Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
campervanman

Labour To Tax Land Banks

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22990554

Too many developers are holding on to land while it gains value rather than pushing ahead with projects for which they have permission, he will argue, and such "obstacles to housebuilding" must be overcome.

But surely the answer is to let the builders have access to green belt so they can make an instant quick win and sit on the stuff they can't make a profit on today? At least that is what you are falling for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet neither Hilary Benn or Ed Miliband would choose to live in the development pictured on the website

Neither would I. I'd sooner live in a yurt.

I have no interest in purchasing the hutches that 'developers' sprinkle like confetti on their land and patronisingly think 'they'll do' as homes. As another poster said, I would like to see the developers go bust and new ideas and architectural styles come to the fore. Local development, individual styles, decent sizes.

I suspect if we had better developments that some of the nimby's arguments about building on 'green and pleasant land' might disappear - note that I say 'some' - it's human nature to protect your view and, it seems, to resist change.

And every politician or builder that uses the term 'affordable home' gets labelled as an pillock AFAIC*

We need all houses to become affordable. Not a bimodal distribution of houseprices.

*along with those who use the term "hard working families", which narrows whom to vote for a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22990554

Too many developers are holding on to land while it gains value rather than pushing ahead with projects for which they have permission, he will argue, and such "obstacles to housebuilding" must be overcome.

But surely the answer is to let the builders have access to green belt so they can make an instant quick win and sit on the stuff they can't make a profit on today? At least that is what you are falling for.

The politicians can't seem to think beyond the fact that it is not just developers who can build house, people can build houses for their own use too ( and have been doing so for thousands of years until planning act 1947).

The power to be are pestering banks to do two completely incompatible things (increase capital requirement and expand lending), and now pestering the developers to build but at the same time demanding lots of S106 contributions and restricting building land supplies at the same

time.

More houses are needed, people are capable of building them and so let people build rather then coercing developers to build and at the same time restricting land supplies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would characterise our builders' developments as 'desperation homes'.

How many years do you think it will be before those developments are bulldozed ?

Looking at the picture on the BBC article I wondered how many minutes of direct sunshine each day that any one of the gardens would receive.

I also suspect that the soil depth in any garden to plant anything is marginal at best

Edited by LiveinHope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet neither Hilary Benn or Ed Miliband would choose to live in the development pictured on the website

Neither would I. I'd sooner live in a yurt.

I have no interest in purchasing the hutches that 'developers' sprinkle like confetti on their land and patronisingly think 'they'll do' as homes. As another poster said, I would like to see the developers go bust and new ideas and architectural styles come to the fore. Local development, individual styles, decent sizes.

I suspect if we had better developments that some of the nimby's arguments about building on 'green and pleasant land' might disappear - note that I say 'some' - it's human nature to protect your view and, it seems, to resist change.

And every politician or builder that uses the term 'affordable home' gets labelled as an pillock AFAIC*

We need all houses to become affordable. Not a bimodal distribution of houseprices.

*along with those who use the term "hard working families", which narrows whom to vote for a lot.

All so true, and so frustrating. I feel exactly the same way when some talking head mentions 'affordable housing' as a category. I also wrote the following in another thread recently about countering nimbyism:

Another big problem with counter-nimby protests is that, for me, it's like being offered an AV referendum when I wanted PR. Many young people want development to occur, but don't want the kind of slave box developments and future slums the current system offers. The whole planning system is broken and it took decades to get this broken post WW2.

I'd love to self build, probably a passive house, but the planning system makes it so difficult and land with planning is horribly overpriced. The National Self Build Association are an interesting lobby group in this area. Here are some of the things they are campaigning for:

The strategic issues the Minister will be asked to consider include:
  • Encouraging large scale self build communities in the UK – like they have done in The Netherlands and Germany.

  • Allowing self builders to acquire surplus Government land on a 'Build Now Pay Later' basis (in the same way as the volume housebuilders can).

  • Encouraging councils to run land auctions to buy land cost effectively, so that this can be used to provide modestly priced serviced building plots for local self builders.

  • Defining certain small self build homes as being 'affordable' – this could help encourage more self building in needy rural areas.

The 'planning red tape' issues he will be asked to look at include:

  • Reducing the number of 'conditions' local planning authorities impose on self builders. For example a typical bat survey can cost thousands of pounds and delay the construction of a home by many months.

  • Allowing more people to build in large gardens. For example there are many examples of elderly people wanting to move into a bungalow in their garden, so they can pass their home on to their growing families; but at present projects like this seldom get approval.

  • Encouraging more people to build really green homes by giving them 'automatic' planning approval is they reach a certain sustainability standard. (There would need to be some safeguards in areas such as the Green Belt).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And why are they holding onto it?

Because they know planning permissions are so scarce.

Its just a symptom of the problem. The real problem is the planning system, not a lack of taxes. Tackle the former and the latter wont even matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"PEOPLE WANT TO OWN THEIR OWN HOME"

They keep telling us that........up to the point where they will no longer want to "own their home". ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH I think it is quite a good plan.

It must take quite a lot of work to find a good spot for a large development.

Is the school big enough to take the extra kids.

can the sewage system cope

What about the gas main.

To do all the planning only to find the land just get sat on sounds very inefficient.

May end up with houses being built in a less than ideal place while the best place stands idle.

What would you do if you were a planner?

Plan five housing developments around a town hoping that one would get built on.

and what would you do if all five went ahead would the school cope?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds diametrically opposite to NuLab in power, when they suspended business rates on empty property to avoid penalising hoarders. Ending that particularly evil anomaly was one of the coalitions early actions that gave me a brief hope in them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look it's very simple. If the builder build lots of houses, unit prices fall. The value of their land bank is based on number of houses that it will fit times unit value.

Th value of a land builder is based on the value of its land assets.

Put simply, if they build houses on their land banks, the value of their assets falls. This means their assets vs debt ratio changes and they breach their loan covenants.

Thus if they build they die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look it's very simple. If the builder build lots of houses, unit prices fall. The value of their land bank is based on number of houses that it will fit times unit value.

Th value of a land builder is based on the value of its land assets.

Put simply, if they build houses on their land banks, the value of their assets falls. This means their assets vs debt ratio changes and they breach their loan covenants.

Thus if they build they die.

Interesting idea.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 239 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.