Proportion Of All Homes Delivered By Self Build, By Country

[PopGun]

1) No subsidy, at all. I'm only in favour of Councils developing land and selling plots if if these councils profit from it. As I wrote before, down here, all plots would be sold immediately, and with a profit for the Local Authorities. They could even auction these plots...

To individuals or speculators?!

[Traktion]

...

Even if we were to accept your own numbers for a serviced plot (£37k for a 1/10 of an acre), and even if we increased the house building costs by 20%, to £1,200/m2, a large 3 or 4 bedrooms semi, with 130m2 would cost only £156k + £37k = £193k.

And for small houses, I think the most cost effective would probably be a row of terraces, built by a local, small building company. Plots of 6m x 30m = 180m2 would be half of those above, and internal area could be around 80m2. Total cost probably between £110k and £120k - even if we were to believe in your own numbers!

...

There are new build 3-bed semis, near 80m2, priced at £105k on an estate here in NI near where I live. Incidentally, this was the starting price before the boom too (they reached £195k for the same houses, at the peak in 2007). These have front and back gardens, decent sized kitchens and living rooms (with fire place + chimney), down stairs toilet and en-suite bathroom in the master bedroom. In short, a decent small family home.

This rather rejects the assertion that you can't build houses of a liveable size, for around £100k.

Additionally, if you look at old house ruins over here (of which, there are many, in contrast to England), houses were much smaller a few generations ago. Kids shared rooms with bunk beds, had small kitchens and living rooms etc. If bigger homes can't be afforded (even those above at around 100k - and falling), ambitions need to be reduced - there is no magic way to change the economics of this.

[Tired of Waiting]

I think that this illustrates the difference between us. I'm not all that bothered about acknowledging a mistake on an Internet forum. I actually feel quite sorry for you. You live in the SE and are only on average earnings. It must be pretty crushing to know that you will most likely not own a decent house any time soon. You sound as though you are youngish (and I say this as a man who is also under 40 so not patronising you). Maybe your career will take off which in turn will boost your salary to the point that you can buy somewhere decent even if there is no nominal crash? All the best.

I can learn too. Even from you. For instance I think your point about reducing building costs is also very important. Your information regarding a Scottish company with a new modular construction model achieving for £600/m2 is very important, very useful. Actually I think in the future prices should come down in relation to earnings, as productivity increases in this sector. Progress happens in all areas.

By the way, could you please post a link to this company?

Thank you for your sympathy. In the medium and long term we will be fine. The problem affecting many younger working couples here in the south is that these absurdly high housing costs force them into cramped and crowded conditions, and most are delaying starting a family because of that. We are probably a bit better than average, and we are still affected by it. It's a social disaster. And the worst thing is that it's totally self-inflicted, caused by irresponsible credit(affecting the whole country) + planning blockage (affecting mainly the south).

BTW, I think our main problem at the beginning of our argument was that you had no idea how huge the planning gain is in these rich southern rural counties, and how strong NIMBYism is down here. And took me a while to notice that and manage to explain it to you, and/or for you to understand it.

And thank you for (implicitly) accepting my other arguments.

[Tired of Waiting]

To individuals or speculators?!

Before this thread I would say individuals only. But for cheaper houses we would have to think how to allow rows of terraces. Either to a group of individuals, or allowing small local builders and/or small local building companies to build them? Not sure.

EDIT: Perhaps the most important would be that, whoever buys it, has to build fast, say within 2 years. If not, they would have to return the plot - and get only part of their money back.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Tired of Waiting

[Tired of Waiting]

There are new build 3-bed semis, near 80m2, priced at £105k on an estate here in NI near where I live. Incidentally, this was the starting price before the boom too (they reached £195k for the same houses, at the peak in 2007). These have front and back gardens, decent sized kitchens and living rooms (with fire place + chimney), down stairs toilet and en-suite bathroom in the master bedroom. In short, a decent small family home.

