Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
jaspers

The Telegraph : Village Green Preservation Society…

Recommended Posts

Anyone else noticed the Land use VI's dominating the pages over the past week or so?

Yep, the Telegraph, the Telegraph and especially the Telegraph. Only to be expected that those already having agreeable lifestyles and well established in rural UK now want to stop anyone else getting in on their act with bogus concern about "concreting over Britain". It's not even that they are Not In My Back Yard -ies, they are better described as creators of a parallel state into which they want to bar entry to everyone else (unless they are popping over for a nice drive in the countryside before returning to their little boxes in dismal towns).

The Telegraph campaign is the most obvious indication I have seen at just what a cloud cuckoo land NIMBYs think they are living in. Today I read two magazines about "self build". I thought these rags would be full of advice about getting around draconian planning laws so you could build a modest and tasteful home without over-disturbing the harmony of rural vs urban landscapes. In fact these mags are fall of examples of enormously expensive projects (land: £200,000. House a further £200k-400k) built on mainly existing plots.

I would guess most of the owners of these "eco-houses" are Telegraph readers. Hypocracy knows no bounds.

Edited by VacantPossession

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am tired of the anti-housebuilding VI meme on these forums.

I am desperate for a house, yet I do not want the green belt or any more land concreted over.

There are enough empty homes/buildings, second homes being held onto due to lack of penalisation, and brownfield/derelict/already barren sites.

Example: there is prime house building land near J11 of the M25 at some old abandoned offices. 3Dlabs or Electronic Arts I think. The surrounding houses are expensive and the offices are/were in a 'parkland' setting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can not understand why anyone wants to see large swathes of the English countryside built on with the pretence that it will lower house prices. It won't.

All it will do is benefit greedy land speculators and house builders.

Do we want the sort of free for all that happened in Spain & Ireland?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Main cost component of a house is land.

Cost of land is predominantly a function of supply.

Supply is controlled by planning permission regulations.*

Change planning law > increase land supply > reduce price of homes > WIN! (plus houses will be better built if developer doesn't need to pay so much for the land and still produce houses at a sellable price - quality might actually become the primary basis of product differentiation)

Want me to spell it out for you? Oh l just did. ;)

*Drip feeding land into development is a form of artificial scarcity - much like De Beers and diamond supply. It's how the land owning classes maintain absolute dominance of societies wealth and siphons off production. The secondary parasite is the banking system. Bank credit confetti comes and goes, like gold - land ownership endures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am tired of the anti-housebuilding VI meme on these forums.

I am desperate for a house, yet I do not want the green belt or any more land concreted over.

There are enough empty homes/buildings, second homes being held onto due to lack of penalisation, and brownfield/derelict/already barren sites.

Example: there is prime house building land near J11 of the M25 at some old abandoned offices. 3Dlabs or Electronic Arts I think. The surrounding houses are expensive and the offices are/were in a 'parkland' setting.

On what land do you think the houses built between 1950-1980 were built on? Odds on they weren't ex industrial and brownfield sites. Mainly because people still used to work in the plants on these sites…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can not understand why anyone wants to see large swathes of the English countryside built on with the pretence that it will lower house prices. It won't.

All it will do is benefit greedy land speculators and house builders.

Do we want the sort of free for all that happened in Spain & Ireland?

Plenty of other countries have much more open planning laws without descending into the destruction of land price bubbles. And I'm sure many people on here will tell you how this can be achieved. Me, I'm about to watch the rugby…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cost of land is predominantly a function of supply.

The cost of land is down to the supply... of credit. What you probably mean is the affordability of land relative to incomes.

Problem is, you have a strictly limited supply, esp in the SE. First of all if you stopped half a million people a year immigrating to the UK you may have a little bit more of it. Second, if you build houses you need to link them to transport and supply services, electricity etc. Building over the greenbelt with vast suburbs (a la USA) is very inefficient in terms of energy use, I doubt the UK has the medium term generating capacity to power all those walk in fridge freezers. You'd be better off knocking down houses in London and rebuilding with high densitity apartment blocks like Hong Kong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can not understand why anyone wants to see large swathes of the English countryside built on with the pretence that it will lower house prices. It won't.

All it will do is benefit greedy land speculators and house builders.

Do we want the sort of free for all that happened in Spain & Ireland?

This post perfectly captures what is wrong with the housebuilding debate in this country. "Either we scrap all planning laws and put suburban housing on every field in England, or we don't build a single home." It's obviously a false dichotomy.

