Shapps: Britain Unlikely To Ever Develop Enough Houses

[OnlyMe]

One of the biggest lies ever to come from the lips of a politician, this is getting as bad a Broon.

Rip up the planing regs and put something in place to provide land and the land price would fall to enable millions of houses to be built, both by larger builders, medium and small.

They won't do it becuase they don;t want to, absolutely nothing to do with can't.

http://www.24dash.com/news/housing/2012-05-22-Shapps-Britain-unlikely-to-ever-develop-enough-houses

Shapps: Britain unlikely to ever develop enough houses

Shapps: Britain unlikely to ever develop enough houses Shapps: Britain unlikely to ever develop enough houses

The Housing Minister Grant Shapps has said that Britain is unlikely to ever develop enough houses to meet demand.

During an interview with the Bloomsberg news agency, Shapps said: “There isn’t one thing you can do to solve this. In the really best possible imaginable circumstances, the boom in the housing market, we were still only building 170,000.

[Executive Sadman]

You have to realize a lot of NIMBYs selfishness has driven them to senility. They will literally wage war and intimidation to stop families from having homes to live in. The only option is to get the diggers in when they're on one of their many luxury foreign holidays or cruises.

However, shapps comments are intuitive as to the larger failings of the public (and indeed much of the private) sectors.

In the really best possible imaginable circumstances, the boom in the housing market, we were still only building 170,000.

Countless hundreds of billions thrown at new mortgage debt - itself investment in the housing sector, and yet historically low levels of housebuilding. Dont demand greater outputs than inputs, and you get inflation. Worse still, how many of those 'new' units were just carving up grand old family homes into bedsits, sorry, studio apartments? Not only has housing quantity not kept up, Housing stock quality has also fallen.

Its why I also wretched when Brown constantly boasted of the billions of our money he was throwing at the NHS. Never did he spend much time elaborating on what we were getting in return. All to often the reality was 'not much'.

It seems govt is only bothered about inputs, not outputs. Not surprising, given stealing our money is the easy bit.

[Tired of Waiting]

One of the biggest lies ever to come from the lips of a politician, this is getting as bad a Broon.

Rip up the planing regs and put something in place to provide land and the land price would fall to enable millions of houses to be built, both by larger builders, medium and small.

They won't do it becuase they don;t want to, absolutely nothing to do with can't.

http://www.24dash.com/news/housing/2012-05-22-Shapps-Britain-unlikely-to-ever-develop-enough-houses

Shapps: Britain unlikely to ever develop enough houses

Shapps: Britain unlikely to ever develop enough houses Shapps: Britain unlikely to ever develop enough houses

The Housing Minister Grant Shapps has said that Britain is unlikely to ever develop enough houses to meet demand.

During an interview with the Bloomsberg news agency, Shapps said: “There isn’t one thing you can do to solve this. In the really best possible imaginable circumstances, the boom in the housing market, we were still only building 170,000.

What a moron. I think he actually believes it is to do with "lack of demand"!

However:

It only costs around £1,000/sq.m to build a house.

And land costs only around £10,000/acre - without planning permit. (Enough for 10 to 20 houses!)

But a small plot with planning permit shots up to £50,000 to £100,000! Just the plot!

A family house home could cost just some £100,000! Instead, thanks to the planning blockage, it costs between £150,000 and £200,000!

Spot the key problem?!

[billybong]

Shapps continued: “We won’t get to the total unless we’re living in a much better economy.

Today, we’re facing an incredibly tough global economy, euro-zone crisis, problems with mortgages, household incomes.”

To be fair how is that not just an outright and barefaced lie - blaming it on the general economy.

[Tired of Waiting]

To be fair how is that not just an outright and barefaced lie - blaming it on the general economy.

It may be ignorance. Really.

I think he is stuck on a "frame of mind" of ... some sort. I don't know.

[Travisher]

Its not the NIMBYs that are stopping the housing as anyone who has opposed a development will tell you, it all gets through on appeal.