This rather rejects the assertion that you can't build houses of a liveable size, for around £100k.

(...)

Thank you Traktion.

[PopGun]

Before this thread I would say individuals only. But for cheaper houses we would have to think how to allow rows of terraces. Either to a group of individuals, or allowing small local builders and/or small local building companies to build them? Not sure.

What about the BTL (Build to Let) brigade??

[Guest_FaFa!_*]

1) No subsidy, at all. I'm only in favour of Councils developing land and selling plots if if these councils profit from it. As I wrote before, down here, all plots would be sold immediately, and with a profit for the Local Authorities. They could even auction these plots, initially collecting these currently high planning gains to the public purse, instead of giving to lucky farmers. And year by year, as they provided more plots, the prices and planning gains would reduce, until their profit (planning gain) is small. We will by then have a fairer, more efficient market. And I've thinking in the same line for a longtime (no subsidy, councils auctioning the building plots, ro maximise revenue). Example: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=findpost&pid=3027190

What you are arguing is that farmers should be forced to sell their land to the council who then sells it on at a mark up and pockets the profits. But this, apparently, isn't a subsidy. If it isn't a subsidy, it is certainly dubious. I don't believe that two wrongs make a right and I don't see why people should be forced to sell land they legally own. The reasons have to be more compelling than we'd like to buy your land to create some plots that self-builders may or may not use.

2) You are clinging to your red-herring that a single male, on average earnings, should be able to buy a new, semi-detached house, in the south-east for 3.5x his salary. And if we can't achieve that, you will oppose any progress in that direction. Remember that you agreed that if you increase the supply on the middle of the market, all prices will fall, including at the bottom of the market.

It isn't a red herring, it is a fact that the historical average house price is 3.5 times male median full time annual earnings. The only way you can argue against this is to say that the average house isn't a 120sqm semi. I don't oppose any progress in that direction, I simply point out to you that self-build will not be the cheaper option in a properly functioning market, or viable for most people which is my concern.

3) OK, what then if a 3 bedroom house could be built for less than £120k? Planning liberalisation would also allow hundreds of local builders and/or small local building companies to build hundreds of small row of (affordable) terraces. Why did you say: "I have no interest in your terraces argument."?

Ummm....great. What if aliens arrive tomorrow and give us the secret of life? Show how a 3 bed could be built for 120k then you'll have an argument.

4) The planning legislation is unbalanced, allowing more powers to NIMBYs than to potential future residents. I think NIMBYism is stronger in these richer southern rural counties due to the local older middle class residents being much more organised and much greater in number than in northern counties - IMPO. I have two indications of it: Organisations such as "Protect Rural England" and "National Trust" are incredibly active and strong down here; And most counties down here are Conservative dominated, or by very conservative Lib-Dems. These people control the political power down here. That is our main problem here.

The problem is you are balancing the rights of actual current residents against potential future residents. Potential residents naturally don't have a voice as they don't yet exist (if you see what I mean). I agree it is a problem but forced purchases are only going to inflame the situation. Again I point to the development of the north as a more amenable solution.

5) North/south issue: I actually agree with you, and I am against any government subsidy in the south. But you wrote: "I don't see myself necessarily opposing council building in the south." If you are in favour of government subsidised council houses in the south, then why are you opposed to self-financed housing in the south? Remember, I am only in favour of Councils developing land and selling plots if these councils profit from it. No subsidy. Wouldn't this be a better route to increase housing in the south? No taxpayers money needed, and social housing...

My understanding of council housing is that the council constructs housing (which they can do cheaper than the self-build due to economies of scale). They then rent this property out. They would give them an income stream which pays for the property over time. Certainly some people can claim housing benefit to live there, but that is a separate issue. I certainly have no fundamental issue with the idea of the poor being assisted, however the way I would do this would be through a job guarantee, with benefits only going to those unable to work through age or infirmity. But that is a topic for a separate thread.