New build housing can be done well or it can be done badly. Personally I'd like to see new housing put in at the edges of existing towns and cities, not plonked in the middle of fields Cambourne-style so that you need a car to drive the 15 miles to the nearest real town with jobs, shops and transport connections. Adjusting at the margins like this would minimise the impact on the countryside while still allowing towns to breathe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cost of land is down to the supply... of credit. What you probably mean is the affordability of land relative to incomes.

Problem is, you have a strictly limited supply, esp in the SE. First of all if you stopped half a million people a year immigrating to the UK you may have a little bit more of it. Second, if you build houses you need to link them to transport and supply services, electricity etc. Building over the greenbelt with vast suburbs (a la USA) is very inefficient in terms of energy use, I doubt the UK has the medium term generating capacity to power all those walk in fridge freezers. You'd be better off knocking down houses in London and rebuilding with high densitity apartment blocks like Hong Kong.

British people do not want high density apartment blocks. Families want suburbia and gardens. The inner city council estate experiment failed and the apartment explosion of the last decade has suited BTL speculators, but no one else.

The green belt, pleasant as it is, starts far too close to London. Push the boundary out another mile and it will create a huge amount of extra housing capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am tired of the anti-housebuilding VI meme on these forums.

I am desperate for a house, yet I do not want the green belt or any more land concreted over.

There are enough empty homes/buildings, second homes being held onto due to lack of penalisation, and brownfield/derelict/already barren sites.

Example: there is prime house building land near J11 of the M25 at some old abandoned offices. 3Dlabs or Electronic Arts I think. The surrounding houses are expensive and the offices are/were in a 'parkland' setting.

If there are enough like minded people, even without planning laws such land will be preserved.

Why? Because you could pool resources with like minded individuals and buy the land to preserve it. It becomes 'put up or shut up' as it were, without the lobbying and gilt tripping about a mystical 'green belt' (which has only been defined for 50 years - within many owners' lifetimes) or the need for planning laws (which have only been defined for 100 years).

This lobbying by NIMBYs, at the expense of everyone else (especially the young) is nauseating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cost of land is down to the supply... of credit. What you probably mean is the affordability of land relative to incomes.

Problem is, you have a strictly limited supply, esp in the SE. First of all if you stopped half a million people a year immigrating to the UK you may have a little bit more of it. Second, if you build houses you need to link them to transport and supply services, electricity etc. Building over the greenbelt with vast suburbs (a la USA) is very inefficient in terms of energy use, I doubt the UK has the medium term generating capacity to power all those walk in fridge freezers. You'd be better off knocking down houses in London and rebuilding with high densitity apartment blocks like Hong Kong.

This is not true or at least it's an over simplification.

If you are bidding against others for the land, using credit to maximise you price limit, then credit is primary component. However, if land is plentiful, then you are not going to have some many people bidding for the same bit.

We know that grazing land is relatively cheap. In more rural regions of the UK, £2.5k an acre is not unusual. Therefore, it is land with planning permission which is in short supply, hence the high prices, due to lots of people bidding for the same bit of land.

As the green belt was defined in about 1955, there will be people alive today who built freely on what became the green belt. They would have done so at a reasonable price too. However, now their houses are worth a small fortune, primarily due to government planning laws and a government backed banking cartel.

EDIT: BTW, if it's not efficient to live in one way or another, people should choose an alternative. Cars are often picked for their fuel efficiency. I certainly don't want a huge house to heat either. Nor do I want to spend much of my day in traffic and/or paying for fuel. People make these decisions all the time and you don't need the state to tell you one way or the other.

Finally, who says businesses can't setup in similar places? Not everyone needs to commute to central London... at least if the planners allow it! <_<

Edited by Traktion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've stopped reading it after being a loyal reader for a decade. Its been in a gradual decline for a few years, losing good columnists and editors ... and now this.

Their 'campaign' against the planning changes has really p1ssed me off, and every day there is a new splash about it.

FU Telegraph :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post perfectly captures what is wrong with the housebuilding debate in this country. "Either we scrap all planning laws and put suburban housing on every field in England, or we don't build a single home." It's obviously a false dichotomy.

New build housing can be done well or it can be done badly. Personally I'd like to see new housing put in at the edges of existing towns and cities, not plonked in the middle of fields Cambourne-style so that you need a car to drive the 15 miles to the nearest real town with jobs, shops and transport connections. Adjusting at the margins like this would minimise the impact on the countryside while still allowing towns to breathe.

