Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
the flying pig

Osborne Rips Up Planning Rules

Recommended Posts

Two caveats:

(1) Many apologies if already posted; and

(2) I'm not sure if this applies residential development or only commercial.

But still possibly of interest, I thought.

LINK

Osborne rips up planning rules

Friday, 4th March 2011

POLITICS

DAVID CROW

GEORGE Osborne is pushing for sweeping changes to Britain’s planning regime as part of a package of low-cost measures designed to kick-start growth, City A.M. has learned.

He wants to make it much easier for companies to obtain planning consent for new projects – even if they go against the wishes of local residents – allowing them to expand their businesses while also providing a timely boost for the construction sector.

The changes would also enable ministers to fast-track large scale infrastructure like nuclear power stations.

But the Treasury’s decision to try to overhaul the planning system has put it on a collision course with Eric Pickles, the communities secretary. It sits uneasily with his localism agenda, which aims to devolve control over planning decisions to local communities which are often resistant to building projects.

One source close to the negotiations said: “We’ve had lots of meetings with ministers from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). We’re now close to agreeing a pro-growth package.”

Osborne hopes the planning shake-up will form the centrepiece of a series of reforms designed to boost economic growth without the need for more government spending. He is also likely to announce the scrapping of some costly regulations, in a bid to free up cash for investment as well as various other supply side reforms.

An ally of the chancellor said: “We’ll be explaining that Labour was wrong to say that the only way to be pro-growth is to spend loads of money.”

The measures will be contained in a Growth Review, which will be unveiled alongside the Budget on 23 March. The chancellor decided to take control of the review because he was unhappy with the quality of ideas coming from Vince Cable’s business department.

However, in a speech to a City audience last night, Cable insisted he was fully signed up to the measures contained in the review.

Businesses have been disheartened by the coalition’s approach to planning since it won power last May. It is abolishing the Infrastructure Planning Commission, which was set up by the previous government and was widely seen as a valuable bulwark against nimbyism.

Firms also complain that local planning authorities are too focused on the wishes of residents rather than businesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firms also complain that local planning authorities are too focused on the wishes of residents rather than businesses.

Heaven forbid anyone who wants to sleep at night and not have a 24 hour depot next to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heaven forbid anyone who wants to sleep at night and not have a 24 hour depot next to them.

Limited sympathy from me there.

Well, back in the day I always took NIMBY-ism to be about stuff like, y’know, power stations, wind farms, prisons, motorways, the kind of thing that, I suppose, genuinely should be approached in a very sympathetic way but these days most so-called NIMBYs seem to be more like BANANAs really, which is unacceptable. Especially when so many of them seem to be sitting pretty in houses built during the 60s housebuilding boom or even more recently than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two caveats:

(1) Many apologies if already posted; and

(2) I'm not sure if this applies residential development or only commercial.

But still possibly of interest, I thought.

LINK

(...)

Excellent news! Thanks for posting it TFP. :)

Let's hope it facilitates residential buildings as well.

So, Pickles was the b@stard there! What a ... well, b@stard! :angry: Perhaps being from the North he doesn't realise the shortage in the south, and the despicable fecking NIMBYism down here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Limited sympathy from me there.

Well, back in the day I always took NIMBY-ism to be about stuff like, y’know, power stations, wind farms, prisons, motorways, the kind of thing that, I suppose, genuinely should be approached in a very sympathetic way but these days most so-called NIMBYs seem to be more like BANANAs really, which is unacceptable. Especially when so many of them seem to be sitting pretty in houses built during the 60s housebuilding boom or even more recently than that.

+ 1

Total hypocrites!

(See my sig., below.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just found 3 more news on the topic, from last week.

The coalition is considering recreating 1980s-style enterprise zones, offering tax breaks and looser planning rules to stimulate growth in poorer regions. It is also emphasising short-term job creation in the first round of its £1.4bn regional growth fund.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/17046f1a-3eae-11e0-834e-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1FddFjbAB

Mr Cable has also been pressing Eric Pickles, communities secretary, to liberalise planning rules. On this issue, businesses back Mr Cable, fearing that the localism agenda will encourage “Nimbyism”.