6) Social housing: As the supply increases, overall prices will fall. This will reduce the social housing bill from two different angles:

1. less people will need help

2. cost for those who still need will be cheaper.

Sure, but I'd rather see a direction intervention than a trickle down effect.

[Guest_FaFa!_*]

There are new build 3-bed semis, near 80m2, priced at £105k on an estate here in NI near where I live. Incidentally, this was the starting price before the boom too (they reached £195k for the same houses, at the peak in 2007). These have front and back gardens, decent sized kitchens and living rooms (with fire place + chimney), down stairs toilet and en-suite bathroom in the master bedroom. In short, a decent small family home.

This rather rejects the assertion that you can't build houses of a liveable size, for around £100k.

Additionally, if you look at old house ruins over here (of which, there are many, in contrast to England), houses were much smaller a few generations ago. Kids shared rooms with bunk beds, had small kitchens and living rooms etc. If bigger homes can't be afforded (even those above at around 100k - and falling), ambitions need to be reduced - there is no magic way to change the economics of this.

80m2 is a small semi. It is presumably one of those houses with the "3rd" bedroom you cannot swing a cat in. The point isn't whether you can buy a new build for 105k, you certainly can. The point is whether you can do it as a self-build. You get to the 105k price point via economies of scale not available to self-builders.

[Traktion]

80m2 is a small semi. It is presumably one of those houses with the "3rd" bedroom you cannot swing a cat in. The point isn't whether you can buy a new build for 105k, you certainly can. The point is whether you can do it as a self-build. You get to the 105k price point via economies of scale not available to self-builders.

I think 7upfree was suggesting that you couldn't build new houses for that sort of rate at all, but fair enough.

IMO, as long as the builders can't monopolise land through land banking and tight planning, it doesn't really matter if the large companies build the houses or not. You could also have cooperatives who do the building, much like the original building societies, as long as there is land readily accessible to build on.

[7upfree]

I can learn too. Even from you. For instance I think your point about reducing building costs is also very important. Your information regarding a Scottish company with a new modular construction model achieving for £600/m2 is very important, very useful. Actually I think in the future prices should come down in relation to earnings, as productivity increases in this sector. Progress happens in all areas.

By the way, could you please post a link to this company?

Thank you for your sympathy. In the medium and long term we will be fine. The problem affecting many younger working couples here in the south is that these absurdly high housing costs force them into cramped and crowded conditions, and most are delaying starting a family because of that. We are probably a bit better than average, and we are still affected by it. It's a social disaster. And the worst thing is that it's totally self-inflicted, caused by irresponsible credit(affecting the whole country) + planning blockage (affecting mainly the south).

BTW, I think our main problem at the beginning of our argument was that you had no idea how huge the planning gain is in these rich southern rural counties, and how strong NIMBYism is down here. And took me a while to notice that and manage to explain it to you, and/or for you to understand it.

And thank you for (implicitly) accepting my other arguments.

If you think that I am implicitly accepting your arguments on housebuilding then you are mistaken. I've said we should agree to differ and let others decide. I fully understand the concept of planning gain. Even now, prime land in Glasgow is between £1.0 - £1.5m per acre with planning so the concepts are not so different north and south of the border. I've always accepted that it makes a difference. However, if taken with cheaper build costs, many of our problems would be solved. Will ask my client if I can identify them - against professional rules otherwise.

[7upfree]

There are new build 3-bed semis, near 80m2, priced at £105k on an estate here in NI near where I live. Incidentally, this was the starting price before the boom too (they reached £195k for the same houses, at the peak in 2007). These have front and back gardens, decent sized kitchens and living rooms (with fire place + chimney), down stairs toilet and en-suite bathroom in the master bedroom. In short, a decent small family home.

This rather rejects the assertion that you can't build houses of a liveable size, for around £100k.

