David Camoron To Sell Public Land

[opt_out]

This looks fine to me.

[Riedquat]

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

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

Yes, I know it's increasing. The aim should be that it isn't. There's nothing good that comes from the increase other than for the very short-sighted. Ideally would be a decrease but they'd never tolerate the pain of it happening.

[phead]

This appears to be a repeat story in a different dress

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=161773

There is nothing like repeating the same thing twice to make people think the government is doing something about housing! (and even then, some of the sites listed already have planning, so were actually started under the last government!)

[R K]

Blatant Tory public subsidy to private sector developers to build more houses during a slump in land prices and a massive deficit. It's almost Keynsian

That should help 'rebalance' the economy away from... errrrr.... house building!

[Blod]

Got to agree that if its sold to "developers" they'll more than likely land bank it so protecting their existing portfolios value, far better to sell it at a low rate to individuals to build on.

The claimed benefits for the construction industry are only short term, look at Ireland recently and the UK in the fifties where as soon as the house building stopped those workers were out of work.

Ireland built hundreds of thousands of houses in recent years, it didn't drop the costs of housing. More houses won't reduce housing costs without allowing the market to operate without the interference of VIs. Migration is often cited as an excuse for high housing costs, truth is that most migrants live in high density housing specifically so as to avoid the high costs associated with housing.

Creating a short term economic benefit is sadly just tory spin, this country needs real industry.

[Sourman]

Usual BS from the torygraph...

How did we manage to have a housing boom under labour whilst at the same time building less than 50% the amount of properties than the previous Tory government?

[LuckyOne]

Usual BS from the torygraph...

How did we manage to have a housing boom under labour whilst at the same time building less than 50% the amount of properties than the previous Tory government?

Some of us believe that the bubble was worsened by a lag between the number of new homes being created relative to new household formations.

[LuckyOne]

Blatant Tory public subsidy to private sector developers to build more houses during a slump in land prices and a massive deficit. It's almost Keynsian

That should help 'rebalance' the economy away from... errrrr.... house building!

Nothing wrong with housebuilding.

It is a lot better than passing the existing stock around at ever increasing prices because of lax credit criteria.

[aa3]

Got to agree that if its sold to "developers" they'll more than likely land bank it so protecting their existing portfolios value, far better to sell it at a low rate to individuals to build on.

The claimed benefits for the construction industry are only short term, look at Ireland recently and the UK in the fifties where as soon as the house building stopped those workers were out of work.

Ireland built hundreds of thousands of houses in recent years, it didn't drop the costs of housing. More houses won't reduce housing costs without allowing the market to operate without the interference of VIs. Migration is often cited as an excuse for high housing costs, truth is that most migrants live in high density housing specifically so as to avoid the high costs associated with housing.

Creating a short term economic benefit is sadly just tory spin, this country needs real industry.

You make some good points. But I still think there are benefits. In Ireland house prices are coming down hard now, down over 50% from peak by some reports.

I would also argue many of the skills workers gain in a construction boom are transferable. Like many of the skills can also be used for refurbishing and upgrading of existing homes. Also transferable to other types of construction like commercial buildings, industrial, government specific buildings etc.

Its one of the benefits of mass public works programs. If done right they include vast training programs so that after the stimulus ends the workers will be able to use the skills they learned to get opportunity.

[mel in w9]

You make some good points. But I still think there are benefits. In Ireland house prices are coming down hard now, down over 50% from peak by some reports.

I would also argue many of the skills workers gain in a construction boom are transferable. Like many of the skills can also be used for refurbishing and upgrading of existing homes. Also transferable to other types of construction like commercial buildings, industrial, government specific buildings etc.

Its one of the benefits of mass public works programs. If done right they include vast training programs so that after the stimulus ends the workers will be able to use the skills they learned to get opportunity.

So does the government (ie the taxpayer) initially fund the building of these homes? And what happens if they can't sell them? Does the government (ie. the taxpayer) still have to pay the money?

And what massive construction projects are on the horizon in the UK?

Take the Shard building which is currently being built in London. When completed it will be the tallest building in Europe. It is supposed to have world class office space and pent house apartments. But it is in one of the crappiest parts of London. (I know I have walked over to see it). I wouldn't live in that area if you paid me. Why on earth would uber wealthy people want to live there? It's not even on the river, its pretty far inland. Perhaps the idea is that when you are up in the sky who cares about the people below? Unless they plan on redeveloping and moving out 85% of Southwark council, this area is not going to change any time soon. Besides where are you going to relocate all of these people?

