Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
cashinmattress

David Camoron To Sell Public Land

Recommended Posts

link

Surplus public land to be sold to build 100,000 homes

David Cameron will this week spearhead a drive to build up to 100,000 new homes on surplus government land which will be sold off to developers using "buy now, pay later" schemes.

Ministers are keen to address a chronic housing shortage which saw the number of new properties built under Labour shrink to the lowest level since the 1920s.

A shortage of new homes, high prices and the reluctance of banks to lend, particularly to first-time buyers, have led to stagnation in the housing market.

Ministers have spent months compiling a database of all publicly-owned land which is surplus to immediate requirements, which is expected to be published on Wednesday.

At the same time the Prime Minister will launch the process of selling plots to developers.

The first tranches are understood to include a site in Hemel Hempsted, Herts, owned by the Crown Estate; a former hospital site in Basingstoke, Hants; a housing estate scheduled for demolition in Tower Hamlets, east London; a brownfield site part-owned by Network Rail in Northampton, and a former colliery in Rushcliffe, Notts.

Builders will be offered "buy now, pay later" deals which will see them only have to hand over money once properties are built and sold, sources at the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) confirmed.

Ministers believe the deals will help building firms struggling with cash flow problems.

Grant Shapps, the Housing Minister, said: "The government sits on a lot of land which is often no longer being used for its original purpose.

"Rather than see it go to waste it's obviously sensible to get it back into use. I think there's the potential for tens of thousands of homes to be build on government property which is currently lying idle.

"Through schemes like Build Now, Pay Later we'll invite developers in to build homes to benefit everybody."

A survey last week by the Halifax bank, first highlighted in The Sunday Telegraph, pointed to a new "Generation Rent" – would-be home owners in their 20s and 30s who fear they will never be able to get their feet on the property ladder.

The new homes are expected to be a mixture of owner-occupied properties and social housing – but ministers are keen to end the "target" culture and rigid planning controls which they claim hindered developers under Labour.

Councils are to be offered a New Homes Bonus for properties constructed in their areas which will see ministers "match" the amounts raised in council tax for every new home built, for a period of six years.

If, for example, a council approves the construction of 100 'Band D' dwellings – on which the average council tax payable in England last year was

£1,439 – it will receive an extra £863,400 to spend locally.

The money could be used to cut council tax bills, boost services such as rubbish collection or build new amenities such as playgrounds.

The planning system is also being reformed through a range of measures, including a new presumption in favour of sustainable development.

A CLG spokesman said developments should be permitted wherever possible except where this would compromise key sustainability principles.

Ministers have also acted to end "garden grabbing" – the trend for developers to buy large properties and build on their gardens, which was facilitated by changes to planning law brought in under John Prescott, the former deputy prime minister.

Nearly a quarter of all new homes were crammed onto existing residential plots between 1998 and 2010.

Labour say the New Homes Bonus is unfair and weighted in favour of wealthier areas in the south of England, which are mainly controlled by Tory councils.

The party's alternative housing policy would see an extra 25,000 "affordable" homes built using money raised from a repeat of last year's bank bonus tax, brought in while the party was in government, which overall raised £3.5 billion.

Idiotic. It's not the number of homes that's the problem. It's the number on the price tag of a house, you fvcking goof!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

link

Idiotic. It's not the number of homes that's the problem. It's the number on the price tag of a house, you fvcking goof!

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

link

Idiotic. It's not the number of homes that's the problem. It's the number on the price tag of a house, you fvcking goof!

They government shouldnt be selling it off they should be building homes, reducing rents and generating wealth from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest spp

link

Idiotic. It's not the number of homes that's the problem. It's the number on the price tag of a house, you fvcking goof!

I can see it now -

A 2 bed semi from just...£90,000!!**

** 50% affordable home shared equity scheme.

Edit: They must prop up the ponzi system.

Edited by spp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what's the LibDems take on all that. They don't even rate a mention.

They must just come under "ministers", the way the article is written, That'll be tory ministers. How the LibDem grass roots must be blushing :lol: They've given just about anything for just the merest taste, the slightest squeak, the almost negligible taste of just a bit of power - well it's not even power.

Summed up by Clegg trying to look intelligent during PMs Question Time (along with Vincey looking extremely shifty as people have discovered his true nature) but only succeeding in looking shifty as well as if he has no ideas except ideas on reneging on the promises he made before the general election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They government shouldnt be selling it off they should be building homes, reducing rents and generating wealth from it.

Yup. Whilst I'm pleased to see a move towards increasing the number of houses built, the govt should be building it for themselves. You know, owning a few actual long term assets. Remember that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup. Whilst I'm pleased to see a move towards increasing the number of houses built, the govt should be building it for themselves. You know, owning a few actual long term assets. Remember that.

They should be aiming to get to a point when the only new homes needed are to replace the ones that are falling apart and need replacing. Not building many houses is a non-issue if the population isn't increasing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup. Whilst I'm pleased to see a move towards increasing the number of houses built, the govt should be building it for themselves. You know, owning a few actual long term assets. Remember that.

Government should be doing nothing of the kind. That way lies yet another round of ever-rising corruption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

link

Idiotic. It's not the number of homes that's the problem. It's the number on the price tag of a house, you fvcking goof!