The latest reported clash is over Mr Cable’s land auction plan – whereby a local council would invite landowners to say what land they would sell and at what price; the council would decide on planning permission and then capture the added value when the land is auctioned to developers. Mr Pickles allegedly sees this as “communist” and akin to “nationalising land”, according to Local Government Chronicle – a misunderstanding, argues economist Tim Leunig, the main proponent, who says councils would not own any more land.

Expect arguments to intensify ahead of George Osborne’s March 23 “Budget for Growth”.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4d404356-4377-11e0-8f0d-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1FddfnR5S

Vince Cable and George Osborne are, sources say, now agreed that freeing up the planning regime would be a cost-free way to boost growth: Osborne is the anything-goes zealot, Cable would like some stipulation of land use but not too much. Overall, it is Lib Dems concerned about productivity levels pushing this; it would mean cheaper homes built for the less well off, they tell their base.

Cable's idea of "land auctions" – offering councils financial incentives to grant planning permission – could be supported, though it carves up Tory cabinet ministers Eric Pickles and Oliver Letwin.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/mar/02/coalition-searches-for-killer-apps

In this last quote they did mention homes. It looks like the liberalisation won't be only for commercial developments then. :):):)

Edited by Tired of Waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it seems a no-brainer to me really.

land with no planning permission is worth hardly anything because, well, you can't do anything with it.

giving out more planning permission is basically creating value out of nothing... suddenly 'finding' a load of cheap land that businesses can use to do good things with cheaply is a bit like finding a big seam of oil, or gold, or diamonds or something...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eric Pickles - my least favourite politician.

The idea of land owners being able to say "this field is useless to me, the council can buy it for £10k an acre and do what they like with it" strikes me as ideal.

If the council is either lease it to users (using the money for subsidising public services) or sell it on at commercial rates then the planning gain makes everyone richer rather than just a land owners.

This isn't communism, it is common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is so to do with Land Value Taxation. Planning regulations get so much easier under LVT because

a) if someone wants to put a 24 hour depot next to residentila housing it is a blight on those land values which can be quantified and charged to the project (probably making it unviable compared to a better site)

B) land auctions are going to happen immediately without Cable Osbourne or Pickles getting involved because no-one will be able to afford to hold undeveloped land out of use under LVT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it seems a no-brainer to me really.

land with no planning permission is worth hardly anything because, well, you can't do anything with it.

giving out more planning permission is basically creating value out of nothing... suddenly 'finding' a load of cheap land that businesses can use to do good things with cheaply is a bit like finding a big seam of oil, or gold, or diamonds or something...

Exactly!

Private money invested, construction jobs created, more taxes to the HMRC (well, we can't win all :( ), increased supply of houses - and focused where there is demand for it (market driven).

And if this increases the supply of new houses from the current 100k-200k / year to, say 500k/year, then in a few years the shortage of houses in the south-east will ease, bringing housing costs down across the board - including current houses. (Ooops, sorry, don't tell that to current property owners. :unsure: )

.

Edited by Tired of Waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent news! Thanks for posting it TFP. :)

Let's hope it facilitates residential buildings as well.

It looks like it's only for businesses, I very much doubt a conservative government would ever do anything that would endanger their much beloved green belt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is so to do with Land Value Taxation. Planning regulations get so much easier under LVT because

a) if someone wants to put a 24 hour depot next to residentila housing it is a blight on those land values which can be quantified and charged to the project (probably making it unviable compared to a better site)

B) land auctions are going to happen immediately without Cable Osbourne or Pickles getting involved because no-one will be able to afford to hold undeveloped land out of use under LVT

Well it depends how much the tax is!

The sneaky uber-rich get the ordinary taxpayer to give them loads-a-free-money (and it's gone up by 100's millions more coz of £-€ exchange over last few years!) for 'looking after' useless land like 10,000 acre 'heathland' estates re-designated as "set aside" (more recently the SSi landowner con)

(In reality, gamekeeper patrolled, 'exclusive' grouse shooting/deer estates/moors subsidised/paid for by the taxpayer!)

