LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

Jezyboy

Are places over populated or under-served with amenities? Schools, hospitals, GP surgeries and transport being over subscribed is much more of an issue than simple population density.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

DeVlaeminck said:

It's often not rural areas anyway - it's green belt on the edge of the city and its the city dweller that puts up with the increased traffic, pollution, loss of places to walk etc while a different local authority coins in the council tax.

For me much of England is over populated - I'd rather put a brake on population growth than ever increasing urban sprawl.

RJS will be able to provide his map that disproves this again.

Aaaaargh, when will people stop repeating this nonsense?!

Are you stating that it is a fact that people can't feel somewhere is too densely populated?

I don't really like the in between places that are neither rural or urban, so much of the south-east.

People can feel all sorts of things; doesn't make them true. London is objectively a pretty low density city by world standards.

I have no objection to the population density in London where new flats are being built all the time. I do object when something useful to the local community is removed to make way for more flats, but that is often temporary.

But I can also hold that view and respect that someone who chose to live somewhere rural doesn't want it to suddenly become Hong Kong. Of course, no such proposals are that wild, and I am exaggerating to make the point.

Another factor is if you look at somewhere like Seoul. Everyone lives in a flat, so it feels more spacious whilst having an extraordinary number of restaurants. In the UK though, people need houses, and bigger ones.

A controversial view is that if a private sector bedroom tax was introduced everyone would live somewhere comfortable.

TheBigBean

Jezyboy said:

Are places over populated or under-served with amenities? Schools, hospitals, GP surgeries and transport being over subscribed is much more of an issue than simple population density.

My measure is whether the number of cars is annoying. London is fine. SE is bad in a lot of places. You could argue that is a function of public transport.

surrey_commuter

I appreciate that most of you can only read the headlines so worth pointing out that the article refers to greenfield (ie non-developed green in urban areas)

The green belt was an arbitrary post war designation and should be reviewed and made more appropriate.

One example is that one study said you could build 1 million homes on London’s green belt within a 1km walk of a train station.

shirley_basso

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

shirley_basso said:

One possibility is to remove sole ownership stamp duty to near zero and crank up 2nd home stamp, and also charge foreign owners more in taxation.

The main idea being that people who have lots of value in their property aren't disincentivised to keep moving around, keeping the pool of property liquid, but discourages people from using multiple home ownership as a form of income. Now - somehow that has to be squared with rental markets for which there is a demand and need.

It does feel that using property prices and associated bank debt to fuel economic growth is a bit backwards.

now you are talking my language, have a flat rate of 1% on all transactions with no exemptions.

SteveO can dust off his Laffer Curve as I read somewhere that pre-covid property transactions were 30% of the total back in the 1990s before they started jacking up stamp duty.

The whole point of the stamp duty rise was to reduce transactions at the high end and stop them being traded like gold.

But does it matter if they are? So long as it isn't punitive to get on and move up the ladder that's what's important.

Maybe an extra 1% over £2m or something?

elbowloh

There are 400,000 homes already with planning permission that the developers aren't building and holding back.

Just build those and you wouldn't need to build on the greenbelt (not that they need to though).

Pross

elbowloh said:

There are 400,000 homes already with planning permission that the developers aren't building and holding back.

Just build those and you wouldn't need to build on the greenbelt (not that they need to though).

I'd be surprised if they are holding back without good reason. I haven't worked on a site where the developer isn't flogging you to get them on site as soon as possible once they have planning. Future housing need also takes account of committed development I think so will already assume those 400,000 houses are being built and another 400,000 are needed. Biggest issue is where are the labour and materials coming from to build faster?

pblakeney

Pross said:

Biggest issue is where are the labour and materials coming from to build faster?

I don't suppose suggesting importing both will go down well?
If only there was a way that could have been accomplished.....

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

Pross said:

Biggest issue is where are the labour and materials coming from to build faster?

I don't suppose suggesting importing both will go down well?
If only there was a way that could have been accomplished.....

Labour shortages in London construction are already becoming an issue with people unable to just pop over for a few months. Material prices are also inflating sharply.

