Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

Conservatives Given Millions By Property Developers

Recommended Posts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/hands-off-our-land/8754027/Conservatives-given-millions-by-property-developers.html

Dozens of property firms have given a total of £3.3 million to the party over the past three years, including large gifts from companies seeking to develop rural land.

Developers are also paying thousands of pounds for access to senior Tories through the Conservative Property Forum, a club of elite donors which sets up “breakfast meetings” to discuss planning and property issues.

The disclosures are likely to provoke a new “cash-for-access” row and will give rise to fears that planning policies could have been influenced by powerful figures from the property industry.

Nice, I'm sure these companies just believe in democracy and are seeking no advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need more homes. Someone will benefit from homes being built. Same way someone benefits from keeping land scarce.

National Trust is the welfare state for failed landowning families who have fallen on hard times, not that l disapprove overall - l am a member.

No-one's building on the lawn of heritage stately homes. If the NT were so bothered about over development then perhaps they should lobby for balanced net migration, or penalising mothers who have too many children no?

I am in favour of loosening planning regulations. Allowing more housing would reduce land prices and enable higher quality (i.e. attractive homes rather than slave boxes). NT current position offers no alternative, we get to live in slave boxes whereas the socially priveledged activists within the NT and the likes of the CPRE get to treat the countryside like its an extension of their back garden.

Writing off the top of my head - open to corrective action - oooh the error of me ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need more homes. Someone will benefit from homes being built. Same way someone benefits from keeping land scarce.

National Trust is the welfare state for failed landowning families who have fallen on hard times, not that l disapprove overall - l am a member.

No-one's building on the lawn of heritage stately homes. If the NT were so bothered about over development then perhaps they should lobby for balanced net migration, or penalising mothers who have too many children no?

I am in favour of loosening planning regulations. Allowing more housing would reduce land prices and enable higher quality (i.e. attractive homes rather than slave boxes). NT current position offers no alternative, we get to live in slave boxes whereas the socially priveledged activists within the NT and the likes of the CPRE get to treat the countryside like its an extension of their back garden.

Writing off the top of my head - open to corrective action - oooh the error of me ways.

+1.5 (Inflation adjusted).

1. More homes

2. Less immigration

Sorted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Locally, three bed timber framed David Charles houses are being constructed ,including land and development costs, for £31K per unit. They are up for sale starting at £215 a unit. That is one hell of a mark up. No wonder developers can afford million pound back handers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Locally, three bed timber framed David Charles houses are being constructed ,including land and development costs, for £31K per unit. They are up for sale starting at £215 a unit. That is one hell of a mark up. No wonder developers can afford million pound back handers.

If there were not the restrictions in land usage then those backhanders would be a fraction of what they are now.

It is just like a fraud ring - councils restrict land, earn some bunce on the side for the unscrupulous ones via that very restriction, or indirectly through being on the spot to make the most of their situation of knowledge about planning gains to be made in the locality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be funny though if the conservatives gave them no favours at all, but thanks for the donations and breakie! :D

The problem is that the newly proposed planning legislation would relax the system for getting consent considerably. It would not promote growth, but anger and frustration and NIMBY protests. It is shortsighted and stupid. There are other ways to deal with this!

If there is any connection between donations and the new policy then it is disgusting. Proving it may be difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need more homes. Someone will benefit from homes being built. Same way someone benefits from keeping land scarce.

National Trust is the welfare state for failed landowning families who have fallen on hard times, not that l disapprove overall - l am a member.

The original intention of the National Trust was as a countryside conservation charity. Unfortunately, as with any institution, subversion by those with power and influence resulted in a corruption of the original ideals.

No-one's building on the lawn of heritage stately homes. If the NT were so bothered about over development then perhaps they should lobby for balanced net migration, or penalising mothers who have too many children no?

Thankfully, the NT aren't all about stately homes and are still concerned about the countryside, hence why I'm also a member. However, I think many people misinterpret their intentions.

The modern conservation/environmental sector isn't about preserving Olde England in aspic, nor about opposing the building of homes. It's about appropriate land use - is land quality/geography etc. best suited for wildlife habitat, growing food, building or whatever. This is a common sense approach I broadly agree with and is not anti-building at all. If such an approach were used more widely flood plains would not be built on, for example.

I am in favour of loosening planning regulations. Allowing more housing would reduce land prices and enable higher quality (i.e. attractive homes rather than slave boxes). NT current position offers no alternative, we get to live in slave boxes whereas the socially priveledged activists within the NT and the likes of the CPRE get to treat the countryside like its an extension of their back garden.

As I said, my understanding is that the NT's position isn't like this at all - their primary objection is the change to prioritising commercial concerns (and those of developers rather than individual home builders) above quality of life when it comes to planning. Personally I can't see how this change will promote building of homes as long as the current economic conditions continue - massive land banks are already held by developers and aren't being used, so amount of land isn't a problem.

