Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Proportion Of All Homes Delivered By Self Build, By Country


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 266
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I can certainly dig out some information that may be of use to you. However, from personal experience, I have been involved in a number of deals in Scotland where the land price has fallen by up to 60% from 2007. I dare say that in SE, that drop would have been less substantial for all of the well quoted reasons. Roads, infrastructure, etc, is likely to increase the cost of your £90k example considerably.

But by how much?

Let's say some local authority allows the development of 1 acre of land. How much would it cost, for the roads and infrastructure? And how many plots would be the usual in 1 acre?

From our earlier thread, Barrat's net margin on housing is in single digits - they are not making a vast amount of money on housing. If their net margin was 30 - 40% every venture capitalist would be backing new housing companies.

I fully agree with you there. 100%.

As I have said before, I am not disagreeing with your basic proposition that if land was cheaper then housing would be cheaper. The problem is that it will not be cheap enough for many people.

Down here they would - be cheap enough for many people.

I think we disagreed before because I was thinking about the South/SE of England, where salaries are higher but planning gain alone is well above £100k, and you were thinking of Scotland, where land is already cheaper, but salaries are even lower. And you may not have a housing shortage. In which case, you don't need new houses.

But if you do have a shortage there, then even there, if nice developments were allowed, on very cheap land, I'm sure some people would afford them, upgrading from their current homes, and their previous homes would be sold to people with a slightly lower income, and so forth. As in the car industry actually.

.

Edited by Tired of Waiting
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not "blocked up" in the sense that there is a queue.

It's just not given for green field sites because the general view (by the politicians and the population) is that they should be left as fields unless it is absolutely necessary to build on them.

tim

There are loads of (man made) green/yellow fields, about 80-85% of the country if I recall. An increasing majority of 'we members of the population' would accept less fields (slight increase in food price) for more housing (significant reduction of delovlipment land price)

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are loads of (man made) green/yellow fields, about 80-85% of the country if I recall. An increasing majority of 'we members of the population' would accept less fields (slight increase in food price) for more housing (significant reduction of delovlipment land price)

IIRC a million houses would use less than 0.2 % of Britain's surface. The usual improvements in food production more than compensate for that in just 1 year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't have planning restrictions as a conspiracy for builders/landlowers to make higher profits. We have them because the population, as a whole, want them.

tim

Does the population as a whole want them, or are we starting to see a split in society. Because those over 50 (Baby Boomers) shout loudest thats what it looks like but at some point it must cross the rubicon where those priced out actually outnumber those nimbys/boomers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

builders are 150/day <- mine are £90/day cash

casual labor 60-80/day <- mine are £50/day cash

celotex insulation needed for walls/floor/roof 130mm min is 50quid per sheet <= seconds for £25/sheet

scaffold is 1400quid for the first month alone (elf n'saftey) <- £700 cash, left as long as I like

plasterers 150/day dito sparki/chippy/tiler <- £130/day cash

Just put some of my figures in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are loads of (man made) green/yellow fields, about 80-85% of the country if I recall. An increasing majority of 'we members of the population' would accept less fields (slight increase in food price) for more housing (significant reduction of delovlipment land price)

Problem is are they enough fields in the South East?! Because lets face it that's where most of the problems are, no matter what % the rest of the country consists of.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once you've paid for the land, there is little left to build a descent house. The only way to afford it is to build en-mass, taking advantage of the financial benefits of scale.

New-build houses, built en-mass, excluding land, cost £24,500 to build.

In Poland for instance building cost is about £500 per M2 . There is plenty of building land and the price is reasonable (it varies wildly and not just with location).

The situation with UK land prices is ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is are they enough fields in the South East?! Because lets face it that's where most of the problems are, no matter what % the rest of the country consists of.

Errm, check out google maps.

https://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=51.153078,0.239639&spn=0.337663,0.554123&t=h&z=11

https://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=51.867164,0.512238&spn=0.664826,1.108246&t=h&z=10

And when you zoom in further some of most of those 'brown areas' turn out to be fields too!

There are miles and miles of field (and then miles and miles more), lets build on some. It is right to label those who oppose more building in the country as NIMBYs or BANANA(s), nihilist, self interested, greedy, intergenerational thieving, hypocritical, w4nk3rs. IMHO of course.

edit: 'i' before 'e' and all that

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is are they enough fields in the South East?! Because lets face it that's where most of the problems are, no matter what % the rest of the country consists of.

Plenty.

Have you flown from Gatwick airport?

Use Google then.

Besides, a million houses would use much less than 1% of the SE's land. Do the maths.

And gardens have more bio-diversity than mono-culture fields.

It's a win-win situation, and create jobs too.

I really don't understand why you are against home building. It doesn't make any sense, at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just put some of my figures in.

I would concur with those figures. Although you should be able to get tradesmen(electricians,bricklayers/plasterers) cheaper, depending where you are in the UK.

