Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
John The Pessimist

Gidiot To Promote Brownfield Development.

Recommended Posts

Details are sketchy at best and possibly speculative. Some sort of scheme to promote building on brownfield sites so the holiest of holy cows, The Greenbelt, can be preserved. It has all the hallmarks of a NIMBY's charter. Will the tax payer end up paying to decontaminate sites so developers can go on to make out like bandits?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/planning/10885053/Good-news-for-the-green-belt-as-George-Osborne-plots-ways-to-encourage-building-on-brownfield-sites.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were to guess, it would be more likely that decontamination costs could be tax deductible or something....so the gov. doesn't have to spend a penny up front.

All decisions are about which pot to put things in...not what to do.

Even if it's tax deductible, we still end up paying. Why should builders get this subsidy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brownfield development has been favoured for many years. The majority of development occurring on it it - certainly a high percentage (80% near me). Possibly because people tend to live in conurbations, and the loss of industry has meant land has become available where it is wanted.

I don't know what is going on with Osborne, it is a way of funnelling more money to party doners under more supposedly helpful schemes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At one time there was an incredible amount of unused brown field derelict land in London. It was becoming a hollowed out city with death in the centre and continuing development on the outskirts. Ditto with many of the others.

It was a major step to undertake Docklands and it took a lot of 'government money' and action.

Whilst I agree with developing brown field first...is there enough with our expanding population? I would like to see some figures of expected population growth and the proposed developmnent with a time plan. I think we're beyond 'laissez faire', we need concerted planned action now.

I don't believe there's too much of a supply problem. It's a price problem, and a misallocation problem. Some development is required though.

There is risk with all this building by big developers too as I see it. How much supply do BTLers, competiting with me, mop up supply each year? On back of equity release from hyperinflated other properties in portfolio, and older owners joining in (Timak's parents-in-law, because their savings not earning anything in the bank excuse).

One elderly woman in London we know owns 6-8 homes - rented out, and her own home worth £1m+. (Savills 2014: Since 2008: Private rented sector has risen £275bn to almost £1 trillion.)

2013: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-2340136/Letting-agent-fees-England-control.html

The private rented sector has grown by 72 per cent since 2001 and there are now over nine million people in England rent privately.

The renting population has also changed. A third of renting households are families with children, and half of households renting are 35 or older.

May 2014: There are up to 1.4 million individuals renting out small strings of properties as a sideline or in some cases as their main income and more people are expected to join their ranks in the coming months.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2014/may/23/buy-to-let-landlords-disaster-economy

This afternoon a friend took me to see a house that had clearly been empty quite a long time - would buy it in an instant. If anything we should be building small retirement villages in density, for the elderly, as by 2025....they'll be everywhere, to downsize from. Also we'll see who stays and goes from UK in a big hpc, and whether a lot of supposedly non supply comes onto market. And this "population growth" needs jobs-income.

Then again, who went to Osborne's meeting, at the table? Just big name developers? No small new entrant firm, no self-builder (in decline from small percentage anyway), who could use lower land plot values and could build for less..... just big developers - and Osborne probably been briefed on by them on prices they need in order to be prepared to build homes/what their landbanks need to be worth - what they need for recent big big annual profits. Get HTB down ya necks, to pay what it's worth. Supply supply supply, and lack of it, houses hoarded by others, BTLs, second homes, empty homes, and nothing at all to do with credit availability and demand for credit to pay higher prices, is all that pushes prices up.

Housebuilders Called To Cable-Osborne Talks
Major developers will meet ministers this week to discuss growing concerns about the housing market, Sky News learns.
Monday 02 June 2014
The bosses of Britain's biggest residential developers have been summoned to summits with Vince Cable and George Osborne this week amid growing concerns about the UK housing market. ...Two days later, the Chancellor is understood to be planning to meet executives from several housebuilders to discuss issues including the bottleneck in the supply of new housing stock.
"We're helping young people who can afford a mortgage payment to get a home of their own, even if they don't have a rich mum and dad who can give them the deposit," he said.
"The housing market wasn’t working for them, builders wouldn't build unless buyers could buy."
Ed Balls, the Shadow Chancellor, told Sky's Ian King that rising house prices were fundamentally a supply and demand issue. "If supply is the problem we need more affordable homes, more houses being built - a few thousand houses in Ebbsfleet is not going to do the job."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At one time there was an incredible amount of unused brown field derelict land in London. It was becoming a hollowed out city with death in the centre and continuing development on the outskirts. Ditto with many of the others.

It was a major step to undertake Docklands and it took a lot of 'government money' and action.

Whilst I agree with developing brown field first...is there enough with our expanding population? I would like to see some figures of expected population growth and the proposed developmnent with a time plan. I think we're beyond 'laissez faire', we need concerted planned action now.

I also think it might be rather unhealthy to try to fill up every single unused space in our cities. It's not really how organic growth works. What happens if we suddenly want to put some kind of unanticipated building type scattered conveniently through our cities? We won't be able to because we weren't willing to leave a couple of percent of the land fallow for such an occasion, so instead we would have to buy up and knock down buildings that have not yet reached the end of their useful life, wasting large amounts of capital in the process.

Small amounts of unused resources and decay are normal parts of functioning ecosystems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   211 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.