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

Northampton Borough Council Lodges Objection Against 2,300 Homes

Recommended Posts

Yes, that;'s right, we have a counci ( for the people by the people ) voting to stop 2400 houses when there is a shortage of houses.

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/local/northampton-borough-council-lodges-objection-against-2-300-homes-and-bypass-to-nowhere-1-6532230

Plans to build 2,300 new homes on green space near Hardingstone and Collingtree have been labelled ‘insanity’ by villagers, as they backed a Northampton Borough Council objection to the scheme.

"‘insanity’ by villagers" - Is that a NIMBY I see before me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice the comments section is being spammed by a Green party troll

As to our views, of course the Green Party is anti building on the Greenbelt, but not anti housing.

So same as their views on every thing else then.

They want cheaper energy bills, but no coal/gas/oil or nuclear. That'll work out.

They want higher wages but to flood the country with more immigrant labour. That'll work out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, but the only way greenbelt building would lower prices is if the developers chose to undercut themselves by actually lowering prices, which they wouldn't. So economically they have a point even if the environmental or social one isn't shared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It far more suitable to build on green land that it is forcing 4800 (2400 x 2) people to commute by car every day.

Stick that in the Greens pipe and get them to smoke it.

I just looked that the map and the location seems to be idea! That's why there are thousands of other houses nearby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, but the only way greenbelt building would lower prices is if the developers chose to undercut themselves by actually lowering prices, which they wouldn't. So economically they have a point even if the environmental or social one isn't shared.

Councils can pass greenbelt building, even if there are swathes of brownbelt land available...thats the case around me for instance...Developers prefer greenbelt, as its cheaper to build on, as there's usually no clean-up costs..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice the comments section is being spammed by a Green party troll

As to our views, of course the Green Party is anti building on the Greenbelt, but not anti housing.

So same as their views on every thing else then.

They want cheaper energy bills, but no coal/gas/oil or nuclear. That'll work out.

They want higher wages but to flood the country with more immigrant labour. That'll work out.

Must be why Dave wants them at the debates as even that cok would look like a stateman against such nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, but the only way greenbelt building would lower prices is if the developers chose to undercut themselves by actually lowering prices, which they wouldn't. So economically they have a point even if the environmental or social one isn't shared.

I really dont buy that. Developers were still building in the early/mid 90s when prices fell. Land is just a cost to them. They dont stockpile houses. If they have lower input costs (ie land) then their output costs are lower too.

Releasing more land for development means lower land prices.

(and we might actually get decent sized housing with gardens, parking etc...brownfield may as well be a euphemism for 'cramped block of flats' )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must be why Dave wants them at the debates as even that cok would look like a stateman against such nonsense.

Its all a game to cameron. Trust me, the greens WILL be in the debate...the BBC like Cameron for some reason, and he would look a right petulant child if Farage, Clegg, Miliband turned up and he didnt. The BBC will fold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Councils can pass greenbelt building, even if there are swathes of brownbelt land available...thats the case around me for instance...Developers prefer greenbelt, as its cheaper to build on, as there's usually no clean-up costs..

Councils near me build on greenfield land because they own most of it and its the only way of paying their obscene pensions.

My guess is if NBC owned this land it would be built on...they probably dont so it wont get approved.

Quite sinister way of running things really...they really are just a mafia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really dont buy that. Developers were still building in the early/mid 90s when prices fell. Land is just a cost to them. They dont stockpile houses. If they have lower input costs (ie land) then their output costs are lower too.

Releasing more land for development means lower land prices.

(and we might actually get decent sized housing with gardens, parking etc...brownfield may as well be a euphemism for 'cramped block of flats' )

Then you need to explain why a homebuilder would offer homes at a lower price than they have to, lower than buyer's max affordability.

The rate of housing supply falls as prices rise because there's an increased incentive to supply at tomorrow's higher price rather than today's. Building on the greenbelt today without first dealing with the price props would just be a massive taxpayer->landowner/developer gift. There's a price gradient between places inside and outside the greenbelt. If they build on it prices would be somewhere between the two because the commuter cost savings are absorbed into rents and prices. I'd assume in many cases if people commute from outside a city it's because they can't afford to live closer. Building on the greenbelt may address not wanting to commute as far, but would do zero to improve net affordability. It would also not address any general trend in people wanting to live in or closer to that city, because building on the greenbelt will necessarily lower the rate of building either side - including in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you need to explain why a homebuilder would offer homes at a lower price than they have to, lower than buyer's max affordability.

The rate of housing supply falls as prices rise because there's an increased incentive to supply at tomorrow's higher price rather than today's. Building on the greenbelt today without first dealing with the price props would just be a massive taxpayer->landowner/developer gift. There's a price gradient between places inside and outside the greenbelt. If they build on it prices would be somewhere between the two because the commuter cost savings are absorbed into rents and prices. I'd assume in many cases if people commute from outside a city it's because they can't afford to live closer. Building on the greenbelt may address not wanting to commute as far, but would do zero to improve net affordability. It would also not address any general trend in people wanting to live in or closer to that city, because building on the greenbelt will necessarily lower the rate of building either side - including in it.

