Radio 5Live Phone-In @ 9 - Should We Build On Green Belt

[silver surfer]

Too much of the housing stock/land is under utilised or has been co-opted into outright speculation or speculative rentierism (i.e. rentierism that only generates a profit with HPI). The constriction in supply is due to this not an actual shortage of houses (witness how the number of people living rough has not shot up - most people are "housed" it's just that less of them have the will/opportunity to buy said housing at current prices).

I disagree, a lack of rough sleepers isn't evidence for an adequate supply of housing.

But tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of 30-somethings living with their parents, people crammed into houses that have been split into flats, overcrowding, and "slave box" dimensions, are all evidence of a lack of supply.

I was talking to a local house builder the other day who builds 40-80 properties a year. He said something that rang very true, he said there's actually no lack of affordable housing, he said there's masses of cheap properties littering the land that should be very affordable, but the restrictions on building good sized accommodation are so acute that it keeps the prices of millions of not particularly desirable properties unaffordable for many.

[MississippiJohnHurt]

Presumably all of London was "green-belt" at one point?

exactly. My guess is that behind the scenes there is a lot of discussion about cutting into the green belt a little. They wouldn't be able to say much before the election but all parties (except the UKIP fckwits judging by their "manifesto") will be thinking that a) the current mood has changed and b] that longer term the balance of voting power will be with the younger generation who will hardly be pro HPI.

Zeitgeist is changing, people, it's gonna be beautiful

Edited May 20, 2014 by FallingKnife

[Wurzel Of Highbridge]

There has been a massive shift in Green belt Propaganda over the last 7/8 years from You can't build on it and must be protected at all costs to only 6% of the UK is built on and there is more golf courses than housing.

Anyone would think that the government and their mates have bought up large swathes of agricultural land to be sold off to the highest bidder as plots, Irish style corruption. Judging by the prices agricultural land has inflated in the UK over the last few years this might be close to the truth.

[okaycuckoo]

Build on top of the Thames? Are you mad?

Some want to rebuild London Bridge. Boris says it's a good way to spend public funds, but there'll be no right of way for the public, so the owners can charge a toll.

[Neverwhere]

I disagree, a lack of rough sleepers isn't evidence for an adequate supply of housing.

But tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of 30-somethings living with their parents, people crammed into houses that have been split into flats, overcrowding, and "slave box" dimensions, are all evidence of a lack of supply.

I was talking to a local house builder the other day who builds 40-80 properties a year. He said something that rang very true, he said there's actually no lack of affordable housing, he said there's masses of cheap properties littering the land that should be very affordable, but the restrictions on building good sized accommodation are so acute that it keeps the prices of millions of not particularly desirable properties unaffordable for many.

Part of that isn't really a question of supply it's a question of quality: if the housing supply is there but of low quality then it should be cheap! Anyway, there are almost 60,000 homes in the capital that have been declared empty to their local council http://www.emptyhomes.com/statistics-2/empty-homes-statistice-201112/ How many more are there that have been declared as in use because this avoids a council tax premium in that borough or which are exempt from official council stats because they are "uninhabitable", due for demolition (but not actually) or above a shop? Even if there was no one trying to game the system (which I doubt) those homes alone would provide accomodation for almost 120,000 young Londoners assuming co-habiting couples.

Also a certain amount of the overcrowding is due to lack of churn: it used to be fairly normal for people to move into smaller properties like flats or bungalows on retirement (this is what my grandparents and great grandparents did) but this just doesn't seem to be happening that much in the current market. Perhaps because people are coping with the maintenance of larger properties on retirement incomes by MEWing away equity gains, are scared of losing out on further HPI gains so perpetually prevaricate or simply have better pension incomes than their own parents did? In any case while some people have adult kids living at home there are others who have 4, 5 and 6 bed properties where only 1 bedroom is in use. Anecdotally there are certainly more owner occupiers with two or more spare bedrooms than there are with adult kids at home amongst my friend's parents and my parent's friends.