I must admit I'm sceptical that the latest promise to solve the housing shortage will be any different from all the other promises over the last 10 years.

DeVlaeminck

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

DeVlaeminck said:

It's often not rural areas anyway - it's green belt on the edge of the city and its the city dweller that puts up with the increased traffic, pollution, loss of places to walk etc while a different local authority coins in the council tax.

For me much of England is over populated - I'd rather put a brake on population growth than ever increasing urban sprawl.

RJS will be able to provide his map that disproves this again.

Aaaaargh, when will people stop repeating this nonsense?!

In what way do you think it's nonsense?

DeVlaeminck

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

DeVlaeminck said:

It's often not rural areas anyway - it's green belt on the edge of the city and its the city dweller that puts up with the increased traffic, pollution, loss of places to walk etc while a different local authority coins in the council tax.

For me much of England is over populated - I'd rather put a brake on population growth than ever increasing urban sprawl.

RJS will be able to provide his map that disproves this again.

Aaaaargh, when will people stop repeating this nonsense?!

Are you stating that it is a fact that people can't feel somewhere is too densely populated?

I don't really like the in between places that are neither rural or urban, so much of the south-east.

People can feel all sorts of things; doesn't make them true. London is objectively a pretty low density city by world standards.

But it is still a city - being relatively low density compared to other cities doesn't mean England isn't over populated. It also has a shortage of housing, pollution problems which impact on health, congestion and so on. I've lived in London and if that is the model you are putting forward for the UK it's not one I'd welcome.

Pross

DeVlaeminck said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

DeVlaeminck said:

It's often not rural areas anyway - it's green belt on the edge of the city and its the city dweller that puts up with the increased traffic, pollution, loss of places to walk etc while a different local authority coins in the council tax.

For me much of England is over populated - I'd rather put a brake on population growth than ever increasing urban sprawl.

RJS will be able to provide his map that disproves this again.

Aaaaargh, when will people stop repeating this nonsense?!

Are you stating that it is a fact that people can't feel somewhere is too densely populated?

I don't really like the in between places that are neither rural or urban, so much of the south-east.

People can feel all sorts of things; doesn't make them true. London is objectively a pretty low density city by world standards.

But it is still a city - being relatively low density compared to other cities doesn't mean England isn't over populated. It also has a shortage of housing, pollution problems which impact on health, congestion and so on. I've lived in London and if that is the model you are putting forward for the UK it's not one I'd welcome.

Well exactly so people arguing against building more seems a bit strange or is the argument that new houses should only be built in those areas that already heavily built up and everyone who needs housing should move to them?

If anyone can suggest measures that stop population growth that's another matter but in the meantime we need to provide for the population we have and expect to have in the foreseeable future.

surrey_commuter

elbowloh said:

There are 400,000 homes already with planning permission that the developers aren't building and holding back.

Just build those and you wouldn't need to build on the greenbelt (not that they need to though).

I met somebody who had spent his career working for large developers and this widely accepted “fact”would drive him into fits of rage.

To paraphrase him why would a developer not build the maximum number of houses that it could sell?

morstar

surrey_commuter said:

elbowloh said:

There are 400,000 homes already with planning permission that the developers aren't building and holding back.

Just build those and you wouldn't need to build on the greenbelt (not that they need to though).

I met somebody who had spent his career working for large developers and this widely accepted “fact”would drive him into fits of rage.

To paraphrase him why would a developer not build the maximum number of houses that it could sell?

Whilst I’m not in a position to comment on the rights or wrongs of this specific argument.

There is a commercial case for constrained supply driving higher sales value.

If there are enough houses for everyone, prices will fall (or at least rise at inflationary norms).

However, I agree that a single developer is not going to build enough houses quickly enough to influence this nationwide shortage single handedly.

For me, punitive taxation on empty properties is required. We recognise housing as a necessity and there is a shortfall. If you want to keep an empty property, you should pay for the privilege.

surrey_commuter

morstar said:

surrey_commuter said:

elbowloh said:

There are 400,000 homes already with planning permission that the developers aren't building and holding back.

Just build those and you wouldn't need to build on the greenbelt (not that they need to though).

I met somebody who had spent his career working for large developers and this widely accepted “fact”would drive him into fits of rage.

To paraphrase him why would a developer not build the maximum number of houses that it could sell?

Whilst I’m not in a position to comment on the rights or wrongs of this specific argument.

There is a commercial case for constrained supply driving higher sales value.

If there are enough houses for everyone, prices will fall (or at least rise at inflationary norms).

However, I agree that a single developer is not going to build enough houses quickly enough to influence this nationwide shortage single handedly.

For me, punitive taxation on empty properties is required. We recognise housing as a necessity and there is a shortfall. If you want to keep an empty property, you should pay for the privilege.

The 400,000 is approx double the actual number they have final permission to build. Imagine they have a site of 1,000 houses outside of a market town, they do not have the capacity to simultaneously build and complete all of the units. Even if they did manage to complete them all in a short period of time it would collapse the market which would mean nobody would buy them.

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

elbowloh said:

There are 400,000 homes already with planning permission that the developers aren't building and holding back.

Just build those and you wouldn't need to build on the greenbelt (not that they need to though).

I met somebody who had spent his career working for large developers and this widely accepted “fact”would drive him into fits of rage.

To paraphrase him why would a developer not build the maximum number of houses that it could sell?

There may be lots of houses with planning, but lacking something else e.g. grid connections, sewers, schools

john80

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

DeVlaeminck said:

It's often not rural areas anyway - it's green belt on the edge of the city and its the city dweller that puts up with the increased traffic, pollution, loss of places to walk etc while a different local authority coins in the council tax.

For me much of England is over populated - I'd rather put a brake on population growth than ever increasing urban sprawl.

RJS will be able to provide his map that disproves this again.

Aaaaargh, when will people stop repeating this nonsense?!

Are you stating that it is a fact that people can't feel somewhere is too densely populated?

I don't really like the in between places that are neither rural or urban, so much of the south-east.

People can feel all sorts of things; doesn't make them true. London is objectively a pretty low density city by world standards.

It might be relatively low density however I doubt you will find many takers for their existing houses to be demolished with the promise of a pokey flat in a high rise. There is the rub. People don't want green spaces built on but don't want change in their local area to higher density housing but people need to live somewhere.

Dorset_Boy

surrey_commuter said:

morstar said:

surrey_commuter said:

elbowloh said:

There are 400,000 homes already with planning permission that the developers aren't building and holding back.

Just build those and you wouldn't need to build on the greenbelt (not that they need to though).

I met somebody who had spent his career working for large developers and this widely accepted “fact”would drive him into fits of rage.

To paraphrase him why would a developer not build the maximum number of houses that it could sell?

Whilst I’m not in a position to comment on the rights or wrongs of this specific argument.

There is a commercial case for constrained supply driving higher sales value.

If there are enough houses for everyone, prices will fall (or at least rise at inflationary norms).

However, I agree that a single developer is not going to build enough houses quickly enough to influence this nationwide shortage single handedly.

For me, punitive taxation on empty properties is required. We recognise housing as a necessity and there is a shortfall. If you want to keep an empty property, you should pay for the privilege.

The 400,000 is approx double the actual number they have final permission to build. Imagine they have a site of 1,000 houses outside of a market town, they do not have the capacity to simultaneously build and complete all of the units. Even if they did manage to complete them all in a short period of time it would collapse the market which would mean nobody would buy them.

If the price collapsed, which I assume is what you mean, why would that have a huge negative on demand? Or are you suggesting they are only building homes that are people's 3rd or 4th property purchase, so couldn't sell their existing in order to move?
Would be great for first time buyers though.

rjsterry

DeVlaeminck said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

DeVlaeminck said:

It's often not rural areas anyway - it's green belt on the edge of the city and its the city dweller that puts up with the increased traffic, pollution, loss of places to walk etc while a different local authority coins in the council tax.

For me much of England is over populated - I'd rather put a brake on population growth than ever increasing urban sprawl.

RJS will be able to provide his map that disproves this again.

Aaaaargh, when will people stop repeating this nonsense?!

Are you stating that it is a fact that people can't feel somewhere is too densely populated?

I don't really like the in between places that are neither rural or urban, so much of the south-east.

People can feel all sorts of things; doesn't make them true. London is objectively a pretty low density city by world standards.

But it is still a city - being relatively low density compared to other cities doesn't mean England isn't over populated. It also has a shortage of housing, pollution problems which impact on health, congestion and so on. I've lived in London and if that is the model you are putting forward for the UK it's not one I'd welcome.

You are just setting some arbitrary population density that you think is 'right', without looking at how population varies wildly across the country. Various things that you find in cities *need* that higher density in order to make them work. Things like good public transport, even mains sewerage aren't viable if you spread everyone out evenly. Concentrating people in urban or suburban areas also means that the vast majority of land is left as countryside. If we spread everyone out evenly, there would be more pollution and congestion spread over a larger area, not less.

shirley_basso

john80 said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

DeVlaeminck said:

It's often not rural areas anyway - it's green belt on the edge of the city and its the city dweller that puts up with the increased traffic, pollution, loss of places to walk etc while a different local authority coins in the council tax.

For me much of England is over populated - I'd rather put a brake on population growth than ever increasing urban sprawl.

RJS will be able to provide his map that disproves this again.

Aaaaargh, when will people stop repeating this nonsense?!

Are you stating that it is a fact that people can't feel somewhere is too densely populated?

I don't really like the in between places that are neither rural or urban, so much of the south-east.

People can feel all sorts of things; doesn't make them true. London is objectively a pretty low density city by world standards.

It might be relatively low density however I doubt you will find many takers for their existing houses to be demolished with the promise of a pokey flat in a high rise. There is the rub. People don't want green spaces built on but don't want change in their local area to higher density housing but people need to live somewhere.

These people sound like NIMBY ***** to me

rick_chasey

Wehay!

rjsterry

morstar said:

surrey_commuter said:

elbowloh said:

There are 400,000 homes already with planning permission that the developers aren't building and holding back.

Just build those and you wouldn't need to build on the greenbelt (not that they need to though).

I met somebody who had spent his career working for large developers and this widely accepted “fact”would drive him into fits of rage.

To paraphrase him why would a developer not build the maximum number of houses that it could sell?

Whilst I’m not in a position to comment on the rights or wrongs of this specific argument.

There is a commercial case for constrained supply driving higher sales value.

If there are enough houses for everyone, prices will fall (or at least rise at inflationary norms).

However, I agree that a single developer is not going to build enough houses quickly enough to influence this nationwide shortage single handedly.

For me, punitive taxation on empty properties is required. We recognise housing as a necessity and there is a shortfall. If you want to keep an empty property, you should pay for the privilege.

There are only shortfalls in specific areas, primarily where there is higher demand for social housing. That capacity then gets pushed into private rental and bumps everyone's costs up. This in turn encourages those at the top to start thinking of their property primarily as an asset rather than a home.

In the last year, I've worked on the redevelopment of two houses in Hackney. They were both derelict and had been for years, but owners were hanging on for the 'right' price. Hackney Council is crying out for more housing, but have taken 6 months to consider one planning application so far and initially requested a large S106 payment as part of the application that would have made the project commercially unviable.

shirley_basso

I guess councils need those S106 payments more than ever seeing as they are now decentralised.

rjsterry

Sure, but if they kill off the development that they desperately need, they get no money AND no development.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

Sure, but if they kill off the development that they desperately need, they get no money AND no development.

Nor does the landowner who could drop the price to make it viable.

surrey_commuter

Dorset_Boy said:

surrey_commuter said:

morstar said:

surrey_commuter said:

elbowloh said:

There are 400,000 homes already with planning permission that the developers aren't building and holding back.

Just build those and you wouldn't need to build on the greenbelt (not that they need to though).

I met somebody who had spent his career working for large developers and this widely accepted “fact”would drive him into fits of rage.

To paraphrase him why would a developer not build the maximum number of houses that it could sell?

Whilst I’m not in a position to comment on the rights or wrongs of this specific argument.

There is a commercial case for constrained supply driving higher sales value.

If there are enough houses for everyone, prices will fall (or at least rise at inflationary norms).

However, I agree that a single developer is not going to build enough houses quickly enough to influence this nationwide shortage single handedly.

For me, punitive taxation on empty properties is required. We recognise housing as a necessity and there is a shortfall. If you want to keep an empty property, you should pay for the privilege.

The 400,000 is approx double the actual number they have final permission to build. Imagine they have a site of 1,000 houses outside of a market town, they do not have the capacity to simultaneously build and complete all of the units. Even if they did manage to complete them all in a short period of time it would collapse the market which would mean nobody would buy them.

If the price collapsed, which I assume is what you mean, why would that have a huge negative on demand? Or are you suggesting they are only building homes that are people's 3rd or 4th property purchase, so couldn't sell their existing in order to move?
Would be great for first time buyers though.

You are working on a sample size of one that would buy an illiquid asset falling in value

Don't you think that 99% of the population would leave it a year and buy it cheaper?

morstar

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

surrey_commuter said:

elbowloh said:

There are 400,000 homes already with planning permission that the developers aren't building and holding back.

Just build those and you wouldn't need to build on the greenbelt (not that they need to though).

I met somebody who had spent his career working for large developers and this widely accepted “fact”would drive him into fits of rage.

To paraphrase him why would a developer not build the maximum number of houses that it could sell?

Whilst I’m not in a position to comment on the rights or wrongs of this specific argument.

There is a commercial case for constrained supply driving higher sales value.

If there are enough houses for everyone, prices will fall (or at least rise at inflationary norms).

However, I agree that a single developer is not going to build enough houses quickly enough to influence this nationwide shortage single handedly.

For me, punitive taxation on empty properties is required. We recognise housing as a necessity and there is a shortfall. If you want to keep an empty property, you should pay for the privilege.

There are only shortfalls in specific areas, primarily where there is higher demand for social housing. That capacity then gets pushed into private rental and bumps everyone's costs up. This in turn encourages those at the top to start thinking of their property primarily as an asset rather than a home.

In the last year, I've worked on the redevelopment of two houses in Hackney. They were both derelict and had been for years, but owners were hanging on for the 'right' price. Hackney Council is crying out for more housing, but have taken 6 months to consider one planning application so far and initially requested a large S106 payment as part of the application that would have made the project commercially unviable.

I am genuinely surprised you think there are only shortfalls in certain areas.
I’d have though most of the country is under supplied.

But yes, I agree the housing model is broken and do believe in the government’s responsibility to legislate for the benefit of all and not just those sitting on high value assets.

The government supplies the bottom of the end of the market with housing benefit so has both an interest and a responsibility to manage negative behaviours at the top that manipulate values.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

elbowloh said:

There are 400,000 homes already with planning permission that the developers aren't building and holding back.

Just build those and you wouldn't need to build on the greenbelt (not that they need to though).

I met somebody who had spent his career working for large developers and this widely accepted “fact”would drive him into fits of rage.

To paraphrase him why would a developer not build the maximum number of houses that it could sell?

There may be lots of houses with planning, but lacking something else e.g. grid connections, sewers, schools

exactly, but these are all in the 400,000 which allows the Govt and LA to blame the developers

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

elbowloh said:

There are 400,000 homes already with planning permission that the developers aren't building and holding back.

Just build those and you wouldn't need to build on the greenbelt (not that they need to though).

I met somebody who had spent his career working for large developers and this widely accepted “fact”would drive him into fits of rage.

To paraphrase him why would a developer not build the maximum number of houses that it could sell?

There may be lots of houses with planning, but lacking something else e.g. grid connections, sewers, schools

exactly, but these are all in the 400,000 which allows the Govt and LA to blame the developers

Quite. I'm just saying that there may be 400,000 houses with planning, but that is a long way from 400,000 "shovel ready"* houses.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Sure, but if they kill off the development that they desperately need, they get no money AND no development.

Nor does the landowner who could drop the price to make it viable.

Yes, but difficult to blame people if waiting another year bags you another £50k. Expecting people to sell for below market rate for the public good is a bit optimistic.