Goodbye Generation Rent, Hello Generation Buy
Discussion
speedyman said:
kiethton said:
speedyman said:
Far better to limit land banking by large building companies.
There is f
k all land banking by the large house builders really, enough plots to series the next couple of years requirements. There will always be an element of inbuilt land for any developer, schemes can take 10 years to complete (populations in some areas can't sustain the same level of annual sales as others) whilst other land is still in the process of having planning refined/development contracts tendered etc.Land banking was just a millipede slogan that seems to have stuck
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/20...
Thing with land is that you can't just build on it straight away...unless you want to live in a house without planning, electricity, roads, sewerage, broadband etc. It takes years, often decades for land to be zoned for housing, after that planning can progress (2+ years for a big scheme) and then refined, another year+...
You then have to split it up to plots that service the active requirement of the area - why build 1000 homes on a huge tract of land of nobody is around to live in them? - this can mean some land with planning lying vacant but what is the point in plowing cash into the ground if nobody is going to use the houses built?
The major housebuilders have enough land to satisfy the next 2-3 years of building requirements at current run-rates, in light of the above is that unreasonable?
The problem is that land is often in the wrong place, what is in the correct location is being built asap, why would any business want a cash drag? - the problem is the concentration of population and demand, spread demand, spread the population and demand (and therefore HP inflation) will be reduced materially.
kiethton said:
And you quote an opinion piece from what must be the most deluded "journalist" going....
Thing with land is that you can't just build on it straight away...unless you want to live in a house without planning, electricity, roads, sewerage, broadband etc. It takes years, often decades for land to be zoned for housing, after that planning can progress (2+ years for a big scheme) and then refined, another year+...
You then have to split it up to plots that service the active requirement of the area - why build 1000 homes on a huge tract of land of nobody is around to live in them? - this can mean some land with planning lying vacant but what is the point in plowing cash into the ground if nobody is going to use the houses built?
The major housebuilders have enough land to satisfy the next 2-3 years of building requirements at current run-rates, in light of the above is that unreasonable?
The problem is that land is often in the wrong place, what is in the correct location is being built asap, why would any business want a cash drag? - the problem is the concentration of population and demand, spread demand, spread the population and demand (and therefore HP inflation) will be reduced materially.
Exactly this. (And agreed, 2-3 years - no idea why I said 2-3% above, I meant 2-3 years!)Thing with land is that you can't just build on it straight away...unless you want to live in a house without planning, electricity, roads, sewerage, broadband etc. It takes years, often decades for land to be zoned for housing, after that planning can progress (2+ years for a big scheme) and then refined, another year+...
You then have to split it up to plots that service the active requirement of the area - why build 1000 homes on a huge tract of land of nobody is around to live in them? - this can mean some land with planning lying vacant but what is the point in plowing cash into the ground if nobody is going to use the houses built?
The major housebuilders have enough land to satisfy the next 2-3 years of building requirements at current run-rates, in light of the above is that unreasonable?
The problem is that land is often in the wrong place, what is in the correct location is being built asap, why would any business want a cash drag? - the problem is the concentration of population and demand, spread demand, spread the population and demand (and therefore HP inflation) will be reduced materially.
speedyman said:
kiethton said:
speedyman said:
Far better to limit land banking by large building companies.
There is fk all land banking by the large house builders really, enough plots to series the next couple of years requirements. There will always be an element of inbuilt land for any developer, schemes can take 10 years to complete (populations in some areas can't sustain the same level of annual sales as others) whilst other land is still in the process of having planning refined/development contracts tendered etc.Land banking was just a millipede slogan that seems to have stuck
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/20...
The answer is build more houses. We have a skewed market at the moment through a lack of supply to meet demand. Tinkering with various schemes, or attacking BTL or house builders will not fix the fact that we don't have enough to go around which ever way you look at it.
If we have enough houses then prices will correct back to a point where a proper market will work. We should be in a situation where those that want to buy can, and those that want rent can. Both markets are pushed up by ever increasing house prices.
I know someone that is working on a big development project. Permissions alone have take years, and now CPRE have stepped in trying to stop it by taking it to the high court. That's another year delay, and a ton of cash paid out to the lawyers, and not a single house started.
V8 Fettler said:
The route to cheaper housing is to fabricate the buildings in factories and build up to approx 20 storeys.