My personal thoughts on planning is that preservation of quality and appropriate land use is more important than any restriction of numbers - I wouldn't restrict numbers at all - I believe we could double or triple the amount of homes in the countryside without significant change as long as they 'have a dialogue with the landscape' as Kevin McCloud might say. That doesn't mean Prince Charles-style retro homes either. We should also favour self-build rather than developments.

Much is made of the fact that we built all over the countryside in the past, however the difference is, in my opinion, that much more priority was placed on aesthetics in the past, and the building materials used were predominantly natural.

Get to the heart of many NIMBYs and we may find that rather than opposing any building, they just don't have any faith that purely commercially-driven building will be in any way appropriate and I'd tend to agree with them on that point.

What we build will possibly last generations, so why not make sure it is of the highest quality rather than a quick buck for some spivs?

It's interesting that when it comes to planning changes, many HPCers are suddenly on the side of developers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original intention of the National Trust was as a countryside conservation charity. Unfortunately, as with any institution, subversion by those with power and influence resulted in a corruption of the original ideals.

Thankfully, the NT aren't all about stately homes and are still concerned about the countryside, hence why I'm also a member. However, I think many people misinterpret their intentions.

The modern conservation/environmental sector isn't about preserving Olde England in aspic, nor about opposing the building of homes. It's about appropriate land use - is land quality/geography etc. best suited for wildlife habitat, growing food, building or whatever. This is a common sense approach I broadly agree with and is not anti-building at all. If such an approach were used more widely flood plains would not be built on, for example.

As I said, my understanding is that the NT's position isn't like this at all - their primary objection is the change to prioritising commercial concerns (and those of developers rather than individual home builders) above quality of life when it comes to planning. Personally I can't see how this change will promote building of homes as long as the current economic conditions continue - massive land banks are already held by developers and aren't being used, so amount of land isn't a problem.

My personal thoughts on planning is that preservation of quality and appropriate land use is more important than any restriction of numbers - I wouldn't restrict numbers at all - I believe we could double or triple the amount of homes in the countryside without significant change as long as they 'have a dialogue with the landscape' as Kevin McCloud might say. That doesn't mean Prince Charles-style retro homes either. We should also favour self-build rather than developments.

Much is made of the fact that we built all over the countryside in the past, however the difference is, in my opinion, that much more priority was placed on aesthetics in the past, and the building materials used were predominantly natural.

Get to the heart of many NIMBYs and we may find that rather than opposing any building, they just don't have any faith that purely commercially-driven building will be in any way appropriate and I'd tend to agree with them on that point.

What we build will possibly last generations, so why not make sure it is of the highest quality rather than a quick buck for some spivs?

It's interesting that when it comes to planning changes, many HPCers are suddenly on the side of developers...

Thanks for your extensive reply.

Couple of immediate responses:

Where's my quality of life then? The current status quo knackers just about everyone bar a small number of elite. Society at large including its economic system is crippled by high house prices, the debt required to buy them and the overall cost of living and reduction in international competitiveness and general QUALITY OF LIFE.

I don't buy the angle on the developers. So they have land banks with planning permission on them do they? Explain to me why they therefore want to stop their cash flow (not building and selling) and increase their expenditure (by opening up more land to buy for development via the ebil Tories?). Cashflow problems kill companies. Try again - l remain unconvinced.

More likely they have land that no-one has any interest in living on, or it has no planning permission. There is a shortage of land in places near to anything useful - that's why we end up with homes on floodplains. Therefore it is entirely possible that developers have land in useful places with no permission that they want to convert into land with planning permission. Sure they will do very well from whatever limited planning land price they originally paid. However as this land is released any remaining landbank becomes worth less and less.

Response to million-homes-lad: Most in wrong place. Those that are in right place are being hoarded because of market distortions. Normally as X goes up in price, people hold X back speculating that they can sell it for more later. Normally as price goes up more supply comes on line, and people are encouraged to net sell their stock of X, the relationship tends to remain in equilibrium - but the market is broken by the planning system that chokes the market supply response and caters only for large developers with little room for organic supply.

To be honest this all feels like we are having the wrong debate. Its like being a vegetarian and having a conversation about whether you ought to eat Beef or Lamb. If people dont want more housing then they need to turn their attention to the strain being created by an increasing population, each of whom is increasingly wasteful and personally burdensome on the natural and social resources of this country. If one can't stomach that aspect of the debate then frankly anything they have to say about limiting development seems somewhat disingenuous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your extensive reply.

Couple of immediate responses:

Where's my quality of life then? The current status quo knackers just about everyone bar a small number of elite. Society at large including its economic system is crippled by high house prices, the debt required to buy them and the overall cost of living and reduction in international competitiveness and general QUALITY OF LIFE.

I don't buy the angle on the developers. So they have land banks with planning permission on them do they? Explain to me why they therefore want to stop their cash flow (not building and selling) and increase their expenditure (by opening up more land to buy for development via the ebil Tories?). Cashflow problems kill companies. Try again - l remain unconvinced.

More likely they have land that no-one has any interest in living on, or it has no planning permission. There is a shortage of land in places near to anything useful - that's why we end up with homes on floodplains. Therefore it is entirely possible that developers have land in useful places with no permission that they want to convert into land with planning permission. Sure they will do very well from whatever limited planning land price they originally paid. However as this land is released any remaining landbank becomes worth less and less.