I would be inclined to not give out day work though as there is an incentive to string it out. Cash talks at the moment and one way tradesmen/builders are surviving is by taking a risk and cutting out the tax man where they can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Errm, check out google maps.

https://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=51.153078,0.239639&spn=0.337663,0.554123&t=h&z=11

https://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=51.867164,0.512238&spn=0.664826,1.108246&t=h&z=10

And when you zoom in futher some of most of those 'brown areas' turn out to be fields too!

There are miles and miles of field (and then miles and miles more), lets build on some. It is right to label those who oppose more building in the country as NIMBYs or BANANA(s), nihilist, self interested, greedy, intergenerational theiving, hypocritical, w4nk3rs. IMHO of course.

:lol:

Brilliant. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty.

Have you flown from Gatwick airport?

Use Google then.

Besides, a million houses would use much less than 1% of the SE's land. Do the maths.

And gardens have more bio-diversity than mono-culture fields.

It's a win-win situation, and create jobs too.

I really don't understand why you are against home building. It doesn't make any sense, at all.

All true but you totally miss the point.

Landowners will never sell land at anything less than maximum profit

Housebuilders will never let house building go into over supply, and they can influence government to prevent self build ever taking off.

The HPC myth that building will reduce prices will *NEVER* happen, too many powerful forces working against it.

As an aside, I was reading the objections to the public enquiry into the A5-M1 link road. Every second objection was from a land owner, they didn't say so but their actual problem is that compulsory purchase doesn't pay the prices Barratt's does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All true (...)

Thank you. That's a good start.

(...) but you totally miss the point.

Landowners will never sell land at anything less than maximum profit

I'm not sure what you mean by "maximum profit", but there is a lot of very cheap land ( = without planning permit) for sale on RightMove. Take a look there. LINK: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/commercial-property-for-sale/map.html?locationIdentifier=REGION^1114&displayPropertyType=land_development&oldDisplayPropertyType=land_development&radius=40.0

Besides, there are way too many land owners in the country for them to be able to organise an effective selling cartel with minimum prices. If planning was liberalised, building plots would get MUCH cheaper.

Housebuilders will never let house building go into over supply, and they can influence government to prevent self build ever taking off.

The HPC myth that building will reduce prices will *NEVER* happen, too many powerful forces working against it.

I fully agree that there are many very powerful forces against a supply increase that would be enough to reduce house prices - including the previous government! Remember Brown in that Radio interview in Wales, where he said that we had not "over-built" :blink::( like Spain or Ireland?

HOWEVER: there are 3 very strong factors againts these b@stards:

1st: There are also very powerful lobbies in favour of planning liberalisation (including LOTS of green belt land owners for instance, and thousands of small builders, and potential self-builders, and millions of youngsters in favour of lower housing costs, and business people in favour of lower premisses costs, etc.)

2nd: Economic/market logic/forces, see my sig., below.

3rd: The current government wants a (controlled) lowering of property prices, coz they know that the economic recovery requires it.

As an aside, I was reading the objections to the public enquiry into the A5-M1 link road. Every second objection was from a land owner, they didn't say so but their actual problem is that compulsory purchase doesn't pay the prices Barratt's does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But by how much?

Let's say some local authority allows the development of 1 acre of land. How much would it cost, for the roads and infrastructure? And how many plots would be the usual in 1 acre?

I fully agree with you there. 100%.

Down here they would - be cheap enough for many people.

I think we disagreed before because I was thinking about the South/SE of England, where salaries are higher but planning gain alone is well above £100k, and you were thinking of Scotland, where land is already cheaper, but salaries are even lower. And you may not have a housing shortage. In which case, you don't need new houses.

But if you do have a shortage there, then even there, if nice developments were allowed, on very cheap land, I'm sure some people would afford them, upgrading from their current homes, and their previous homes would be sold to people with a slightly lower income, and so forth. As in the car industry actually.

.

According to Barratt - the price per sq ft is somewhere in the region of £130 ex land cost. In the SE, cheaper land costs would mean more affordable housing but I suspect it is also a bit more expensive to build (somewhere between 10 - 20%). It will not solve the problem for most of the UK. A market based solution (even assuming the market is "perfect" ) does not exist for most of the UK. Housing will have to be subsidised one way or another. A housepricecrash will offer temporary respite but will not ultimately solve the problem of affordability of new housing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Barratt - the price per sq ft is somewhere in the region of £130 ex land cost. In the SE, cheaper land costs would mean more affordable housing but I suspect it is also a bit more expensive to build (somewhere between 10 - 20%). It will not solve the problem for most of the UK. A market based solution (even assuming the market is "perfect" ) does not exist for most of the UK. Housing will have to be subsidised one way or another. A housepricecrash will offer temporary respite but will not ultimately solve the problem of affordability of new housing.

Subsidised by who? The state only gets its money from taxing/borrowing from individuals and/or printing.