Additionally, if you look at old house ruins over here (of which, there are many, in contrast to England), houses were much smaller a few generations ago. Kids shared rooms with bunk beds, had small kitchens and living rooms etc. If bigger homes can't be afforded (even those above at around 100k - and falling), ambitions need to be reduced - there is no magic way to change the economics of this.

As I recall (but would need to check) construction costs in NI were considerably cheaper that elsewhere in the UK for a variety of reasons. That was particularly the case in 2005 - 2006. Many of these houses are being sold for less than cost by banks direct or banks supporting zombie property developers. 3 Blocks of flat came onto the market recently in Glasgow for less than 50% of their peak costs and well below the cost to construct.

[Traktion]

As I recall (but would need to check) construction costs in NI were considerably cheaper that elsewhere in the UK for a variety of reasons. That was particularly the case in 2005 - 2006. Many of these houses are being sold for less than cost by banks direct or banks supporting zombie property developers. 3 Blocks of flat came onto the market recently in Glasgow for less than 50% of their peak costs and well below the cost to construct.

They were selling at those prices before the boom and the crisis too. £105k -> £195k -> £105k again (and still falling, I suspect).

What are the 'variety of reasons'? If we're trying to get to the bottom of why cheap houses can't be built, would that not be useful to know?

The main remarkable difference, is up until recently, planning permission was far easier to get (less densely populated too). County Down (where the above houses are) wages are not the lowest in NI either and would be similar to less wealthy places in England, I suspect.

[thecrashingisles]

80m2 is a small semi. It is presumably one of those houses with the "3rd" bedroom you cannot swing a cat in. The point isn't whether you can buy a new build for 105k, you certainly can. The point is whether you can do it as a self-build. You get to the 105k price point via economies of scale not available to self-builders.

If self-build were more common then economies of scale would be realised because you would get a viable ecosystem of businesses which support it.

[Tired of Waiting]

What about the BTL (Build to Let) brigade??

I was thinking about owners occupied.

Haven't thought about BuildTL.

A few initial thoughts, some pros and cons:

Negative: They can crowd-out owners occupying people.

Pros: They do increase house supply.

Pro: They may go for it now, and take the hit when markets fall?

Not sure. We would have to think about that. Perhaps a quota?

[Tired of Waiting]

What you are arguing is that farmers should be forced to sell their land to the council who then sells it on at a mark up and pockets the profits. But this, apparently, isn't a subsidy.

It isn't.

If it isn't a subsidy, it is certainly dubious. I don't believe that two wrongs make a right and I don't see why people should be forced to sell land they legally own. The reasons have to be more compelling than we'd like to buy your land to create some plots that self-builders may or may not use.

Farmers can even be paid above the market price for farmland. The planning permit does not belong to the farmers to begin with.

Plots can be sold with a covenant: build on it, or return it to the council (minus some 10% or 20% for the nuisance?)

It isn't a red herring, it is a fact that the historical average house price is 3.5 times male median full time annual earnings. The only way you can argue against this is to say that the average house isn't a (((NEW))) 120sqm semi.

Exactly.

I don't oppose any progress in that direction, (1) I simply point out to you that self-build will not be the cheaper option in a properly functioning market, (2) or viable for most people which is my concern. (3)

Ummm....great. What if aliens arrive tomorrow and give us the secret of life? Show how a 3 bed could be built for 120k then you'll have an argument. (4)

(1) Thank you.

(2) Big building companies have economies of scale, but also large overheads. That is why most other many countries don't have this concentration we have here. Instead they have many more self builders, and small and medium building companies. It's our planning system that favour big builders.

(3) Oh not again... Frankly FaFa!! You are starting to appear ... "peculiar" now. You do know that if we increase the supply, all prices fall. Including prices at the bottom of the market. You do know that. Please just drop this absolutely silly argument.