Response to million-homes-lad: Most in wrong place. Those that are in right place are being hoarded because of market distortions. Normally as X goes up in price, people hold X back speculating that they can sell it for more later. Normally as price goes up more supply comes on line, and people are encouraged to net sell their stock of X, the relationship tends to remain in equilibrium - but the market is broken by the planning system that chokes the market supply response and caters only for large developers with little room for organic supply.

To be honest this all feels like we are having the wrong debate. Its like being a vegetarian and having a conversation about whether you ought to eat Beef or Lamb. If people dont want more housing then they need to turn their attention to the strain being created by an increasing population, each of whom is increasingly wasteful and personally burdensome on the natural and social resources of this country. If one can't stomach that aspect of the debate then frankly anything they have to say about limiting development seems somewhat disingenuous.

Regarding your points overall, I agree and would loosen planning with regard to quantity and location, as I believe I pointed out. However the track record of large scale development over the past few years isn't a good one - identikit, poorly built, smallest in Europe housing with tiny gardens, I'm not sure how the proposed changes will change that. We don't have an effective planning service, but I don't see that the changes proposed will help anyone other than the big developers and it appears we are beginning to see why (hence this thread).

Therefore I do agree with the thrust of the planning opposition by the NT, which I don't believe is about restricting numbers of houses. Regarding their status as a 'VI', I don't buy it. While I can't speculate about the rest of the opposition to the planning regulations, the NT rely mostly on membership and money from the public so therefore would be badly hurt in the long term by high housing costs strangling spending.

On land banks, this is from 2008 and as far as I know, the situation has worsened -

http://www.rtpi.org.uk/item/1547/23/5/3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Locally, three bed timber framed David Charles houses are being constructed ,including land and development costs, for £31K per unit. They are up for sale starting at £215 a unit. That is one hell of a mark up. No wonder developers can afford million pound back handers.

People i know think im lying when i tell them the house they just paid a fortune for was built for way under 50k.

This is why i wont be taking advantage of the super duper new FTB scheme, why are the government providing just this option for FTBs who cant afford a home.

Why would i want to pay a massive house building company way way way over the odds for something i am perfectly capable of building myself, why have i got no right to buy a plot of land on the new lego land barrats estate. Good luck to anybody taking part in this new government scheme because if they buy one in the NW then the men who will be building the houses will be working faster than ever due to rates of pay being very low so the quality of the new homes will be shoddy to say the least. If a joiner, tiler, plumber does a good job then he wont make a wage, if he does a rough job thats just about enough to get signed off then he will make a wage.

A new build barrats estate went up near me and 3 of my friends fell into the trap of buying homes on there, They asked me to fill in the snagging list provided to them by barrats regarding the work they were not happy with on their brand spanking new house (i jumped at the chance). As im in the building game i knew what to look for which resulted in my friends asking for more snagging lists as one was not enough. some of the snags that came up, front doors damaged, internal doors rattling, internal door clearances all over the place, squeaking floors, tape and jointed walls painted before being sanded flat, no restrictors on patio doors (whole estate had same problem), no scribing architraves to walls just filled up with caulk that shrinks and falls out, gaps on cornice and pelmet mitres, gaps on butt and scribe joints on kitchen worktops, the list went on and on until we hit the big one on one house. Mid terraced property that had a back garden 1.5m narrower than every other garden in that row. The site agent didnt know i was in the building game (i made sure of that) so when i pointed this massive mistake out to him he tried to convince me it was not a mistake and was perfectly correct because we were stood at a funny angle to the house and it was an optical illusion, cue me pulling the plans and tape measure out of my **** pocket and telling the agent if i was doing the fencing and flagging for him id have been a bit confused when i ended up with one row of flags in one garden and two rows in every other garden.

It costed thousands to sort out these 3 houses and my friends were telling any new buyers to get somebody who knew what they were doing to fill out the snag list but didnt really get anywhere because everybody seemed happy enough laying out 150k+ for their new house as it looked nice and shiny, people need to stop letting the house building companys get away with 5hite work and charging way over the odds for it.

Most of the time (not always) the 5hite quality of the house is not really a reflection on the skills of the men who built it, its down to the prices the house builders pay. I see these programs on tv all the time about homes from hell and cowboy builders and suchlike (yes there are useless tradesmen out there) but never do you hear what the house builder was paying the lads on the tools, do a good job or pay the bills is the decision you have to make sometimes.

Lucky for me i cant afford a new build :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest spp

They've really been pumping 5K Deposit 70% ownership crap on the radio stations lately!

You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours!

What's a few digital 'money' entries between friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People i know think im lying when i tell them the house they just paid a fortune for was built for way under 50k.

Like I keep on saying these housebuilders in the UK are no such thing - they are land speculating companies - they have no interest in the vallue/quality in the box that is erected other than that it unlocks planning/land gains for them, heavily backed by government in return for grace and favours of the donation kind.

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.

  • 335 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.