[billybong]

I don't want to be pedantic but not all the other London rivers have been built over.

The Thames certainly won't be built over. Not even the Japanese built over Tokyo's large rivers.

I don't want to be pedantic either but as far as I'm aware in the more central areas they've all been built over to a large extent - although accepted that there are for example sections of open canals narrower than the original rivers partly to help to make land available along their sides as well as being canals. The Fleet river was a large river in London - built over. London is a big place of course and to be specific I was referring more to the central areas of London rather than the fringes.

Tokyo is different but they built Odaiba a large artificial island in Tokyo Bay and although it's not a river it's the same principle. It would be a bit of a surprise if they hadn't built over some of their rivers some time ago way back in the more distant past like London - even New York has and probably quite a few other big cities.

The London OverThames Project wouldn't involve infilling the Thames it would only be spanning over it - a reasonably continuous bridging providing desperately needed real estate (and prime real estate at that) to help with London and the Uk's existing housing problems as well as the officially predicted population growth - the Thames would still be flowing as a river below the bridging zones.

.

Edited May 20, 2014 by billybong

[Neverwhere]

I don't want to be pedantic either but as far as I'm aware in the more central areas they've all been built over to a large extent - although accepted that there are for example sections of open canals narrower than the original rivers partly to help to make land available along their sides as well as being canals. The Fleet river was a large river in London - built over. London is a big place of course and to be specific I was referring more to the central areas of London rather than the fringes.

Tokyo is different but they built Odaiba a large artificial island in Tokyo Bay and although it's not a river it's the same principle. It would be a bit of a surprise if they hadn't built over some of their rivers some time ago way back in the more distant past like London - even New York has and probably quite a few other big cities.

The London OverThames Project wouldn't involve infilling the Thames it would only be spanning over it - a reasonably continuous bridging providing desperately needed real estate (and prime real estate at that) to help with London and the Uk's existing housing problems as well as the officially predicted population growth - the Thames would still be flowing as a river below the bridging zones.

.

We're no way near this point even in central London. Just take a walk around, there are loads of empty and underused properties in zone 1.

[billybong]

We're no way near this point even in central London. Just take a walk around, there are loads of empty and underused properties in zone 1.

On the radio yesterday some "expert" was reported as having said that the UK needs to build about 300,000 houses per year for the next 20 years or so just to meet the existing need and the extra population officially predicted in that time. That seems about the correct amount of houses needed to be built.

How much spare housing is there in London.

They didn't say anything about the predicted increase in the UK's population in the decades beyond that. Doubling it from the current 64 million.

Edited May 21, 2014 by billybong

[thecrashingisles]

You originally proposed building on top of the Thames as an alternative to high-rise residential building in London. Do you imagine a long Barratt estate of houses with gardens on top of a continuous bridge down the river?

[@contradevian]

Well lets hope someone points out that this endangered green belt has actually been increasing in size since the 70's to the point that it covers either 12-14% of the uks land.

That UK urban area is only 10% of which most of is actually green spaces, parks, gardens, lakes, canals, rivers and reservoirs.

Only 2.7% is actually housing and it houses 64 million people.

This obsession with the green belt by the boomer NIMBY brigades is pretty regressive.

Plus queue's of traffic every morning and evening from people commuting in/out of this precious sacred green belt.

[billybong]

You originally proposed building on top of the Thames as an alternative to high-rise residential building in London. Do you imagine a long Barratt estate of houses with gardens on top of a continuous bridge down the river?

Garden citIes for sure. They could take a design template from the proposals for elsewhere around the country.

The London OverThames Garden Cities Project.

Just to be clear it's not an alternative to high-rise residential building in London. It's a matter of it being the correct solution for London. High rise residential would be appropriate and in keeping on the bridging outside of Parliament for instance.

