Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Timm

Decentralisation And Localism Bill

Recommended Posts

Planning committees often try to get a mix of "affordable housing" into bourgie developments, but they can't go beyond what the developer will agree too; most developers will pitch in the minimum amount of affordable housing into a development to get PP, and then move heaven & earth to avoid building it.

Don't section 106 agreements require either a certain amount of "affordable" housing or payment in lieu of such?

I think this is the case for new build of more than 15 units.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't section 106 agreements require either a certain amount of "affordable" housing or payment in lieu of such?

Yep. Sometimes wriggled out of by the less scrupulous developers though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. Not how it works. People apply for specific planning permissions for what they wish to build; planners don;t spontaneously decide on what has to be built where. They can't command that houses of a certain size be built if no-one wants to actually build them there

Erm Mal,

There are density guidelines, if you refuse to abide by the density guidelines you don't get planning permission.

Currently they are very high density guidelines that is why you can't build a mansion in the middle of a city anymore, instead we get new build apartments.

So yes the planners do dictate the what gets built where and they also get to approve or disapprove of the 'look'. If you are called Prince Charles you can build Poundbury, if not you build luxury apartments.

They just say no until you do what they want. Pretty simple init?

Planning committees often try to get a mix of "affordable housing" into bourgie developments, but they can't go beyond what the developer will agree too; most developers will pitch in the minimum amount of affordable housing into a development to get PP, and then move heaven & earth to avoid building it.

Agree completely.

If they refused to allow any development that wasn't 'affordable' then the only things that would be built would be... Affordable housing...

Instead the restriction of land for building and easy credit drives up the cost of land to insane levels and the insistence that developers build 6 'affordable' homes in their development is a token gesture by both sides. Neither of them care really as the council rakes it in from the elevated land costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they refused to allow any development that wasn't 'affordable' then the only things that would be built would be... Affordable housing...

Instead the restriction of land for building and easy credit drives up the cost of land to insane levels and the insistence that developers build 6 'affordable' homes in their development is a token gesture by both sides. Neither of them care really as the council rakes it in from the elevated land costs.

Affordable's got nothing to do with the selling price of the property being built. It's code for "how many properties are you going to build that you give to us for free (or heavily subsidised)". If you insist on 100% affordable, you will get 100% of nothing.

tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Affordable's got nothing to do with the selling price of the property being built. It's code for "how many properties are you going to build that you give to us for free (or heavily subsidised)". If you insist on 100% affordable, you will get 100% of nothing.

tim

There was a model doing the rounds a couple of years ago that councils used to evaluate new build proposals. It assumed a 17% (or thereabouts) profit margin for the developer and still stipulated generous contributions to affordable housing.

It isn't hard to figure out that the sucker in this arrangement is the buyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will probably make it more difficult to build homes since 'local communities' are more likely to be opposed to new housing development than planners are.

Form/found Your own one then.

How many people are needed for a "local community"? I guess minimum 2 so your good self and GF/missus (if you have one) would qualify as "local community".

If the formal degree of "localness" is not/will not be written in law I expect many people to follow this route.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So local housing trusts get a fast-track option, but the rest of us have to go the old-fashioned slow way? Who wants to take a wager that these housing trusts aren't infiltrated by the likes of Persimmon and Barrats?

That is the point.

A 'local housing trust' is an organisiation managed by the council, but with the financial backing of a home builder, whose aim is to provide new social housing.

In other word, an LHT is a joint venture between the local council and a builder to provide low-cost, council housing. The idea is that the council would own (a share of) their social housing stock, rather than rely on private landlords. In essence, the LHTs are a reincarnation of the old 'local housing companies'.

The idea is that if a council has a severe shortage of social housing, and requires more - then it enables the council to bypass the normal planning requirements, if the plan for the new estate is in keeping with the councils long term development plan for the region, and the council can demonstrate substantial public support for the idea. As planning enquiries can be slow and expensive, particularly if land is short, this is a useful method to get low-cost housing under construction as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the German way is more like: You have the right to build house of size x provided you own a plot of land of size y.

Where x and y are variables designed to keep densities a sane levels.

No neighbour is going to support someone else erecting a structure that blocks their view of the golf course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the German way is more like: You have the right to build house of size x provided you own a plot of land of size y.

Where x and y are variables designed to keep densities a sane levels.

No neighbour is going to support someone else erecting a structure that blocks their view of the golf course.

Which begs the question, what's a "sane" level? If the nimbys don't want their precious green fields built on, and don't want over-large gardens on existing houses built on either (garden grabbing, or more efficient use of the existing built environment and infrastructure, take your pick), developers are left wondering where on earth are they allowed to build? I'm afraid the Government's "local accountability" claim, to keep the nimbys happy, is just non-viable: in my experience sitting on a parish council planning committee, no "local" person *ever* wants a new house to be built anywhere near them. Oh-so-worthy "local opinion" is nearly always I'm-all-right-jack.