If the cost of housing is too high, you either need to offer smaller houses and/or establish building societies (mutuals/cooperatives) again, which worked well in the past too (when people were poorer).

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Barratt - the price per sq ft is somewhere in the region of £130 ex land cost.

Now that is just untrue:

Construction cost data table: http://www.designandmaterials.uk.com/hrguide.html

In the SE, cheaper land costs would mean more affordable housing but I suspect it is also a bit more expensive to build (somewhere between 10 - 20%). It will not solve the problem for most of the UK. A market based solution (even assuming the market is "perfect" ) does not exist for most of the UK. Housing will have to be subsidised one way or another. A housepricecrash will offer temporary respite but will not ultimately solve the problem of affordability of new housing.

Sorry but do you have a vested interest in the issue? Asking for government subsidy for house building?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Subsidised by who? The state only gets its money from taxing/borrowing from individuals and/or printing.

If the cost of housing is too high, you either need to offer smaller houses and/or establish building societies (mutuals/cooperatives) again, which worked well in the past too (when people were poorer).

We are the state - I agree. How small do you want to make the house so that is affordable!!? 1000 sq ft is not huge. Not an easy or practical solution, I fear. All the finance options in the world are not going to allow poorer people to own a house or be able to rent one at a market rent. This was historically always the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that is just untrue:

Construction cost data table: http://www.designandmaterials.uk.com/hrguide.html

Sorry but do you have a vested interest in the issue? Asking for government subsidy for house building?

Have a look at my earlier post - it comes from Barratt's audited accounts. Those figures do not include infrastructure etc. Why not engage your brain before accusing people of not telling the truth. You will note that road building, etc, remains exlcluded. Here's the link to the HR build costs:-

http://www.homebuilding.co.uk/advice/costs/calculator

Don’t Forget the Extra Fees

Legal Fees: £500-1,000

Stamp Duty and Land Tax: The tax is cur­rently levied at 1% for land or house purchases valued from £125,001 to £250,000, 3% for plots valued from £250,001 to £500,000 and 4% over £500,000

Topographical Site Survey: Typical cost £350-500

Design Fees: Architects charge 7-15% of the total build cost for a ser­vice involv­ing design and supervision. For planning drawings from other sources expect to pay from £2,500-3,500, plus a similar figure for Building Regulations drawings

Structural Engineers’ Fees: £400-500

Planning Application Fees: £335

Building Regulations Fees: £500-1,000

Warranty: Around 1% of contract value

Self-build Insurance: £500-800

Services: Typically £3,500-6,000 total

Demolition Costs: Typically £5,000-10,000

External Works: Around 15% of total build cost

As it happens I have no vested interest in the housing industry. Every time we allow payment of housing benefit do you not think we are already subsidising housing costs? Prior to the 1980s, the government built far more houses for the poor and rented them at below market rate. What do you think that is if not a form of subsidy?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't have planning restrictions as a conspiracy for builders/landlowers to make higher profits. We have them because the population, as a whole, want them.

Sort of. A minority want them, and not enough of the majority have yet realised that it's a bad thing or worked out what to do about it.

Are there any examples of politicians saying house price rises are a bad thing, eg from 2000 to 2005 ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are the state - I agree. How small do you want to make the house so that is affordable!!? 1000 sq ft is not huge. Not an easy or practical solution, I fear. All the finance options in the world are not going to allow poorer people to own a house or be able to rent one at a market rent. This was historically always the case.

I didn't suggest that we were the state, so I'm not sure what you're agreeing to.

If you think that people should have their property stolen, in order to pay for the housing of others, just say so.

If people can't afford big houses, they can't afford them. This reality can't be wished away. All you can do is make it easier for people to finance building houses and/or lower the build cost (materials, land, overheads).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't suggest that we were the state, so I'm not sure what you're agreeing to.

If you think that people should have their property stolen, in order to pay for the housing of others, just say so.

If people can't afford big houses, they can't afford them. This reality can't be wished away. All you can do is make it easier for people to finance building houses and/or lower the build cost (materials, land, overheads).

The state is an abstract concept - in reality it is you and me and everyone else. That's all I meant.

By your rationale, all taxes would amount to theft. I'm a self made man who does not need to steal from anyone. How do you propose that we build houses that people can afford to buy?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The state is an abstract concept - in reality it is you and me and everyone else. That's all I meant.

By your rationale, all taxes would amount to theft. I'm a self made man who does not need to steal from anyone. How do you propose that we build houses that people can afford to buy?

You've got it in one! So, lets look at solutions which don't involve stealing from others.

I suggest that we lower the cost of all the elements that go into house building. This includes land (by removing the planning monopoly), red tape (by removing the endless legislation), materials (optimising building methods, economise of scale and so forth) and credit (so the cost of repayment is minimal).

Ultimately, you can only live within your means. If that means buying a small house, kids sharing rooms and so forth, so be it. There is no magic wand which can wish the cost of housing away.

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.

  • 433 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.