Edited by erranta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eric Pickles - my least favourite politician.

The idea of land owners being able to say "this field is useless to me, the council can buy it for £10k an acre and do what they like with it" strikes me as ideal.

If the council is either lease it to users (using the money for subsidising public services) or sell it on at commercial rates then the planning gain makes everyone richer rather than just a land owners.

This isn't communism, it is common sense.

Exactly. Under the current system planning gain is distributed on a lottery basis. There is no "merit" or logic to it whatsoever. Buying land with future "potential" is just a bet. It is just bonkers. And a NIMBYs chart.

Imbecilic really, as it has been distorting the whole economy for decades, particularly in the past 10 years, affecting, making work not worthwhile, extracting a huge "rent" (economic sense) from the productive sectors, etc. (Please see my sig.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would a side-effect/bonus be all the gravy trainers (lawyers, Council pen-pushers etc.) who benefit or make a living from complex planning rules would be shown the door.

Anything that increases supply is a good thing. Is this what we are to read into this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like it's only for businesses, I very much doubt a conservative government would ever do anything that would endanger their much beloved green belt.

Apparently Cable and Osborne want to include houses, whilst Pickles and Letwin seem to be against it, See some clues here: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=160574&view=findpost&p=2915878

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cynic in me thinks this (or something like this) is being done in advance of pushing through the new high speed rail links.

Also good.

Edit: Either we find a balance between individual rights and the national interest or Britain will be left behind big time this century. NIMBYs must lose their automatic veto power. Sorry. But greater good of the greater numbers, within limits of course - a balance.

In the high speed rail case: should we link London and the major Northern cities, if we have to move a few hundred cottages (paying compensation for their inconvenience) ?

Err... YES!

.

Edited by Tired of Waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would a side-effect/bonus be all the gravy trainers (lawyers, Council pen-pushers etc.) who benefit or make a living from complex planning rules would be shown the door.

Anything that increases supply is a good thing. Is this what we are to read into this?

Yes, I think it is clear that the goal is to increase supply. It makes total economic sense, of course, though with political risk from NIMBYs.

Actually that explains why the 2 "economics" departments/ministers (Cable and Osborne) are pushing it, and political departments/ministers are resisting it.

The split was not on party lines, Conservatives v LibDems, but between economic logic and political forces/resistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I mean, cheaper [relative to incomes] housing is probably inevitable one day.

It’ll eventually become too politically popular to resist.

e.g. imagine that around the time of the 2005 election voters aged 18-34 [total – 16 years’ worth of births] uniformly wanted lower house prices, but voters aged 35-70 [total – 35 years’ worth of births]uniformly wanted more expensive one… assuming that voters were evenly distributed across different ages [& that the over 70’s were either dead or beyond caring about pwoperdee] then that’s a whopping 69% worth of the population wanting more expensive housing…

but fast forward only 10 years, to 2015, then you can sort of see how, if FTBs & upsizers continued to be blighted by expensive housing, the age range wanting cheaper pwoperdee could have expanded to 18-44 [26 years’ worth of births], with those wanting more expensive having shrunk to 45-70 [i.e. 25 years’ worth, a minority, just]…

these precise figures are wrong, of course, but the tyranny of numbers does inevitably mean that one way or another we’ll get cheaper housing before too very long. whether this comes soon enough for posters on here who are well into their thirties is a matter for debate, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also good.

Edit: Either we find a balance between individual rights and the national interest or Britain will be left behind big time this century. NIMBYs must lost their automatic veto power. Sorry. But greater good of the greater numbers, within limits of course - a balance.

In the high speed rail: should we link London and the major Northern cities, if we have to move a few hundred cottages (paying compensation for their inconvenience) ?

Err... YES!

It's not the knocking down of the cottages I object to, if it really would bring a benefit then the nation needs it. I just don't get who will use the high speed trains. If anyone wants to get from one of the coutnry to the other quickly they fly. It'll still be cheaper and quicker to fly after the railways built (except maybe London to Birmingham but who the hell wants to go there in a hurry)

Hopefully they're considering this for other reasons: nuclear reactors, upgrading or increasing the number of motorways, building industrial estates near motorway junctions and larger roads, plus anything else that improves our efficency. I guess it will also apply to the high yield dairy farm that recently got refused permission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just noticed – the editor of City AM is certainly linking this story into residential rather than commercial property.