Back in 2007 the banks lent the property companies money to buy overpriced land. Now the property companies cannot build on that land for the simple reason that if they do they have to realise the true value of the land when they sell the houses. That means the banks will not lend them the money to build since they will expose the bank's loans of 2007. The property companies have to be able to keep the original purchase price on their books or they are bust. The banks cannot allow development or they will be bust. The government cannot allow the banks to lend to the builders or they will go bust. The attempt to trash the planning laws is to allow the builders to build on land not traded in 2007 it has buggerall to do with red tape. Government thrives and grows wherever red tape takes hold.

[OnlyMe]

To be fair how is that not just an outright and barefaced lie - blaming it on the general economy.

Post war building boom actually helped get the UK out of recession. Not only is it a lie, the logic is completely reverese to what is being stated.

No govt. money would be needed, not one penny, in fact a small land coversion gain and planning fees would bring in billions.

They don't want it to happen, they are utterly wedded to the high cost ponzi. We have never been through a situation like this, unless they undo the damage (or stop doing more damage) they are going to utterly wreck theis country for good.

[eric pebble]

One of the biggest lies ever to come from the lips of a politician, this is getting as bad a Broon.

Rip up the planing regs and put something in place to provide land and the land price would fall to enable millions of houses to be built, both by larger builders, medium and small.

They won't do it becuase they don;t want to, absolutely nothing to do with can't.

http://www.24dash.com/news/housing/2012-05-22-Shapps-Britain-unlikely-to-ever-develop-enough-houses

Shapps: Britain unlikely to ever develop enough houses

Shapps: Britain unlikely to ever develop enough houses Shapps: Britain unlikely to ever develop enough houses

The Housing Minister Grant Shapps has said that Britain is unlikely to ever develop enough houses to meet demand.

During an interview with the Bloomsberg news agency, Shapps said: “There isn’t one thing you can do to solve this. In the really best possible imaginable circumstances, the boom in the housing market, we were still only building 170,000.

And what they do "build" is a complete and utter scandal...

Tiny rooms, no cupboards, narrow stairs, narrow flimsy doors, terrible build "quality", etc etc.......

The fact that this guy can sit there without a scintilla of showing any apology or shame says it all.....

Gordon Broon allowed this whole massive bubble Ponzi scam to run and run --- and now this lot haven't the guts nor the gumption to pull their fingers out of their @rseholes and DO SOMETHING RADICAL -- AND SOLVE THE PROBLEM IN ONE GO.......

Edited May 22, 2012 by eric pebble

[Tired of Waiting]

Its not the NIMBYs that are stopping the housing as anyone who has opposed a development will tell you, it all gets through on appeal.

Back in 2007 the banks lent the property companies money to buy overpriced land. (...)

If it were easy to get planning there wouldn't be overpriced land.

(...) Now the property companies cannot build on that land for the simple reason that if they do they have to realise the true value of the land when they sell the houses.

(...) That means the banks will not lend them the money to build since they will expose the bank's loans of 2007. The property companies have to be able to keep the original purchase price on their books or they are bust.

Oh I see. Now I agree with you.

(...) The banks cannot allow development or they will be bust. The government cannot allow the banks to lend to the builders or they will go bust. The attempt to trash the planning laws is to allow the builders to build on land not traded in 2007 it has buggerall to do with red tape. Government thrives and grows wherever red tape takes hold.

Fine! That works for me.

Building land must be cheaper. Then builders/people will be able to build houses that people can afford.

Moreover, individuals should also be able to buy a small plot and build a family home - like in most normal countries in this planet.

Besides, that potential "competition" would also cap builders profits to a reasonable amount.

[Tired of Waiting]

Post war building boom actually helped get the UK out of recession. Not only is it a lie, the logic is completely reverese to what is being stated.

No govt. money would be needed, not one penny, in fact a small land coversion gain and planning fees would bring in billions.