Putting a house in every field is unlikely to be the case with no planning laws anyway. You need roads, water pipes, electricity, phone lines etc, which make doing so expensive. Many people would rather have a neighbour or two nearby, rather than living in complete isolation too. Also, many don't want to have to drive/commute everywhere, including to the local shop and the pub. Finally, there is nothing to stop people investing in organisations which buy land and preserve it to your wishes (ie. allow/disallow farming, allow/disallow residential building, allow/disallow commercial/industrial building etc).

People expect to be able to stamp their feet and claim how unfair it is for others to build near them. Unless they have put their money in the pot to prevent this, they have little right to expect such special treatment. In fact, it's only the planning laws being defined, which has lead to such lobbying.

Edited by Traktion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the land banks of the developers? A compulsory purchase in the public's favour would be welcome.

Land banks are a product of planning laws. Scrap the laws and the 'banks' will be near worthless; people will build freely elsewhere, unless they sell off said land cheaply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cost of land is down to the supply... of credit. What you probably mean is the affordability of land relative to incomes.

No, this is a schoolboy error made far to often on internet forums, thankfully it's one that's easily busted.

The amount of credit available in the UK is uniform, (unless you believe that a branch of Barclays in Surrey has more to lend out that a Branch in Hull) so using your theory we would assume that the price of housing throughout the UK is also uniform. Well this patently isn't true. The same house plonked in different locations would fetch wildly different prices and this difference is a reflection of the economic opportunities available in that area. That's why the programme is called Location, Location, Location, not Credit, Credit, Credit.

Edited by Authoritarian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Land banks are a product of planning laws. Scrap the laws and the 'banks' will be near worthless; people will build freely elsewhere, unless they sell off said land cheaply.

Nope, "land prices are a function of rent" (Peter Schiff). Increasing the rental potential available in one location won't decrease it in another, in fact it would probably rise in tandem as more services were consumed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can not understand why anyone wants to see large swathes of the English countryside built on with the pretence that it will lower house prices. It won't.

Yes it will, except possibly if no-one lives in the new housing. I don't see much chance of that happening anywhere in the SE, and certainly not anywhere within reach of the M4 and/or the M40.

All it will do is benefit greedy land speculators and house builders.

Consistency check? Someone has to buy the houses before builders and (especially) speculators can benefit.

Do we want the sort of free for all that happened in Spain & Ireland?

Yes please. There is only so much danger of some builder investing in an enormous number of holiday apartments in the middle of nowhere. The whole point of watering down planning laws is that you can build close to where there already is infrastructure. Anyway, maybe a finished and yet abandoned development is just what we need to deal with housing benefit recipients who live in central London and cost more than many working people pay in tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, this is a schoolboy error made far to often on internet forums, thankfully it's one that's easily busted.

The amount of credit available in the UK is uniform, (unless you believe that a branch of Barclays in Surrey has more to lend out that a Branch in Hull)

Except it clearly does because the people through the door are substantially better able to service larger loans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except it clearly does because the people through the door are substantially better able to service larger loans?

...In other words location dictates credit availability and hence house prices, not the other way around.

Thanks for making my point for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...In other words location dictates credit availability and hence house prices, not the other way around.

Thanks for making my point for me.

You're a pleasant chap aren't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunno, blunt but not rude. You've been around here long enough not to be so delicate surely?

Yeah, you're right.

Here's another You Tube video of the Kate Rusby cover, of a land that never existed, but lives on in the mind of the Telegraph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, this is a schoolboy error made far to often on internet forums, thankfully it's one that's easily busted.

The amount of credit available in the UK is uniform, (unless you believe that a branch of Barclays in Surrey has more to lend out that a Branch in Hull) so using your theory we would assume that the price of housing throughout the UK is also uniform. Well this patently isn't true. The same house plonked in different locations would fetch wildly different prices and this difference is a reflection of the economic opportunities available in that area. That's why the programme is called Location, Location, Location, not Credit, Credit, Credit.

You are not employing the principle of charitable interpretation.

Obviously the cost of land varies according to location. This is because of local variation in demand.

However, the point I think he was making was that in aggregate, given the relatively fixed supply of planning-permission-granted land, the cost of land is largely determined by credit supply. This is because credit supply determines aggregate demand in conditions of demand for credit. (we are now in a phase where credit is available, but often not wanted, in which case credit supply per se may not be the limiting factor).

Credit may be uniform accross the UK, however there is variation over time, and variation due to extrinsic factors (i.e. not attributable to the value of assets secured against), for example an increase in buyers of securitized mortgages.

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.

  • 343 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.