Its simply competitive forces. Contrary to popular belief, landowners just love to sell land. One near me was literally gagging to sell a couple of acres for 36 social houses for £220k...nothing compared to what you and me would have to pay for a plot, but a hell of a lot more than the 6 grand an acre he'd get otherwise. Of course, the NIMBYs, who the greens seem to associate, with stopped it.

If greenfield land was offered on a reasonably large scale (and landowners do want to sell, believe me) it would be fairly easy to pick up a typical 1/8 acre plot for 10 or 20k....it doesnt take a huge amount of those to crowd out sellers expecting higher prices and force them to drop their prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its simply competitive forces. Contrary to popular belief, landowners just love to sell land. One near me was literally gagging to sell a couple of acres for 36 social houses for £220k...nothing compared to what you and me would have to pay for a plot, but a hell of a lot more than the 6 grand an acre he'd get otherwise. Of course, the NIMBYs, who the greens seem to associate, with stopped it.

If greenfield land was offered on a reasonably large scale (and landowners do want to sell, believe me) it would be fairly easy to pick up a typical 1/8 acre plot for 10 or 20k....it doesnt take a huge amount of those to crowd out sellers expecting higher prices and force them to drop their prices.

But you didn't answer the question. Why would a developer sell at a price lower than they know buyers can afford? Particularly when the finances of the rest of their non-greenbelt portfolio, and the financing (leverage) to be able to do it all as a business, depends on prices not falling (at least not falling because they made it happen).

What competitive forces are you referring to? Have you ever seen a housing development, then driven a mile down the road to see a board advertising their development at 10% lower than the other one?

Being nimby, and not wanting to gift a significant chunk of our natural resources as a free windfall gain to a select bunch today are not the same thing. I'm sure landowners love to sell, for as much as they can and netting unearned gains. A lot of the greenbelt is also privately owned so same thing goes and my attitude o that is one of a significant f#ck off. If you're talking about the government just undercutting the market for mass social build or offering the greenbelt to us for self-build, that may be a different issue depending on who gets to build, how that effects other supply and what that does to overall house price sentiment if everyone becomes an owner. But given the current kitchen sink being thrown at prices, landowners and developers that doesn't look likely to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you didn't answer the question. Why would a developer sell at a price lower than they know buyers can afford? Particularly when the finances of the rest of their non-greenbelt portfolio, and the financing (leverage) to be able to do it all as a business, depends on prices not falling (at least not falling because they made it happen).

What competitive forces are you referring to? Have you ever seen a housing development, then driven a mile down the road to see a board advertising their development at 10% lower than the other one?

Being nimby, and not wanting to gift a significant chunk of our natural resources as a free windfall gain to a select bunch today are not the same thing. I'm sure landowners love to sell, for as much as they can and netting unearned gains. A lot of the greenbelt is also privately owned so same thing goes and my attitude o that is one of a significant f#ck off. If you're talking about the government just undercutting the market for mass social build or offering the greenbelt to us for self-build, that may be a different issue depending on who gets to build, how that effects other supply and what that does to overall house price sentiment if everyone becomes an owner. But given the current kitchen sink being thrown at prices, landowners and developers that doesn't look likely to happen.

Because there is no 'developer'

There are many developers, some of whom will be encouraged into the market price by lower land prices, if more land were to be offered. Sure, they would start by undercutting existing developers by a small amount. If this happens on a decent scale, prices fall significantly.

Same as with any other market. Increase supply, prices fall. Have faith!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because there is no 'developer'

There are many developers, some of whom will be encouraged into the market price by lower land prices, if more land were to be offered. Sure, they would start by undercutting existing developers by a small amount. If this happens on a decent scale, prices fall significantly.

Same as with any other market. Increase supply, prices fall. Have faith!

Not with land markets: http://ckmurray.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/8-lessons-on-planning-and-housing.html I strongly recommend reading it, or any other more detailed literature on housing price demand and supply. Sometimes what seems clear and obvious isn't. This is a paper that discusses a number of opinions from different angles: 'What Determines the Responsiveness of Housing Supply?The Role of Real Interest Rates and Cyclical Asymmetries' http://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_133560_en.pdf A bit boring yes but fundamental that people get this, or at least ask themselves why land markets and prices don't seem to behave like others if the price demand driver isn't obvious.

Even if was true and there's price competition in land, if it takes lower prices to start the ball rolling and that process knocks existing developer, owner and bank balance sheets in an environment of policy support for them, there's still a piece of the gonna happen chain missing.

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   224 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.