(4) Don't you think it's quite logical that a small local builder, with small overheads, can build a little row of terraces, for a similar cost/m2 than a self builder can achieve for a large house? So, use that table, and see the costs /m2.

The problem is you are balancing the rights of actual current residents against potential future residents. Potential residents naturally don't have a voice as they don't yet exist (if you see what I mean). (1) I agree it is a problem but forced purchases are only going to inflame the situation. (2) Again I point to the development of the north as a more amenable solution.

(1) I know! That is exactly what I meant. That is the "democratic deficit" in our planning system.

(2) I agree that it would be very difficult, and probably even impossible under the current political power, particularly here in the south (conservatives, older, land owning, etc., etc.) Maybe if we put in a different way: suppose councils were allowed to sell planning permits, via some kind of auction? (I will have to think about this better. I can't do it now.)

(3) You can't force people to move around the country! Stalin has tried that! If you think my suggestion is authoritarian, yours is worse! Besides, the housing shortage is not only geographical (mainly in the south-east / south-west) but also generational. You would be pressing mainly the younger generation to relocate. I think this would only add to the unfairness of this whole mess.

My understanding of council housing is that the council constructs housing (which they can do cheaper than the self-build due to economies of scale). They then rent this property out. They would give them an income stream which pays for the property over time. Certainly some people can claim housing benefit to live there, but that is a separate issue. I certainly have no fundamental issue with the idea of the poor being assisted, however the way I would do this would be through a job guarantee, with benefits only going to those unable to work through age or infirmity. But that is a topic for a separate thread.

I think small local builders would probably be more efficient than councils.

I agree with housing benefits for those who really need.

Sure, but I'd rather see a direction intervention than a trickle down effect.

Why???!!!

[Tired of Waiting]

I think 7upfree was suggesting that you couldn't build new houses for that sort of rate at all, but fair enough.

+ 1

IMO, as long as the builders can't monopolise land through land banking and tight planning, it doesn't really matter if the large companies build the houses or not. You could also have cooperatives who do the building, much like the original building societies, as long as there is land readily accessible to build on.

+ 1

EDIT: Besides, as I was just writing to FaFa!, big building companies have economies of scale, but also very large overheads. That is why in most other many countries they don't have this market concentration we have here. Instead they have many more self builders, and small and medium building companies. They are therefore much more competitive and efficient markets.

It's our planning system that favour big builders.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Tired of Waiting

[FreeTrader]

This has just popped up on the FT website and it's related to this thread, so I'll add it here:

A canny way to revive our moribund housing sector

Per the forum rules I can't quote the article, but the essential gist is that the sluggish housing market is bad for growth and employment.

How to solve it?

1) New housing associations finance house purchase by issuing govt backed bonds. Low-start fixed-rate mortgage with step option of 2% rise in mortgage payment p.a. to match inflation. Loan calibrated so that if you accept the step then you own house after 25 years. Don't accept the step and you own half the house after 25 years.

2) Local authorities authorised to pay farmers/land owners £75,000 per hectare for land. Authorities grant PP and sell on to developers, trousering profit for benefit of community (ahem). Developer must build within three years or PP lapses. Although 75K well below normal rate for land with PP, many farmers would be interested if land purchased had little expectation of being granted PP under normal circumstances.

Incidentally, one of the co-authors of the piece, Tim Leunig, is chief economist at the CentreForum think tank. He's the author of Community Land Auctions – Working Towards Implementation (PDF, Nov 2011) in which he discusses the issue of high house prices and the availability of development land, and why he believes Community Land Auctions can help address this.

[Tired of Waiting]

This has just popped up on the FT website and it's related to this thread, so I'll add it here:

A canny way to revive our moribund housing sector

Per the forum rules I can't quote the article, but the essential gist is that the sluggish housing market is bad for growth and employment.

How to solve it?

1) New housing associations finance house purchase by issuing govt backed bonds. Low-start fixed-rate mortgage with step option of 2% rise in mortgage payment p.a. to match inflation. Loan calibrated so that if you accept the step then you own house after 25 years. Don't accept the step and you own half the house after 25 years.