It's a project to provide extra space for building extra houses. Space needed to help to accommodate the extra 300,000 houses or so each and every year in London and the UK for decades and needed to solve the existing housing problems and to help to accommodate the official predictions for the UK population.

Edited May 21, 2014 by billybong

[Neverwhere]

On the radio yesterday some "expert" was reported as having said that the UK needs to build about 300,000 houses per year for the next 20 years or so just to meet the existing need and the extra population officially predicted in that time. That seems about the correct amount of houses needed to be built.

How much spare housing is there in London.

They didn't say anything about the predicted increase in the UK's population in the decades beyond that. Doubling it from the current 64 million.

The UK has over 800,000 empty homes (most likely well over given the propensity to lie in boroughs where extra council tax charges apply for empties) http://www.emptyhomes.com/statistics-2/empty-homes-statistice-201112/ so that's a few years covered with no building at all then. We could also hoover up all those over-leveraged holiday homes that can come back to market for owner occupation. Or, and maybe this is a bit too radical, we could build on the 97.3% of land that we haven't built anything on so far!

In any case all these predictions of floodwaves of immigrants spanning decades and doubling the UK population presume that we are not on the cusp of a major depression. Given the general prospects for the UK economy predictions of mass emigration and a falling population would be more plausible. Putting that aside and supposing mass immigration continues and the population does double we might have to double the amount of UK land that we've built on to (shock horror) 5.4% of the UK landmass! And yes the cities, including London, could stand to double internally if they really needed to given circa 50% of all urban environments in the UK are actually greenspace and there are rather a lot of low rise buildings in our cities that could be redeveloped to mansion blocks or higher. But in any case over the kind of timescales you are discussing the rise of HS2 and probably HS3 etc would mean that the populace could be more spread out without increasing average commutes. Also it would be pretty awful if we were still centering our entire economy around London at that time point!

Edited May 21, 2014 by Lo-fi

[Liquid Goldfish]

We need to rebalance the country. The only way I can see is to move the whole of government to the North - parliament, the civil service - all of it. I'm sure that over time that would move at least a million people out of London and the South East. I think it would have massive benefits for the whole country. I know it's a nuclear option but I just don't think there's any other way to stop the relentless concentration of money, people and resources into London. It might take a couple of decades to complete.

Edited May 21, 2014 by oldsport

[Neverwhere]

We need to rebalance the country. The only way I can see is to move the whole of government to the North - parliament, the civil service - all of it. I'm sure that over time that would move at least a million people out of London and the South East. I think it would have massive benefits for the whole country. I know it's a nuclear option but I just don't think there's any other way to stop the relentless concentration of money, people and resources into London. It might take a couple of decades to complete.

Why not go for English devolution? Great excuse to move the government and just leave a rump of federal power in Westminster. English devolution would definitely include London though - you guys aren't going to get away with leaving us alone with the banksters!

[Liquid Goldfish]

Why not go for English devolution? Great excuse to move the government and just leave a rump of federal power in Westminster. English devolution would definitely include London though - you guys aren't going to get away with leaving us alone with the banksters!

I don't think there's much desire for devolution in England. Anyway, Westminster would be sold off to fund the move. You'll have to keep the banksters - but you'll also keep the Royals and most of the culture - it won't be so bad!

Edited May 21, 2014 by oldsport

[billybong]

The UK has over 800,000 empty homes (most likely well over given the propensity to lie in boroughs where extra council tax charges apply for empties) http://

www.emptyhomes.com/statistics-2/empty-homes-statistice-201112/so that's a few years covered with no building at all then. We could also hoover up all those over-leveraged holiday homes that can come back to market for owner occupation. Or, and maybe this is a bit too radical, we could build on the 97.3% of land that we haven't built anything on so far!