I disagree, there is going to be an increasing population, it's going to happen to keep the pension system from falling over. Once you know that, you know you need to build houses for them. If you don't, all you can do is place more people into the same houses and living standards drop.

Nothing is lost here, the land is brownfield, the schemes will provide some work for un/under-employed builders and everyone gets a few more houses to choose from. The land is probably almost worthless in most cases anyway, certainly lots of big brownfield sites here in the NW have negative values.

For those calling for the govt to build the houses themselves, I can see why you would want to avoid private profit from this, but the government is not really cash rich enough at the moment to fund it.

Fingers crossed they build decent houses on the sites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the developers had plenty of land, they just didn't want to release it in case prices dropped. Why not sell to community cooperatives? So that local people could actually have a say in what's built.

I wouldn't mind betting that some developers never pay for the land due to not selling the last house on the estate etc. And I bet the majority of homes will be crappy micro studio flats.

Edited by StainlessSteelCat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a great idea. I'm starting to see some light in the tunnel from our new government. In large areas of the country there is serious housing shortages. So you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that the cure for housing shortages is to build new houses.

A side effect of this cure, is it helps with unemployment. Even 100,000 additional houses being built would provide hundreds of thousands of good jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a great idea. I'm starting to see some light in the tunnel from our new government. In large areas of the country there is serious housing shortages. So you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that the cure for housing shortages is to build new houses.

A side effect of this cure, is it helps with unemployment. Even 100,000 additional houses being built would provide hundreds of thousands of good jobs.

they are struggling to sell the ones they HAVE got.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no shortage of housing. There's a surplus of people. We have an open door policy on our benefits system to thank for that.

Edited by exiges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they are struggling to sell the ones they HAVE got.

It might depend on where they are. I am sure if newbuilds were put up in the greater London metro they would be sold instantly. At far, far above the cost to build.

In the coming decades the London metro is going to vastly expand in population. And with the domination of the Tories we may see new building allowed again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They government shouldnt be selling it off they should be building homes, reducing rents and generating wealth from it.

Some might then argue it'd be more cheap secure housing for their best buds too.

I do agree they should build council houses with it.

Cut the developers out of the loop on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, one minute we've got a government knocking houses down to increase prices and the next we've got one wanting to build more.

That's the problem with democracy - you just don't know where you stand.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1490760/Charles-knocks-down-Prescotts-demolition-plan.html

That is a very big problem in democracies. Some democratic states have essentially gone to one party systems where you can vote for A or B but the policies are identical.

Some plans like electrical development, transportation, housing, industry collaboration.. take more than a decade to carry out. Involving many private investors and companies risking a lot of money. If there is a chance the whole thing could be cancelled part way through, well at minimum investors are going to demand a much higher rate of return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should be aiming to get to a point when the only new homes needed are to replace the ones that are falling apart and need replacing. Not building many houses is a non-issue if the population isn't increasing.

It is increasing. However build 100,000 more houses, and 250,000 immigrants can come in! tongue.gif

Yet to see the increased tax take and economic boost from our new friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes there is about 2.4 residents per housing unit. So 100,000 new houses would only cover 1 year's worth of net immigration. But its better than the Labour plan of allowing no new houses to be built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this going to be Osborne's Gold moment? (Selling off the land when land is at low prices)

Though I applaud any scheme that might bring prices down, this stinks a bit of helping out their business mates.

As others have said, I thought the developers had plenty of land? Should the taxpayer be subsidising a buy now pay later scheme? If the housing market crashes, maybe some developers will go bust and how will they pay the taxpayer back?

I like Chicken Little's idea. Parcel it up so people can build their own house rather than a developer building little rabbit hutches out of the crappest materials so they can make a profit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

link

Idiotic. It's not the number of homes that's the problem. It's the number on the price tag of a house, you fvcking goof!

Well it struck me as a good idea. More houses => lower prices.

However, I wouldn't want them to end up as BTLs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

link

Idiotic. It's not the number of homes that's the problem. It's the number on the price tag of a house, you fvcking goof!

I completely agree. I live in London, and there is no shortage of housing. There is a shortage of AFFORDABLE housing. More crappy new builds filling up the SE is not going to solve this problem.

BTW, there must be 100's of Thousands of square meters of empty office space just in Westminster alone. Why don't they convert some of this space into flats. Many of these buildings sit almost completely vacant. (some are brand new). Clearly that much office space is not needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it struck me as a good idea. More houses => lower prices.

However, I wouldn't want them to end up as BTLs.

Yes, and no...

Prices aren't due to lack of building. We know that because of the way the boom started in the first place. Rapid 20%/year expansion. We also know that because prices dropped 25% from peak and almost certainly would have gone through the floor if it wasn't for 0.5 interest rates. None of this correlates with population or abstract "demand" pressures but does correlate with extreme credit and bailouts.

There is of course the general long term average trend which building would help but these prices we have now are mid-boom.

Edited by cica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet to see the increased tax take and economic boost from our new friends.

Oh I don't know.. I'm sure the 18% of Somalian immigrants that are gainfully employed are paying more than enough taxes to pay for the 82% that aren't and claim benefits. Very sure..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is increasing. However build 100,000 more houses, and 250,000 immigrants can come in! tongue.gif

Yet to see the increased tax take and economic boost from our new friends.

Oh I don't know.Building new trains,buses and planes to replace the ones they blow up should stimulate manufacturing.

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.

  • 312 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.