I think building more inadequate housing is not a solution. Like I said before (and others have said as well) there is no shortage of housing space (even in London). There is a shortage of AFFORDABLE housing. Building more at prices no one can afford isn't going to solve that problem.

But I suppose it may make some of your private construction company buddies a wad full of (taxpayer) cash in the process.

Edited June 7, 2011 by mel in w9

[aa3]

So does the government (ie the taxpayer) initially fund the building of these homes? And what happens if they can't sell them? Does the government (ie. the taxpayer) still have to pay the money?

I do not agree witht he government funding private housing development. Although I do think the government should mass build public housing apartment buildings. In Greater London at least there is near insatiable demand for housing. From what I've seen any new house sells for far, far above the cost of building.

And what massive construction projects are on the horizon in the UK?

Not many, because of the incompetence, lack of vision and NIMBYist ideology of the ruling parties. But there could be if we wanted.

Take the Shard building which is currently being built in London. When completed it will be the tallest building in Europe. It is supposed to have world class office space and pent house apartments. But it is in one of the crappiest parts of London. (I know I have walked over to see it). I wouldn't live in that area if you paid me. Why on earth would uber wealthy people want to live there? It's not even on the river, its pretty far inland. Perhaps the idea is that when you are up in the sky who cares about the people below? Unless they plan on redeveloping and moving out 85% of Southwark council, this area is not going to change any time soon. Besides where are you going to relocate all of these people?

I think building more inadequate housing is not a solution. Like I said before (and others have said as well) there is no shortage of housing space (even in London). There is a shortage of AFFORDABLE housing. Building more at prices no one can afford isn't going to solve that problem.

But I suppose it may make some of your private construction company buddies a wad full of (taxpayer) cash in the process.

Its not clear now that your average person can create enough wealth in the free market to claim enough of the resources to build a home. Between economic migrants, offshoring production and mass automation millions will never be able to afford a new home. Let alone one in a decent neighbourhood.

[Venger]

housing space (even in London). There is a shortage of AFFORDABLE housing. Building more at prices no one can afford isn't going to solve that problem.

But I suppose it may make some of your private construction company buddies a wad full of (taxpayer) cash in the process.

Some developers are refusing to build on land they've already acquired which has full planning permission.

Property Week says such development financing not easy to get from the lenders, especially on larger sites. I wouldn't lend to finance the builds either with the buyer side increasingly strapped for money on the prices they can afford, and with expectations of falls in the London market in during the next few years.

Even if some select developers got land handed to them under the Build Now-Pay Later, they still need to tap financing for the building on larger sites. Unless developers try to keep selling prices high with more Shared Ownership scheming with the pay-later government land.

3,205 new London homes stalled

However, CBRE said that difficulties in obtaining mortgage finance is hindering the sales market and contributing to direct financial constraints, which has resulted in many schemes with full planning permission not being progressed.

While some developers have deliberately halted development until the market improves, the principal reason for delays is funding, particularly in the case of large sites.''

http://www.propertyw...5012553.article

Alternative link http://vision1invest...on-are-on-hold/

[Olebrum]

This is excellent news. Another 100,000 unaffordable homes is just the medicine

the country needs to lift it out of the doldrums.

[aa3]

3,205 homes stalled, but how many new ones are being built.

The greater London metropolitan area must be growing at 1% a year, considering Britain as a whole is growing at 0.5% a year. 12.5 million * 1% = 125,000 net new residents a year. If they go with the usual industrial world standard of 2.4 people per housing unit that is 52,000 new housing units needed each year.

[aa3]

Another way to put it is over the next 10 years, there likely will be around 1.2 million new net residents in London. Requiring 500,000 new housing units.

As long as there is population growth, the demand will always be there.

[winkie]

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.

Fingers crossed they can create/ encourage others to create secure long-term employment that pays a living wage, so the the people buying the homes can pay back the debt that bought them, can afford to buy food, travel to the job, keep warm and bring up well adjusted happy families.

[winkie]

Another way to put it is over the next 10 years, there likely will be around 1.2 million new net residents in London. Requiring 500,000 new housing units.

As long as there is population growth, the demand will always be there.

....not if there is an unaffordable supply, which there is at the moment....

[Lepista]

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.

+1

they are struggling to sell the ones they HAVE got.

+1

[Andrew Lainton]

All of the sites in the press release were released by the last government, all of them are in current development plans, one is already being built.

The 'announcement' wont add 1 single unit to those planned for housing - its recycling old news to cover for the dramtic fall in househbuilding and planning for housing

See analysis

here