In any case all these predictions of floodwaves of immigrants spanning decades and doubling the UK population presume that we are not on the cusp of a major depression. Given the general prospects for the UK economy predictions of mass emigration and a falling population would be more plausible. Putting that aside and supposing mass immigration continues and the population does double we might have to double the amount of UK land that we've built on to (shock horror) 5.4% of the UK landmass! And yes the cities, including London, could stand to double internally if they really needed to given circa 50% of all urban environments in the UK are actually greenspace and there are rather a lot of low rise buildings in our cities that could be redeveloped to mansion blocks or higher. But in any case over the kind of timescales you are discussing the rise of HS2 and probably HS3 etc would mean that the populace could be more spread out without increasing average commutes. Also it would be pretty awful if we were still centering our entire economy around London at that time point!

800,000 might only help with the existing UK shortage and that's if they can be freed up. There's not been much success in freeing up existing housing/holiday homes etc to date but there again there hasn't been much effort put into it to date.

There's not really 97.3% of land available for reasons of geography but accepted that there's still a high percentage - but it's not anything like so much in London. I agree that things are congesting around London too much but at any rate who wants that level of congestion.

Low rise buildings are usually only adequate for low rise and to build higher would likely mean demolition and rebuilding for most of them. Accepted some might be able to be extended higher without out of proportion cost.

The predictions are official ones and of course like all predictions they can't be certain but as they're official the officials should be accounting for their predictions with credible solutions to the problems they themselves predict and indeed in many ways appear to encourage/have encouraged.

A major depression might only delay things for a time.

The HS proposals don't seem to distribute much as they just go faster from existing main city centre to existing main city centre and back again. There aren't any new secondary distribution lines proposed as far as I'm aware. It's more of the same except maybe faster and more frequent.

There's plenty of possibilities including building on top of the Thames (for about a year's supply of the extra houses needed in the UK) but what are the actual official plans for building all the millions of extra houses needed. Do they have any.

An extra 14 million people by about 2040 and then another 56 million in the decades after 2040 are staggering amounts of extra people and extra houses to accommodate but what are the housing plans - and not just the houses but everything else that goes with civilised provisioning of that number of people year in and year out and that's apart from the congestion which is a clear problem in London and increasingly elsewhere.

It's not as if they do that great a job of provisioning for the existing 64 million in 2014 never mind the officially predicted increases over the next several decades.

Edited May 21, 2014 by billybong

[slawek]

Just bringing property investors demand to levels before the bubble would provide 200-300k/year homes for FTBs.

Currently supply is around 600k/year (new building, people dying, leaving UK etc). 300k is bought by FTBs and the other 300k is hoarded by property investors. In 2002 split was 600k FTBs vs 100k investors.

Property investors' demand increased from around 50k/year to 200-300k/year 10-15 years ago and has stayed at this level until now.

[winkie]

I don't think we should be encouraging building on London green belt..will only cause more congestion inside London.....They sould be building and growing new places outside the capital, regenerating other fine and brilliant places to live and work elsewhere......High London house prices are detrimental to London, the young priced out and London's future prosperity IMO........shooting themselves in the foot.

[Ah-so]

The article was clear that of the 800,000 empty homes, only 300,000 had been empty for more than six months. The other 500,000 are clearly transactional friction not worth taking into account.

300,000 is about a year's worth even if they could be bought into use. We need to build.

[Neverwhere]

I don't think there's much desire for devolution in England. Anyway, Westminster would be sold off to fund the move. You'll have to keep the banksters - but you'll also keep the Royals and most of the culture - it won't be so bad!

No thanks I'm a diehard republican!

[Neverwhere]

The article was clear that of the 800,000 empty homes, only 300,000 had been empty for more than six months. The other 500,000 are clearly transactional friction not worth taking into account.

300,000 is about a year's worth even if they could be bought into use. We need to build.

Right, but clearly not so desperately that we need to concrete over the Thames!

Edited May 21, 2014 by Lo-fi

[Neverwhere]

Just bringing property investors demand to levels before the bubble would provide 200-300k/year homes for FTBs.

