Just been on Andrew Marr promising British homes for British people. Sound familiar?
In context, she was pointing out the problem of wealthy foreign home owners pushing up prices and causing ownership and rental problems for the people who live and work in the UK. I believe Osborne et al. have also bemoaned this problem.
Just been on Andrew Marr promising British homes for British people. Sound familiar?
She said that the government would not be building them but private builders with land banks and permission to build would be made to build or lose their permission.
The courts and lawyers will see this as a bonanza.
I am not sure how this draconian unworkable measure will result in more homes.
In context, she was pointing out the problem of wealthy foreign home owners pushing up prices and causing ownership and rental problems for the people who live and work in the UK. I believe Osborne et al. have also bemoaned this problem.
House prices have not yet recovered to their 2008 levels except in London and one or two other cities. In most parts they are still well below 2008 levels.
She said that the government would not be building them but private builders with land banks and permission to build would be made to build or lose their permission.
The courts and lawyers will see this as a bonanza.
I am not sure how this draconian unworkable measure will result in more homes.
I believe in Germany a lot of housing is rented, there organisations such as pension funds build them and rent them out at reasonable rates,i do not see why we cannot do that here,there pension funds see housing as a long term viable investment, they can rent out reasonably cheaper rather then high rents we seem to have here.
I always though when builders here got permission to build that ordinarily would time expire if that permission was not utilised,the housing market we have here is a basket case anyway.
She said that the government would not be building them but private builders with land banks and permission to build would be made to build or lose their permission.
The courts and lawyers will see this as a bonanza.
I am not sure how this draconian unworkable measure will result in more homes.
Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems fairly self-explanatory: you have been granted planning permission to build x number of homes on the land you own - use that planning permission to build homes, otherwise we will revoke it.
Land without planning permission is worth much less. Most people will be buying land with the intention of making a profit, so it would be in their best interests to build the properties before the permission is revoked, or sell it to someone who will. Either way, the most sensible option will be for landowners to build the properties they received permission for, rather than hoping to sit on the land until property values increase their profits further.
I believe in Germany a lot of housing is rented, there organisations such as pension funds build them and rent them out at reasonable rates,i do not see why we cannot do that here,there pension funds see housing as a long term viable investment, they can rent out reasonably cheaper rather then high rents we seem to have here.
I always though when builders here got permission to build that ordinarily would time expire if that permission was not utilised,the housing market we have here is a basket case anyway.
The simple fact is that we need a combination of rent controls and more social housing in this country.
I fervently believe that housing is far too important to be treated as a speculative commodity; just look at what this has done to our economy over the last 20 years or so. I wonder if there were punitive taxes in place for 'flippers' combined with Continental style rights for tenants, it would stabilise the housing market and make renting and buying more affordable, without the need for government subsidies.
I believe in Germany a lot of housing is rented, there organisations such as pension funds build them and rent them out at reasonable rates,i do not see why we cannot do that here,there pension funds see housing as a long term viable investment, they can rent out reasonably cheaper rather then high rents we seem to have here.
I always though when builders here got permission to build that ordinarily would time expire if that permission was not utilised,the housing market we have here is a basket case anyway.
The German system sounds to be eminently sensible practical and workable. But Germany started from a different base, for a start their cities had been flattened by bombing and Germany was under the control of other nations.
You cannot force builders to build. They are businesses and will only build if they think that they can sell. And you can't dictate to them what to build. Assuming that all who have permission start building tomorrow and people then snap up their homes how would that help people who want social housing and do not want to buy or who cannot afford to buy?
Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems fairly self-explanatory: you have been granted planning permission to build x number of homes on the land you own - use that planning permission to build homes, otherwise we will revoke it.
Land without planning permission is worth much less. Most people will be buying land with the intention of making a profit, so it would be in their best interests to build the properties before the permission is revoked, or sell it to someone who will. Either way, the most sensible option will be for landowners to build the properties they received permission for, rather than hoping to sit on the land until property values increase their profits further.
Who is the "we" in your post?
Planning permission comes from local not central government. The local authority decides not Whitehall.
Or do you want a Stalinist system with all control from the centre?
You cannot force people to build. They are the ones who bought the land and will be funding the building. You cannot dictate what they do and when and how they do it.
