just screwed frankly on many levels

 

[essexpete]

The real issue of the housing crisis is the very low occupancy density and this is most pronounced in the "English" population. The migrant population tend to have far higher occupancy whereas every single white person believes they are entitled to housing in their own house or flat and if they have a child they have a legal right to one.
In fact it is worse than that, as it can be for benefits, even beneficial for parents to live on their own.
And don't speak about all the old farts out their living out their retirement in a large five bedroom house and we even still share a bed

A lot of truth in that. Local planning committee member here, criticised a potential development plan for not including enough four an five bed houses in the affordable section (40%). Children can't be traumatised by room sharing today.

 

[neilo]

The best one could hope for is a correction over an extended period, a fall in real value over a decade or two. A direct and immediate fall caused by massive distortion would have a massive impact on those heavily borrowed against a property.
The only way it might work is for a local authority to take on a percentage of a large development for affordable (with Govt funding from taxpayers) and have that percentage of land at a reduced rate. There would need to be some thorough pricing and watching of building contractors to avoid a massive pee take. Another problem that seems to arise is with so-called affordable housing being lumped into one area of a development, causing almost ghetto like environments.

That's what happens now. A certain proportion of any large development have to be 'affordable' homes, often sold through part ownership schemes and housing associations.
The lower profit made on those houses is already reflected in the overall amount the landowner gets, so they effectively built on subsidised ground.

 

[Dave645]

I had seen this a few weeks ago, my suggestion was, instead of robbing landowners with below value compulsory purchases, they relax planning and start schemes for self builds. to locals in villages etc, cut out developers all together.

first land value is a product of supply and demand, so allowing far more land to be available for building that will let the open market sort that, if they need to compulsory purchase to obtain land in the right locations then it has to be done at full market value then not sat in the hands of councils or developers, for longer than a year without building starts.

some may not have experience the last time in 1940-50's, they did this, it happened to our farm yard and other farmers in the village, they compulsory purchased land next to a roads (it was pasture at that time and an orchard) it was done for council housing which they never built, then 20 years later they sold it off to the highest bidder, and didn't offer it back to those it was purchased from.

planning is the problem, and land is second, I also agree cheap land will not lead to cheap houses, it will do one of a few things' larger plots, or more profits for developers, if there is a price decrease, then it will likely be less than half the saving should be from robbing the land owner. developers will make claims they need a profit to manage the money, in the end the public will be no better off.

open up planning add land to development zones, council do this now but they limit villages very heavily.

 

[essexpete]

That's what happens now. A certain proportion of any large development have to be 'affordable' homes, often sold through part ownership schemes and housing associations.
The lower profit made on those houses is already reflected in the overall amount the landowner gets, so they effectively built on subsidised ground.

Yes you are right, the developers effectively pass their 'cost' on to the landowner. Probably the very large developments needed dividing up more, but I guess the big b&99ers would argue a lack of positive scales of economy?

 

[Vader]

My partner is Austrian, and she said, in Europe a house is a home, not an investment. It took her a while to understand the British way of thinking about a house as an investment vehicle, and our obsession with price rises. In Austria, you buy or self build one house then live in it for the rest of your life

always thought the same.
Morgages/rents continually going up is not a good thing.

 

[essexpete]

House prices are a result of supply and demand. Too many people, too few houses ?

Not helped by NIMBYism and archaic green belt in the south and other metro areas.

 

[Dave645]

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.

you don't understand how it works if you think that.

The lower profit made on those houses is already reflected in the overall amount the landowner gets, so they effectively built on subsidised ground

and developers often foot the bill for roads and other services, but each project is different. roads have very strict specs drawn up by councils the developer has to deliver on those at their expense if the council is to adopt the road into its care, if they do not the road is left in the care of the house holder using that road.
if the council said it had to be paved with gold then that's what the developer has to do if they want the council to adopt it after the development is done.

the real answer is council houseing, affordable rents, that allow a standard price to be put into rents so let's see council houseing building like we did after the war, all rented at good affordable rents, this will reduce rents and give the young the ability to save to buy later in life if they want to do.

this will tame private rents of houses to follow or lose tenants, to new houses with cheaper rents.

this also calms the housing markets, slows buy to let buyers as demand falls for private rented houses, the whole system calms down, but no crash.

 

[br jones]

you don't understand how it works if you think that.

and developers often foot the bill for roads and other services, but each project is different. roads have very strict specs drawn up by councils the developer has to deliver on those at their expense if the council is to adopt the road into its care, if they do not the road is left in the care of the house holder using that road.
if the council said it had to be paved with gold then that's what the developer has to do if they want the council to adopt it after the development is done.

the real answer is council houseing, affordable rents, that allow a standard price to be put into rents so let's see council houseing building like we did after the war, all rented at good affordable rents, this will reduce rents and give the young the ability to save to buy later in life if they want to do.

this will tame private rents of houses to follow or lose tenants, to new houses with cheaper rents.

this also calms the housing markets, slows buy to let buyers as demand falls for private rented houses, the whole system calms down, but no crash.

cant be built for the money the housing association offer

 

[Swarfmonkey]

That's what happens now. A certain proportion of any large development have to be 'affordable' homes, often sold through part ownership schemes and housing associations.
The lower profit made on those houses is already reflected in the overall amount the landowner gets, so they effectively built on subsidised ground.

Local Authorities are not beyond helping developers out with that when they can as "affordable" housing is not subject to CIL. What LA is going to want affordable housing when full market value housing can put tens of thousands into their coffers for each property through CIL?

The Battersea development is an almost perfect example of that, the number of affordable properties being slashed from 636 to 386. Given that the local authority charges £381/m2 in CIL in that area, that's a fair few more ££££ for the council's coffers.

 

[David.]

Where would he money come from for Council housing?
Lot of them were built after the War as regeneration and job creation projects.

 

[Vader]

Not helped by NIMBYism and archaic green belt in the south and other metro areas.

Not helped by immigration levels...
Not physically possible to build enough houses to keep up with uk population growth every year.

 

[Dave645]

cant be built for the money the housing association offer

why? anyone wanting 200+ houses built it going to get the best discounts. and the council will have the rents, and council tax to fund them.

 

[Kidds]

You mean slum housing with the all violence & unsocial living that goes with that ?

Who benefits from destroying UK culture bringing in 3rd world conditions ? Banks

No thanks, rather have a civil war

I often think we are heading toward both.

 

[Exfarmer]

Not helped by immigration levels...
Not physically possible to build enough houses to keep up with uk population growth every year.

Complete rubbish, we would have absolutely no problem building plenty of space except people do not want to live where the space is or would be available and where they want to live the locals wont have them.

 

[serf]

last ten years we have had the worst most stupid government in my lifetime I'm ashamed to say & the sooner they are gone the better!

And probably to be replaced by even worse cretins ...

 

[serf]

That's what happens now. A certain proportion of any large development have to be 'affordable' homes, often sold through part ownership schemes and housing associations.

The remaining houses on the estate are unaffordable...

 

[Still Farming]

cant be built for the money the housing association offer

Welsh Assembly policies and then Local Authorities policies detrimental to what National Government promotes.
Lot Easier in England to get Planning allegedly.

 

[BrianV]

And probably to be replaced by even worse cretins ...

Very possibly but if we don't ever vote out cretins why would it ever improve, got to think longer term & let the buggers know that if they mess up then they will be out on their ear next time.

 

[neilo]

The remaining houses on the estate are unaffordable...

No, they are pitched at the level that the house builders think they can sell them at, and generally do.
Doesn’t that make them, by definition, affordable?