Currently supply is around 600k/year (new building, people dying, leaving UK etc). 300k is bought by FTBs and the other 300k is hoarded by property investors. In 2002 split was 600k FTBs vs 100k investors.

Property investors' demand increased from around 50k/year to 200-300k/year 10-15 years ago and has stayed at this level until now.

100% agree, the supply issue in relation to homes is at the moment largely down to investors taking up a greater proportion of the market.

[Habeas Domus]

This makes me think there are 1500 huge oil platforms in the north sea which will all be redundant in a few years when the oil runs out.

stack 200 little houses on each one and you have 300,000 houses - enough for the entire UK prison population with 200,000 spaces to spare!

[Riedquat]

Lack of housing isn't the main driving force behind absurd prices, but is a big underlying factor. More building will make the country even less pleasant to live in. The result is that we need to build more somewhere, a depressing, necessary evil, so get building and get it over and done with, but it absolutely must go hand-in-hand with measures to stop there being a continual, ongoing necessity to build. The population absolutely needs to be stabilised (at the very least) and ASAP.

[Neverwhere]

800,000 might only help with the existing UK shortage and that's if they can be freed up. There's not been much success in freeing up existing housing/holiday homes etc to date but there again there hasn't been much effort put into it to date. A HPC will sort this out.

There's not really 97.3% of land available for reasons of geography but accepted that there's still a high percentage - but it's not anything like so much in London. It's more like 50% if you assume that with significantly increased population pressure we would be willing to build on green spaces, which is much more likely than building over the Thames as it would be far cheaper! I agree that things are congesting around London too much but at any rate who wants that level of congestion.

Low rise buildings are usually only adequate for low rise and to build higher would likely mean demolition and rebuilding for most of them. Accepted some might be able to be extended higher without out of proportion cost. Demolitioning and rebuilding was what I was getting at - far cheaper than building over the Thames.

The predictions are official ones and of course like all predictions they can't be certain but as they're official the officials should be accounting for their predictions with credible solutions to the problems they themselves predict and indeed in many ways appear to encourage/have encouraged. Link to official statistics please?

A major depression might only delay things for a time.

The HS proposals don't seem to distribute much as they just go faster from existing main city centre to existing main city centre and back again. There aren't any new secondary distribution lines proposed as far as I'm aware. It's more of the same except maybe faster and more frequent. There is more scope to extend Birmingham than London, for instance, so this would provide more building plots that would again be much cheaper than building over the Thames.

There's plenty of possibilities including building on top of the Thames (for about a year's supply of the extra houses needed in the UK) This would cost far too much to be justifiable for one years supply! but what are the actual official plans for building all the millions of extra houses needed. Do they have any.

An extra 14 million people by about 2040 and then another 56 million in the decades after 2040 are staggering amounts of extra people and extra houses to accommodate but what are the housing plans - and not just the houses but everything else that goes with civilised provisioning of that number of people year in and year out and that's apart from the congestion which is a clear problem in London and increasingly elsewhere. Again, link to official statistics please?

It's not as if they do that great a job of provisioning for the existing 64 million in 2014 never mind the officially predicted increases over the next several decades.

The Office for National Statistics only has projections up to 2035 which show a possible increase in the UK population of 8.125m from 2013 to 2035 or approximately 370k additional people per year: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/npp/national-population-projections/2010-based-projections/sum-2010-based-national-population-projections.html http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/npp/national-population-projections/2008-based-projections/sum-2008-based-national-population-projections.html . The number of new build homes completed in 2013 was over 133k https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/house-building-in-england-january-to-march-2014 www.nhbc.co.uk/NewsandComment/.../filedownload,54854,en.pdf . Considering that single people often flat share, couples co-habit, young children live with their parents, and that additional housing stock is released onto the market each year as older residents pass away, those figures do not seem to be incompatible or add up to any kind of massive housing supply crisis.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Lo-fi