I believe in Germany a lot of housing is rented, there organisations such as pension funds build them and rent them out at reasonable rates,i do not see why we cannot do that here,there pension funds see housing as a long term viable investment, they can rent out reasonably cheaper rather then high rents we seem to have here.
I always though when builders here got permission to build that ordinarily would time expire if that permission was not utilised,the housing market we have here is a basket case anyway.
The population density of Germany is half what it is in England, France is a quarter, so land prices are not at a premium over there.
One reason for the huge price boom in London is foreign buyers. For example 3/4 of the thousands of private sale properties being built in Elephant & Castle to replace the Heygate Estate have already been sold off plan to foreign investors, mostly in Asia.
We need to put something in place in areas such as London where the market is overcooking, that only people residing in the UK and using the UK as their tax base, can buy properties here (bar in the luxury end of the market)
We need to put something in place in areas such as London where the market is overcooking, that only people residing in the UK and using the UK as their tax base, can buy properties here (bar in the luxury end of the market)
In most cases the property is owned by an off-shore company - so any law changes would have to address that
Planning permission comes from local not central government. The local authority decides not Whitehall.
Developers can appeal to the Planning Inspectorate if planning permission is refused. In some cases it's the Minister who decides if permission is given or not.
The simple fact is that we need a combination of rent controls and more social housing in this country.
I fervently believe that housing is far too important to be treated as a speculative commodity; just look at what this has done to our economy over the last 20 years or so. I wonder if there were punitive taxes in place for 'flippers' combined with Continental style rights for tenants, it would stabilise the housing market and make renting and buying more affordable, without the need for government subsidies.
Agree totally.
The German model of long term rented housing as a vehicle for pension funds is certainly worth exploring. I would rather rent a home this way than some speculative landlord who could market his or her house at a whim.
These new properties being marketed to Asian buyers 'with no social housing' - why are they not marketed at UK citizens first (or even EU citizens)? Local people should be prioritised over foreign buyers.
Max Keiser on RT last week about Chinese investing in UK real estate than other vehicles. The only tax they would pay is council tax (a few thousand dollars a year) whereas elsewhere it could be the equivilent of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Barely a scratch to the Chinese investor.
You cannot force people to build. They are the ones who bought the land and will be funding the building. You cannot dictate what they do and when and how they do it.
You can force them, and very easily.
Simply change the tax laws to include proposed housing within council tax rates.
Thus if a company wants to hold onto land with 500 home planning on it, they will be paying full council tax on those 500 homes for the duration.
They either build or lose all potential profits from the project.
The major builders are sitting on landbanks with planning for half a million homes between them.
We have a housing crisis.
Its time to sort it. They are either part of the solution or a significant part of the problem, either way it needs dealing with.
Of course, the house builders association members have donated over £3 million to the tory party this year alone (about 3 months before 'help to buy' was announced not so coincidentally.
So I suspect the answer will be again blame the poor for something to distract people whilst handing housebuilders a billion or so of tax payers money.
Developers can appeal to the Planning Inspectorate if planning permission is refused. In some cases it's the Minister who decides if permission is given or not.
True but in general it is the local authority which decides.
Simply change the tax laws to include proposed housing within council tax rates.
Thus if a company wants to hold onto land with 500 home planning on it, they will be paying full council tax on those 500 homes for the duration.
They either build or lose all potential profits from the project.
The major builders are sitting on landbanks with planning for half a million homes between them.
We have a housing crisis.
Its time to sort it. They are either part of the solution or a significant part of the problem, either way it needs dealing with.
Of course, the house builders association members have donated over £3 million to the tory party this year alone (about 3 months before 'help to buy' was announced not so coincidentally.
So I suspect the answer will be again blame the poor for something to distract people whilst handing housebuilders a billion or so of tax payers money.
Well developers could then regard that as a business cost and just add the cost to them onto the price of the house when it sells.
Few if any homes were built 1997 - 2010. Why not?
More are being built now.
And of course millions of immigrants are now here so naturally there is more demand for homes and schools?
Planning permission comes from local not central government. The local authority decides not Whitehall.
Or do you want a Stalinist system with all control from the centre?
You cannot force people to build. They are the ones who bought the land and will be funding the building. You cannot dictate what they do and when and how they do it.