According to this article 70% of the cost is land. Up from 2% before planning constraints were introduced. http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/its-land-stupid/652...
kiethton said:
speedyman said:
Far better to limit land banking by large building companies.
There is fk all land banking by the large house builders really, enough plots to series the next couple of years requirements. There will always be an element of inbuilt land for any developer, schemes can take 10 years to complete (populations in some areas can't sustain the same level of annual sales as others) whilst other land is still in the process of having planning refined/development contracts tendered etc.Land banking was just a millipede slogan that seems to have stuck
We need to stop the cheap populism and focus on what really matters.
Correct me if I'm wrong...
But if you introduce a large number of artificially low priced items into a market won't it lower the overall "market price" by which the government promise these will be by 20% and hence create a iterative feedback loop. Are the government to guarantee the developers a fixed price and end up with a liability?
Why not just build council houses?
But if you introduce a large number of artificially low priced items into a market won't it lower the overall "market price" by which the government promise these will be by 20% and hence create a iterative feedback loop. Are the government to guarantee the developers a fixed price and end up with a liability?
Why not just build council houses?
FredClogs said:
Correct me if I'm wrong...
But if you introduce a large number of artificially low priced items into a market won't it lower the overall "market price" by which the government promise these will be by 20% and hence create a iterative feedback loop. Are the government to guarantee the developers a fixed price and end up with a liability?
Why not just build council houses?
If available to everyone, with no limits, maybe.But if you introduce a large number of artificially low priced items into a market won't it lower the overall "market price" by which the government promise these will be by 20% and hence create a iterative feedback loop. Are the government to guarantee the developers a fixed price and end up with a liability?
Why not just build council houses?
This will be a drop in the ocean.
turbobloke said:
Without single quotes that first sentence would have been something else 
As to being on the side of ordinary workers, why not - Labour have been spouting the same fiction for years.
I think your wrong there, labour aren't necessarily on the side of normals, they just hate success.As to being on the side of ordinary workers, why not - Labour have been spouting the same fiction for years.
98elise said:
Both parties have been in power while we have had this issue.
The answer is build more houses. We have a skewed market at the moment through a lack of supply to meet demand. Tinkering with various schemes, or attacking BTL or house builders will not fix the fact that we don't have enough to go around which ever way you look at it.
If we have enough houses then prices will correct back to a point where a proper market will work. We should be in a situation where those that want to buy can, and those that want rent can. Both markets are pushed up by ever increasing house prices.
I know someone that is working on a big development project. Permissions alone have take years, and now CPRE have stepped in trying to stop it by taking it to the high court. That's another year delay, and a ton of cash paid out to the lawyers, and not a single house started.
And I have a colleague who is tasked with increasing the delivery of social housing in an area of S. London.The answer is build more houses. We have a skewed market at the moment through a lack of supply to meet demand. Tinkering with various schemes, or attacking BTL or house builders will not fix the fact that we don't have enough to go around which ever way you look at it.
If we have enough houses then prices will correct back to a point where a proper market will work. We should be in a situation where those that want to buy can, and those that want rent can. Both markets are pushed up by ever increasing house prices.
I know someone that is working on a big development project. Permissions alone have take years, and now CPRE have stepped in trying to stop it by taking it to the high court. That's another year delay, and a ton of cash paid out to the lawyers, and not a single house started.
The number 1 reason why houses are not being built is the building industry. Why would any rational business flood the market with a product until prices had dropped? They won't. They'll keep drip feeding supply out in order to keep premiums high.
Build costs are also being over egged in their view , and new methods of construction being seen from abroad can cut costs, time and delays whilst still meeting construction standards.
Much as I like the idea of "let the market sort it out", I have the sad duty to inform you that markets only work efficiently if certain pre-conditions exist.
One of them is around how able things are able to adjust. Lack of financing for younger buyers means the market is distorted by those with funds ready to hoover up any new supply.
Also, there's nothing to say the market will produce an outcome that is viewed as "fair" ( awful word, maybe equitable, morally acceptable,reasonable). Markets can find a price where supply equals demand, but also bear in mind there's a lot of political pressure against new development. In the Southern counties, any number of placards can be seen saying "keep our green belt green" or "our village doesn't need 900 new houses". So the cost of increasing supply to the point where it meets demand at a price that is affordable for first time buyers may itself be politically unaffordable.