2) Local authorities authorised to pay farmers/land owners £75,000 per hectare for land. Authorities grant PP and sell on to developers, trousering profit for benefit of community (ahem). Developer must build within three years or PP lapses. Although 75K well below normal rate for land with PP, many farmers would be interested if land purchased had little expectation of being granted PP under normal circumstances.

Incidentally, one of the co-authors of the piece, Tim Leunig, is chief economist at the CentreForum think tank. He's the author of Community Land Auctions – Working Towards Implementation (PDF, Nov 2011) in which he discusses the issue of high house prices and the availability of development land, and why he believes Community Land Auctions can help address this.

Please forgive me if I engage my smug mode:

Though I think £75k/acre ... sorry, I just noticed that it is per hectare. OK then, not too bad!

Again:

(Thanks FT!)

EDIT: I've just read the original FT article. The proposal is much more complicated than it needed to be. But it's a step in the right direction. The most important thing is to allow local authorities to buy land at £75K/hectare, then sell it with PP, pocketing the profits. This should motivate local authorities to go for it, breaking their current alliance with the local NIMBY b@stards.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Tired of Waiting

[Tired of Waiting]

This has just popped up on the FT website and it's related to this thread, so I'll add it here:

A canny way to revive our moribund housing sector

Per the forum rules I can't quote the article, but the essential gist is that the sluggish housing market is bad for growth and employment.

How to solve it?

1) New housing associations finance house purchase by issuing govt backed bonds. Low-start fixed-rate mortgage with step option of 2% rise in mortgage payment p.a. to match inflation. Loan calibrated so that if you accept the step then you own house after 25 years. Don't accept the step and you own half the house after 25 years.

2) Local authorities authorised to pay farmers/land owners £75,000 per hectare for land. Authorities grant PP and sell on to developers, trousering profit for benefit of community (ahem). Developer must build within three years or PP lapses. Although 75K well below normal rate for land with PP, many farmers would be interested if land purchased had little expectation of being granted PP under normal circumstances.

Incidentally, one of the co-authors of the piece, Tim Leunig, is chief economist at the CentreForum think tank. He's the author of Community Land Auctions – Working Towards Implementation (PDF, Nov 2011) in which he discusses the issue of high house prices and the availability of development land, and why he believes Community Land Auctions can help address this.

Actually I think you should start a thread with it. This is too important to be buried deep inside this thread, hidden behind unbearably long winded arguments...

Go for it, please. "For the cause!"

[FreeTrader]

Actually I think you should start a thread with it. This is too important to be buried deep inside this thread, hidden behind unbearably long winded arguments...

Go for it, please. "For the cause!"

It's a paywalled article ToW.

Most members can't (automatically) access it.

[Tired of Waiting]

If you think that I am implicitly accepting your arguments on housebuilding then you are mistaken. I've said we should agree to differ and let others decide.

Are you sure?

I thought that the real cause was that your various straw-men and red-herrings were all shot down one by one (using data for small bungalows, then adding plot development costs to the house cost/m2 [ignoring I had repeatedly said serviced plots], then adding high landscaping and "external works" costs to the costs/m2 of the house itself, etc.).

I thought you were just very "shy", and instead of admitting to mistakes and/or tricks, that your preferred to change the subject.

I fully understand the concept of planning gain. Even now, prime land in Glasgow is between £1.0 - £1.5m per acre with planning so the concepts are not so different north and south of the border. I've always accepted that it makes a difference. However, if taken with cheaper build costs, many of our problems would be solved. Will ask my client if I can identify them - against professional rules otherwise.

Now it is my turn to apologise. I thought I had managed to explain to you how high planning gain is in the southern half of England - south-east / south-west, but I obviously failed.