So if central government makes a decision to encourage/discourage particular forms of land use that means we have a Stalinist system?
If planning permission is refused, isn't that dictating what people can't do with their land?
So if central government makes a decision to encourage/discourage particular forms of land use that means we have a Stalinist system?
If planning permission is refused, isn't that dictating what people can't do with their land?
No because Planning Committees do not make individual decisions, they act as a voice for the local community as well as acting within the law. The people make the decision in other words via people they have elected.
The simple fact is that we need a combination of rent controls and more social housing in this country.
I fervently believe that housing is far too important to be treated as a speculative commodity; just look at what this has done to our economy over the last 20 years or so. I wonder if there were punitive taxes in place for 'flippers' combined with Continental style rights for tenants, it would stabilise the housing market and make renting and buying more affordable, without the need for government subsidies.
The population density of Germany is half what it is in England, France is a quarter, so land prices are not at a premium over there.
Yes thats a fair point but also in the Thatcher years Housing was treated as a money box with bricks,lots of reasonably affordable housing sold off lots of ex-council housing in my Town is turned into Buy to Let at treble rents ,Rent controls abandoned as the free market was going to solve everything. No replacing of sold affordable housing stock
Of course it was not just her Blair and Brown built damm all also.
And now lots of property is being sold off plan to investors cutting the UK resident out altogether .
The uk Housing market is a complete basket case it will take a brave suicidal politician to sort it out.>:(
No because Planning Committees do not make individual decisions, they act as a voice for the local community as well as acting within the law. The people make the decision in other words via people they have elected.
I'm not sure what that has to do with this proposal. If someone buys land and is given permission to build houses on the basis that there is a shortage of housing in the area, then refuses to build properties because they are not happy with the potential profit they will make, the local council should have the ability to revoke the planning permission. The ability to do so can be granted to local councils by central government, if you like.
I would assume that if local people had played a part in allowing planning permission to be granted on land in their area, they would be quite happy for that permission to be revoked if they did not in fact end up with the properties they were expecting to be built.
Will there be roads, schools, hospitals, power stations, sewage works, transport infrastructure for British people as well, or is it just houses?
Isn't any of this stuff dealt with during the planning application process? Labour aren't going to demand that everyone who owns a bit grass build a house on it, they are simply aiming to encourage those who have been given planning permission already to 'use it or lose it'.
So let's say the "Use it or lose it" policy is implemented by a shiny new Labour government. What will they do to entice alternative developers to buy and build asap?
So let's say the "Use it or lose it" policy is implemented by a shiny new Labour government. What will they do to entice alternative developers to buy and build asap?
It would mean that large companies could not have bank land without the risk of having to sell quickly or at a loss - and if somewhere has already had a valid planning application it would be hard for a planning committee not to grant planning permission for a new application.
Comments
In context, she was pointing out the problem of wealthy foreign home owners pushing up prices and causing ownership and rental problems for the people who live and work in the UK. I believe Osborne et al. have also bemoaned this problem.
She said that the government would not be building them but private builders with land banks and permission to build would be made to build or lose their permission.
The courts and lawyers will see this as a bonanza.
I am not sure how this draconian unworkable measure will result in more homes.
House prices have not yet recovered to their 2008 levels except in London and one or two other cities. In most parts they are still well below 2008 levels.
I believe in Germany a lot of housing is rented, there organisations such as pension funds build them and rent them out at reasonable rates,i do not see why we cannot do that here,there pension funds see housing as a long term viable investment, they can rent out reasonably cheaper rather then high rents we seem to have here.
I always though when builders here got permission to build that ordinarily would time expire if that permission was not utilised,the housing market we have here is a basket case anyway.
Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems fairly self-explanatory: you have been granted planning permission to build x number of homes on the land you own - use that planning permission to build homes, otherwise we will revoke it.
Land without planning permission is worth much less. Most people will be buying land with the intention of making a profit, so it would be in their best interests to build the properties before the permission is revoked, or sell it to someone who will. Either way, the most sensible option will be for landowners to build the properties they received permission for, rather than hoping to sit on the land until property values increase their profits further.
The simple fact is that we need a combination of rent controls and more social housing in this country.