My view is that some sort of rent control is needed in a targeted manor (controls on purchasing may work but we need more detail), though any btl landlords obviously won't like this, preferring to keep generation rent paying their mortgage. There's political cost here too.
Example, small 3 bed semi over the road, rent £1400 a month. (was re-let last month) My house large 4 bed detatched, mortgage £1200 a month. It just doesn't stack up to me, but I had 30% equity built up over the last decade.
Anyway, ignoring this paltry soundbite coming from cmd, I'd rather the government came up with some realistic policies to rebalance the economy away from the SE/ London, which is exacerbating the problem down here.
Ian
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Err you are missing that providing more social housing isn't necessarily the best criteria for giving planning consent.We need millions more homes and need to have a sensible debate about how to get sufficient supply.
IMO to get planning consent a development should offer a benefit to the local community (who will suffer disruption and loss of green space) and to the local council. If the council is short of social housing then the second criteria would be met by building housing for rent, along with other S106 obligations, but not the first.
This new scheme doesn't necessarily offer an ideal solution either but at least offers a chance of the children of locals being able to buy their own home as a result of the development.
Ian Geary said:
And I have a colleague who is tasked with increasing the delivery of social housing in an area of S. London.
The number 1 reason why houses are not being built is the building industry. Why would any rational business flood the market with a product until prices had dropped? They won't. They'll keep drip feeding supply out in order to keep premiums high.
Build costs are also being over egged in their view , and new methods of construction being seen from abroad can cut costs, time and delays whilst still meeting construction standards.
Much as I like the idea of "let the market sort it out", I have the sad duty to inform you that markets only work efficiently if certain pre-conditions exist.
I don't think anyone has made any such statement as it would of course be a complete nonsense as building is one of the sectors most affected by government intervention.The number 1 reason why houses are not being built is the building industry. Why would any rational business flood the market with a product until prices had dropped? They won't. They'll keep drip feeding supply out in order to keep premiums high.
Build costs are also being over egged in their view , and new methods of construction being seen from abroad can cut costs, time and delays whilst still meeting construction standards.
Much as I like the idea of "let the market sort it out", I have the sad duty to inform you that markets only work efficiently if certain pre-conditions exist.
Government has got us into this mess and government needs to get us out.
If you want to see the free market in operation you have to go back to the 1930s where we built millions of high quality houses in places people wanted to live.
kiethton said:
speedyman said:
Far better to limit land banking by large building companies.
There is fk all land banking by the large house builders really, enough plots to series the next couple of years requirements. There will always be an element of inbuilt land for any developer, schemes can take 10 years to complete (populations in some areas can't sustain the same level of annual sales as others) whilst other land is still in the process of having planning refined/development contracts tendered etc.Land banking was just a millipede slogan that seems to have stuck
If inflation (RPI/CPI) is bad, why is house price inflation good?
Incentives to drive up house prices with a subsidy to a few reasonably well off people isn't going to solve the UK's housing problem. At the risk of repeating myself, Land Value Tax would.
JagLover said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Err you are missing that providing more social housing isn't necessarily the best criteria for giving planning consent.We need millions more homes and need to have a sensible debate about how to get sufficient supply.
IMO to get planning consent a development should offer a benefit to the local community (who will suffer disruption and loss of green space) and to the local council. If the council is short of social housing then the second criteria would be met by building housing for rent, along with other S106 obligations, but not the first.
This new scheme doesn't necessarily offer an ideal solution either but at least offers a chance of the children of locals being able to buy their own home as a result of the development.
It us based on average London house prices, capped at £250k - in reality people on lower incomes and any "starter family" would be purchasing property in the lower quartile
It's based on the minimum wage, in reality most people even doing "minimum wage-esque" jobs are on moderately more
It's based from a 39 hour working week, and part-time working week of 19 hours....working hours near un-heard of outside the public sector
JagLover said:
V8 Fettler said:
The route to cheaper housing is to fabricate the buildings in factories and build up to approx 20 storeys.
According to this article 70% of the cost is land. Up from 2% before planning constraints were introduced. http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/its-land-stupid/652...
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The biggest constraint is the green belt which dates from 1947. That date also marks the start of the concept of a "national" system of planning constraint.Do you have any idea of the difference in value between agricultural land and that which has planning consent?. In a free market system we would have seen similar house building to Spain (not that I am saying this would have been ideal).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff