Monday, Aug 09, 2010
Nimbies Face a Loosing Battle
Telegraph: Councils to get bonuses for approving new homes
Town halls which approve new homes will qualify for cash bonuses from central Government.
At last it looks as though something is being done to address the shortage of housing being built.
Lets remember that each new house built is a REAL injectoion of cash into that local economy. Particularly when Small Developers and Self Builders have a look in.
Posted by str 2007 @ 09:55 AM (1083 views) Add Comment
16 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. mark wadsworth said...
It's an interesting battle between Shapps, who is not completely clueless, and the fat one at DCLG who wants no houses built whatsoever. Justine Greening and Greg Clark are also very much in the Home-Owner-Ist camp, so Shapps is pretty much outnumbered there.
2. mark said...
I welcome this, so long as the housing is of good quality, much better than supermarkets being built around you
3. peter said...
This is all very odd.
The govmint wants to keep house prices unaffordable by having interest rates at 0.5% and stopping repossessions etc.
But also the govmint wants more affordable housing to be built. Which will mean lower prices.
Where is the logic in any of this?
4. Sj032 said...
Peter, the words logic and government should rarely be used in the same paragraph. Give up the search.
The issue here, from my perspective at least, is that we have here another example of the government infringing on the market. Surely, by offering such incentives there is a risk that these councils will overproduce. One may initially think that there can me no such thing as an overproduction in housing, but I would disagree. Such arguments which initially come to mind are hosing being built on land which is being currently used for other purposes, possibly as playgrounds or general greenery in Urban areas. Areas may develop where there are a large number of low quality housing, or housing which in now benefiting from the proximity of green space will be forced to look further out as their community become a cement factory.
Generally, the more I think about this the list could stretch on and on. Why does government insist on playing with this market so much?? It very rarely brings any good to the situation ever.
J
5. Keith said...
I suspect the government can see that lower house prices would be good for the economy and give young people aspiration and motivation. They also know building houses will create jobs.
On the other hand they do not want to upset home owners or devalue the Banks balance sheets. I think that things are going in the right direction.
We now / are going to have:
Increased CGT on BTL
Lower housing benifit payments
Increased house building?
Higher intrest rates (they can only go up)
Lower overpaid state employment
Ageing population requiring smaller housing which costs less to run (less fuel)
Lower LTV
Looks like death by a thousand cuts, the oposite of Labours incremntal home ownerist approach.
(Excuse the poor spelling & punctuation)
6. str 2007 said...
peter
I guess it's a fine balancing act.
It seems that most mortgaged hoseholds are currently hundreds of pounds a month better off without good reason , so I share your concerns.
The government need to be seen to be doing something - this one's a bit subtle for the general public IMO and I can't quite believe it's to satisfy us lot here.
Will this new incentive be enough to make councils take the bait and start building more ?
Time will tell I guess, but if they were to have an extra hundred or so houses more in each town across the country than owuld have been planned it will only help the economy.
Bear in mind the process of planningand then actually starting to build. The benefits of this (should it work) will only start to be seen in 2-3 years at the earliest.
Maybe this is a ploy to keep house prices restrained once they have retraced 20% or so.
The government can't be seen to bring house prices down on purpose, but it currently looks as though they're stalling resently and there is another story floating around today about the rate of inflation - maybe to saften the general public up to the idea of interest rate rises.
Who knows, I'd be interested to see more details on this story though and feedback as to whether these measures would indeed incentivise councils to allow more building.
Supply and demand and all that - this has the potential to be a key ingredient.
Mar W
Who's the fat one at DCLG ?
And from your political stand point, is this enough of an incentive ? I believe they have to spend the money in the community (playgrounds etc.) rather than council workers wage increases and pension pots.
7. mark wadsworth said...
Mark, what's wrong with supermarkets, or factories, or power stations or houses? It's all good, and if you would rather pay over the odds for slower service in a village shop with inconvenient opening hours, then just move somewhere else.
Peter, no logic. It's completely self-contradictory. Same as under Labour.
STR2007, as to "incentivising councils" it is nigh impossible to pluck a figure out of the air that will lead to an optimal outcome - if it is "too high" we will get too many new houses where we don't need them and if it is "too low" then we are no futher forward (and we still tend to get more houses where we don't need them). In any event, central government grants to local councils are already dished out on a per capita basis (subject to loads of fiddling and tweaking), so there is no particular disincentive to allowing new houses to be built.
Land Value Tax would sort all this out much better. The fat one is the fat one, his name rhymes with "stickles".
8. Ringing Roger said...
This supposed incentive to build more homes will typically provide councils with less central government investment than the recently axed Housing and Planning Delivery Grant.
9. mark said...
MW whats wrong with supermarkets you mean you don't know?
Lets see they take choice away, they screw farmers and producers, they grow some of our food on ships as it comes in from china, they are just profit machines. Because they don't like to sell low profit items our choice is taken away, for example marmite rice cakes no longer sold in asda..
I would much rather support my local farmer and producers, than support someone in china with poor quality control.
10. Charlie Brooker said...
How corrupt.
Applications will no longer be considered on the basis of their merit but how much can be trousered.
11. charlie brooker said...
How corrupt.
Applications will no longer be considered solely on the basis of their merit but on how much can be trousered.
12. str 2007 said...
Charlie Booker
I guess you mean that large developers would have a monopoly over small developers.
Yes that would be a problem (to me) but if that's what it takes to get the numbers up to keep overall house price inflation down.
Personally I'd much rather have a ready supply of plots that are replenished as they are bought and developed.
It's my opinion you should be able to go to any town or village and have the choice of buying existing or building new.
The buuilding new option would always be a small boost to any local economy.
Providing this was the case and the biggest development was for say 6 houses then this would keep the small builders busy and thriving.
Once the BIG boys start developments of hundreds of houses then materials will come from wherever (even abroad) they can be sourced the cheapest) which doesn't benefit the local economy to the same extent.
Mind you hundreds of new fmilies moving in may help baance the books.
13. mark said...
charlie without naming people or companies our local council has always taken backhanders with planning apps, the difference now is the council will get the cash rather than the planning officers etc,
14. sureseam said...
Mark @9: SPOT ON.
Thank you for beating me to it. Either we live in the same area or this is pretty endemic.
15. mark said...
sureseam @14
cheshire
16. Crunchy said...
mark
I can't see how anyone could disagree with you, given more time.