Here’s his editor’s column for today.

LINK

Friday, 4th March 2011

EDITOR’S LETTER

Allister Heath

ALLISTER HEATH

FORGET about class war; we are entering a new era of generational wars. There is a growing sense among younger people that they won’t enjoy as prosperous a life as their parents. It is easy to understand such concerns: powerful economic, technological, demographic and political forces are forcing the generations apart.

For a start, the old system of final salary pensions is in terminal decline, so younger people will have to work longer than the cosseted baby-boom generation, for an uncertain retirement income. The property boom has delivered a one-off windfall to millions of older people, while making it harder for younger people to jump onto the housing ladder. The cost to students of university education, once entirely provided at taxpayers’ expense, is rocketing. Older pensioners often earned a good living from unskilled jobs; today, returns from such occupations have collapsed, hitting a large number of youngsters failed by the school system. Last but not least, pensioners are being largely shielded from spending cuts, further exacerbating the generational gap.

House prices increased fourfold in the 20 years to 2007. Many owner-occupiers on modest incomes, including pensioners who bought council houses at a discount, made a fortune. Wealth is thus often not synonymous with a high income: 2.6 per cent of UK adults are dollar millionaires – but only 0.6 per cent of adults earn more than £150,000 a year. Wealth has accrued largely through capital gains in the property market – younger people won’t benefit in the same way.

While it is extremely bad news for millions of younger people, two sub-groups will nevertheless do well over the very long-run even in the present environment. Those with a superior education – either through good fortune or through sheer effort – and of course those whose parents have built up housing wealth and who stand to inherit vast sums of money.

University graduates earn 50 per cent more than those with just a secondary education. The return on investment for an individual obtaining university education is around 10 per cent, higher than the return on UK equities or housing in the last 20 years, estimates

Deloitte’s chief economist Ian Stewart – some consolation perhaps for recent graduates who cannot afford a deposit.

To this I would add two crucial caveats: what will increasingly count is not any old university degree but going to a good university and studying for a good, rigorous qualification. Knowledge based industries that require high levels of skill, including finance and technology, have emerged as a major source of high-paid jobs in the modern, ultra-competitive globalised world. Cognitive skills are especially valuable – but so are any useful skills, from plumbing to high-level cooking. People with good vocational training ought, in many cases, to be able to earn a lot too – we need a new generation of technical colleges.

What else should be done? Young people should save and invest as much as possible, even if they can’t afford a house. And they should try and acquire the best, most marketable skills possible – and invest in the right kind of education. The government, for its part, must tear up planning rules to make it easier to build new homes – and it must sort out the education system. This won’t resolve the crisis facing millions of younger people but it would be a good start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the rules are changed it will make it easier for a wealthy developer to build a business park in an environmentally sensitive area of green belt, but you can bet your bottom dollar it will be just as difficult as ever to get permission to fit a skylight in your roof :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds like a bunfight for the Councillors.

They get the power to sell-on land for twice what they bought it for but whoops it was actually worth 10 times more. Split the difference shall we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just noticed – the editor of City AM is certainly linking this story into residential rather than commercial property.

What else should be done? Young people should save and invest as much as possible, even if they can’t afford a house. And they should try and acquire the best, most marketable skills possible – and invest in the right kind of education. The government, for its part, must tear up planning rules to make it easier to build new homes – and it must sort out the education system. This won’t resolve the crisis facing millions of younger people but it would be a good start.

or:

The Word according to our Saviour, Rt Hon Gordon Brown:

What else should be done? Young people should borrow and spend as much as possible, so they can afford a house. And they should try and acquire the most marketed skills possible – . The government, for its part, must keep up planning rules to make it harder to build new homes – and it must improve access for all to the education system, regardless of capability. This won’t resolve the crisis facing millions of younger people but it will keep us in power.

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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 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.