I fervently believe that housing is far too important to be treated as a speculative commodity; just look at what this has done to our economy over the last 20 years or so. I wonder if there were punitive taxes in place for 'flippers' combined with Continental style rights for tenants, it would stabilise the housing market and make renting and buying more affordable, without the need for government subsidies.
The German system sounds to be eminently sensible practical and workable. But Germany started from a different base, for a start their cities had been flattened by bombing and Germany was under the control of other nations.
You cannot force builders to build. They are businesses and will only build if they think that they can sell. And you can't dictate to them what to build. Assuming that all who have permission start building tomorrow and people then snap up their homes how would that help people who want social housing and do not want to buy or who cannot afford to buy?
Who is the "we" in your post?
Planning permission comes from local not central government. The local authority decides not Whitehall.
Or do you want a Stalinist system with all control from the centre?
You cannot force people to build. They are the ones who bought the land and will be funding the building. You cannot dictate what they do and when and how they do it.
The population density of Germany is half what it is in England, France is a quarter, so land prices are not at a premium over there.
We need to put something in place in areas such as London where the market is overcooking, that only people residing in the UK and using the UK as their tax base, can buy properties here (bar in the luxury end of the market)
Agree totally.
The German model of long term rented housing as a vehicle for pension funds is certainly worth exploring. I would rather rent a home this way than some speculative landlord who could market his or her house at a whim.
These new properties being marketed to Asian buyers 'with no social housing' - why are they not marketed at UK citizens first (or even EU citizens)? Local people should be prioritised over foreign buyers.
Max Keiser on RT last week about Chinese investing in UK real estate than other vehicles. The only tax they would pay is council tax (a few thousand dollars a year) whereas elsewhere it could be the equivilent of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Barely a scratch to the Chinese investor.
You can force them, and very easily.
Simply change the tax laws to include proposed housing within council tax rates.
Thus if a company wants to hold onto land with 500 home planning on it, they will be paying full council tax on those 500 homes for the duration.
They either build or lose all potential profits from the project.
The major builders are sitting on landbanks with planning for half a million homes between them.
We have a housing crisis.
Its time to sort it. They are either part of the solution or a significant part of the problem, either way it needs dealing with.
Of course, the house builders association members have donated over £3 million to the tory party this year alone (about 3 months before 'help to buy' was announced not so coincidentally.
So I suspect the answer will be again blame the poor for something to distract people whilst handing housebuilders a billion or so of tax payers money.
True but in general it is the local authority which decides.
Well developers could then regard that as a business cost and just add the cost to them onto the price of the house when it sells.
Few if any homes were built 1997 - 2010. Why not?
More are being built now.
And of course millions of immigrants are now here so naturally there is more demand for homes and schools?
So if central government makes a decision to encourage/discourage particular forms of land use that means we have a Stalinist system?
If planning permission is refused, isn't that dictating what people can't do with their land?
No because Planning Committees do not make individual decisions, they act as a voice for the local community as well as acting within the law. The people make the decision in other words via people they have elected.
Yes i agree with you 100% Biffo.:)
Yes thats a fair point but also in the Thatcher years Housing was treated as a money box with bricks,lots of reasonably affordable housing sold off lots of ex-council housing in my Town is turned into Buy to Let at treble rents ,Rent controls abandoned as the free market was going to solve everything. No replacing of sold affordable housing stock
Of course it was not just her Blair and Brown built damm all also.
And now lots of property is being sold off plan to investors cutting the UK resident out altogether .
The uk Housing market is a complete basket case it will take a brave suicidal politician to sort it out.>:(
I'm not sure what that has to do with this proposal. If someone buys land and is given permission to build houses on the basis that there is a shortage of housing in the area, then refuses to build properties because they are not happy with the potential profit they will make, the local council should have the ability to revoke the planning permission. The ability to do so can be granted to local councils by central government, if you like.
I would assume that if local people had played a part in allowing planning permission to be granted on land in their area, they would be quite happy for that permission to be revoked if they did not in fact end up with the properties they were expecting to be built.
Isn't any of this stuff dealt with during the planning application process? Labour aren't going to demand that everyone who owns a bit grass build a house on it, they are simply aiming to encourage those who have been given planning permission already to 'use it or lose it'.