They don't want it to happen, they are utterly wedded to the high cost ponzi. We have never been through a situation like this, unless they undo the damage (or stop doing more damage) they are going to utterly wreck theis country for good.

Good post.

[The Knimbies who say No]

What a dreadful excuse for a Minister of State- a 'rising star' to boot, apparently.

[SarahBell]

"Three quarters of a million traditional brick homes were built by councils between 1945 and 1953. "

http://brickfields.org.uk/htt/htt_postww2_homes.htm

[crash2006]

Go back around 80 years we were building over half a million homes a year, at one point they build 750k homes in one year and with technological advancement we build less, we going back into time?

I'm seem the local councils destroy 1000s of family homes and building half that amount with the other other half of the land used to build parks and shopping mails, one example is the Earls court project.

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

Incredible. Housing Minister says he can't do his job and has given up.

And if it is the case, then why were the last government demolishing hundreds of thousands of houses?

he didnt say that, he said he could do his job and take his salary but was at the mercy of external factors, and why shouldnt the last govt demolish thousands of houses, why shouldnt this govt, as long as there are 30 million cap doffers the govt should and can do whatever the fck they want

[tinker]

Its not the NIMBYs that are stopping the housing as anyone who has opposed a development will tell you, it all gets through on appeal.

Back in 2007 the banks lent the property companies money to buy overpriced land. Now the property companies cannot build on that land for the simple reason that if they do they have to realise the true value of the land when they sell the houses. That means the banks will not lend them the money to build since they will expose the bank's loans of 2007. The property companies have to be able to keep the original purchase price on their books or they are bust. The banks cannot allow development or they will be bust. The government cannot allow the banks to lend to the builders or they will go bust. The attempt to trash the planning laws is to allow the builders to build on land not traded in 2007 it has buggerall to do with red tape. Government thrives and grows wherever red tape takes hold.

I would agree with much of this. I saw it locally, in spite of planning permissions, development came to a sudden halt in 2008; the supply of credit was driving the housing market, quite simply the extortion prices could no longer be achieved through the loose credit regime. A reality sank in.

That's not to say the whole system is a mess - dysfunctional because it's not a real market; the blame falls at the door of government for encouraging the bubble and speculation and not realising that perhaps high house prices were long-term detrimental to the country, whilst of short-term political gain. But hey, politicians only care about power (and money).

House prices need to adjust to the new economic reality - not politically appealing, so the fudges and excuses will continue.

Lack of homes, I give you the £3b Pathfinder scheme costing billions yet failing to deliver whilst 'cleansing' whole areas. Then there are the council house sell-offs priorities over rent-assured new building.

After years of throwing imaginary money at things, everything is too damn expensive.

[chris25]

If it were easy to get planning there wouldn't be overpriced land.

Oh I see. Now I agree with you.

Fine! That works for me.

Building land must be cheaper. Then builders/people will be able to build houses that people can afford.

Moreover, individuals should also be able to buy a small plot and build a family home - like in most normal countries in this planet.

Besides, that potential "competition" would also cap builders profits to a reasonable amount.

The problem is not lack of houses. It is lack of population control.

You can build tens of thousands of houses but if population continues to increase then the effect on house prices will be negligible.

The population is increasing by at least 1/4 of a million per year (gov. figures) and shows no sign of slowing down.

Control immigration and don't give money to single mothers to spew out children, then with time demand will ease and thus will prices. It really is that simple.

[CrashConnoisseur]

Shapps said: “There isn’t one thing you can do to solve this. In the really best possible imaginable circumstances, the boom in the housing market, we were still only building 170,000.

That tells us more about Shapps' lack of imagination than it does anything about the housing market.

[CrashConnoisseur]

Control immigration and don't give money to single mothers to spew out children, then with time demand will ease and thus will prices. It really is that simple.

It isn't that simple. To control immigration the country would have to leave the EU and impose some form of work permit system similar to the Isle of Man. Single mothers in general don't "spew out children". Most would have been part of a couple when they had their children and statistically they are more likely to have just one child than women who remain in a couple.