I'll try again: This £1.0 - £1.5m per acre planning gain you see in "prime land", in the city of Glasgow

is very similar to

the average planning gain I see in the whole southern half of England !.

Not just in "prime areas", and not only in "cities"!

I am talking many / whole rural counties! The whole fecking thing!

Do you understand this now?

[Tired of Waiting]

It's a paywalled article ToW.

Most members can't (automatically) access it.

I know, but I think people can register for free, and read up to 5 articles per month IIRC?

You wouldn't have to write a new post, just use that very same one. It would be enough to kick start a thread.

Or perhaps Traktion can start it?

I'm sorry but after the hassle that this thread has given me... I just need a break...

[Traktion]

This has just popped up on the FT website and it's related to this thread, so I'll add it here:

A canny way to revive our moribund housing sector

Per the forum rules I can't quote the article, but the essential gist is that the sluggish housing market is bad for growth and employment.

How to solve it?

1) New housing associations finance house purchase by issuing govt backed bonds. Low-start fixed-rate mortgage with step option of 2% rise in mortgage payment p.a. to match inflation. Loan calibrated so that if you accept the step then you own house after 25 years. Don't accept the step and you own half the house after 25 years.

2) Local authorities authorised to pay farmers/land owners £75,000 per hectare for land. Authorities grant PP and sell on to developers, trousering profit for benefit of community (ahem). Developer must build within three years or PP lapses. Although 75K well below normal rate for land with PP, many farmers would be interested if land purchased had little expectation of being granted PP under normal circumstances.

Incidentally, one of the co-authors of the piece, Tim Leunig, is chief economist at the CentreForum think tank. He's the author of Community Land Auctions – Working Towards Implementation (PDF, Nov 2011) in which he discusses the issue of high house prices and the availability of development land, and why he believes Community Land Auctions can help address this.

The solution to not being able to shelter yourself, by buying some land and building on it:

1. Force future generations to give credit to people of today.

2. Force farmers to sell land at below the market rate.

3. A market rate which is artificially high, due to forcing people to only build on land which the state says so.

When all you have is a hammer...

[FreeTrader]

The solution to not being able to shelter yourself, by buying some land and building on it:

1. Force future generations to give credit to people of today.

2. Force farmers to sell land at below the market rate.

3. A market rate which is artificially high, due to forcing people to only build on land which the state says so.

When all you have is a hammer...

To be fair, no-one is suggesting that farmers be forced to do anything (and apologies if my quick summary gave that impression, but I did say "many farmers would be interested" which I don't believe implies coercion).

The idea is that if a small farm has (say) 50 hectares of land worth £1m, the farmer could choose to sell said land for £3.75m to the council. That may be very attractive if the farmer considers it highly unlikely that he will ever be granted PP otherwise.

It's a similar situation under Community Land Auctions, where a council would invite landowners to tender their land for sale, with no limit on price. The council would then choose whether to accept any particular tender.

[i'm not acting as an advocate for any of these proposals, just trying to explain them.]

[7upfree]

Are you sure?

I thought that the real cause was that your various straw-men and red-herrings were all shot down one by one (using data for small bungalows, then adding plot development costs to the house cost/m2 [ignoring I had repeatedly said serviced plots], then adding high landscaping and "external works" costs to the costs/m2 of the house itself, etc.).

I thought you were just very "shy", and instead of admitting to mistakes and/or tricks, that your preferred to change the subject.

Now it is my turn to apologise. I thought I had managed to explain to you how high planning gain is in the southern half of England - south-east / south-west, but I obviously failed.

I'll try again: This £1.0 - £1.5m per acre planning gain you see in "prime land", in the city of Glasgow

is very similar to

the average planning gain I see in the whole southern half of England !.

Not just in "prime areas", and not only in "cities"!

I am talking many / whole rural counties! The whole fecking thing!

Do you understand this now?

I am totally wearied with you. I fear you have a long career of average earnings ahead of you...