The only thing to be said for the current planning system and the appeals inspectorate was that they do provide some relatively objective basis for deciding where houses should be built and to what densities and styles. The figures of course have been manipulated to the nth degree by Labour, to ensure they got council houses (aka affordable homes for the beneficiaries of the client state) on the cheap, paid for by de-factor profit control on developers (telling them they could only ever make 17% profit margin, whilst also bearing all the risk of house prices falling and ever-increasing "zero carbon" build costs) and by high prices charged to private buyers. It's got to the ridiculous state where some councils are demanding that 50% of the houses should be "affordable", which meant the developer has to burden the remaining private houses with twice their share of the land costs, the development costs, the S106 taxes and so on. Not surprisingly, with the fall in house prices and the lack of mortgage financing, there has been a collapse in private sector housebuilding because the planning system plus the taxes often make the whole game unaffordable.

At least the Government is trying with this idea of local housing trusts. As a developer I might be interested in working with local self-builders and parish councils if it simplified the planning system and gave me an interesting experience of co-building to some social benefit. But I won't go near this if it means the houses all have to be "affordable", which has come to mean unprofitable, reserved for people on benefits, ridiculously cheap with no relation to the actual costs involved, and frankly utterly corrupt - as in local councils saying, in effect, to the big developers: "if you apply for planning permission, we will give it to you provided the site is crammed to the max and you supply us with 33%-50% of the houses for free to our local housing associations."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the whole game unaffordable.

Riiiight ;)

"if you apply for planning permission, we will give it to you provided the site is crammed to the max and you supply us with 33%-50% of the houses for free to our local housing associations."

Not sure why that's "corrupt". It looks to me more like a good deal being screwed out of the developers. I suspect somehow that they still manage to make a good profit on the whole thing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing to be said for the current planning system and the appeals inspectorate was that they do provide some relatively objective basis for deciding where houses should be built and to what densities and styles. The figures of course have been manipulated to the nth degree by Labour, to ensure they got council houses (aka affordable homes for the beneficiaries of the client state) on the cheap, paid for by de-factor profit control on developers (telling them they could only ever make 17% profit margin, whilst also bearing all the risk of house prices falling and ever-increasing "zero carbon" build costs) and by high prices charged to private buyers. It's got to the ridiculous state where some councils are demanding that 50% of the houses should be "affordable", which meant the developer has to burden the remaining private houses with twice their share of the land costs, the development costs, the S106 taxes and so on. Not surprisingly, with the fall in house prices and the lack of mortgage financing, there has been a collapse in private sector housebuilding because the planning system plus the taxes often make the whole game unaffordable.

You have to admit that this has been a pretty good deal over the last decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No "local" person *ever* wants a new house to be built anywhere near them.

This is the crucial point that everyone seems to be ignoring. At the moment the locals are the only group who gain nothing from a development, and yet they lose the most. They just see their house values reduced, roads congested, sewerage systems overloaded (etc, etc). The developers and the council get a nice juicy pay day.

However you could devise a system that shared out the wealth gain. For example, if someone wants planning permission, all neighbouring property owners have to agree, and 50% of owners within 500m have to agree. You are however allowed to openly offer compensation to those affected...

.

Edited by the shaping machine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who lives in a house or a flat or any other building for that matter and complains about new development is not a NIMBY but a Hypocrite.

Im not saying build anything anywhere with no planning rules and just build over every green field , but we have enough land to build ample houses without using up all the land . There is plenty of land . If we released more land we could build houses with a bit of space around them instead of the cramped estates that do get built at present.

I think listening to the nimby's and not building due to their objections is an excuse to keep supply short and prices high.

Worked with a guy who had nice house paid for. One night he brought up about Kent Country Council throwing out John Prescotts proposals to build 200,000 , houses in Kent . He said that JP could f--k off with his proposals and kent did not want new houses.

I asked him where he lived and when he told me I replied thats nice you have a house but f--k everyone else.

A few weeks later he moaned as his daughter had just bought her first home and could only afford an IO mortgage as prices were so high and he blamed the govenment for this. I explained that if more houses were built they would be cheaper and therefore people like him objecting to new housing were the problem, and asked him if he could not see that. He replied that his daughter lived in Brighton not Kent , I explained to him that the problem was the same in kent as in Brighton and people like him were part of the problem.

A while after this he bought in an arial photo of his house , he had a big strip of land down the side of the house and I commented on the fact that there was enough space there to build another house. He told me that they had tried but unfortunatly could not get planning permission .

Talk about a sellfish NIMBY .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 224 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.