Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
subspace

Telegraph: The Great Rural Fightback: Meet The Villagers Turning Down Millions From Developers

Recommended Posts

The NIMBYs are out in force in Sussex.

In a picturesque corner of West Sussex, a quiet but principled group of residents have a fight on their hands. These are the villagers who are standing up to the property developers seeking to concrete over their green and pleasant land, replacing their charming patchwork of farms and rural homes with a new 10,000-home town.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/countryside/11618126/The-great-rural-fightback-meet-the-villagers-turning-down-millions-from-developers.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'I believe this countryside is a sacred haven'

Everywhere seems to be a sacred haven these days when it comes to building new homes. it would be good if the government could at least put some effort into explaining exactly where the new homes are going to be provided to accommodate the UK's rapidly increasing population.

Then the media could run that story.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everywhere seems to be a sacred haven these days when it comes to building new homes. it would be good if the government could at least put some effort into explaining exactly where the new homes are going to be provided to accommodate the UK's rapidly increasing population.

Then the media could run that story.

Perhaps you should read this:http://www.capx.co/there-is-no-uk-housing-crisis-and-there-never-was-one/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True. There are plenty of properties going up around here, but nearly all of them will not be affordable for the vast majority. One development I could walk to in 5 minutes consists of houses priced at £2.5M+. There is another similar or even more expensive a little further away. Mind you I notice that the sign saying 'only 3 remaining' - out of no more than 5 - has been there for months now.

There is a 'brownfield' site not much further away, a former petrol station that has been left for so long that a vast area of concrete had sprouted with all sorts of greenery. When work finally started I thought it was bound to be flats, and hoped that at least some would be affordable, but no, it's going to be a care home.

And a horrible, filthy and badly neglected 80s block of flats down Kingston Hill, invariably an utter eyesore, has been taken over and tarted up, but it's going to be student accomm only.

At least they've cleaned it up, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until they fix the immigration numbers (cf 400k+ per year), I'm not supportive of building on previously unbuilt land in large blocks. I was lucky enough to grow up in a village surrounded by countryside, and I don't agree with building a megopolis in the southeast, which is what would happen. Already, in my old childhood area within the M25 the villages are all linked now by sprawl development and a majority of the woodland I played in has gone....

And I am someone who would dearly like a HPC, massive reduction in planning regs - but only one immigration is down to near zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you should read this:

Thanks for the link.

I'm already familiar with the points made in that link and they're regularly made on HPC (wth associated links) and in general principle I agree with them - crazy house prices are mainly created by levels of credit and that rent levels are relatively flat etc. It's a house price crisis and not really a housing shortgage crisis.

That particular article (as well as other similar articles) appears to have a possible limitation in that it seems to assume that census figures/official figures on population etc are more or less accurate whereas some people think that the UK population figures could be well underestimated even by several millions. That possibility seems to get brushed under the carpet and isn't ever thoroughly addressed. Official figures always seem to be so sacrosanct and in the meantime they're all there is to work with unless fresh evidence is produced.

The link still makes many fair points.

However under the circumstances of it being official government policy to build more houses and officially justified as being for a rapidly increasing population (even if building in insufficient numbers by their own calculations) along with more than 600,000 new immigrants every year (net migration more than 300,000 a year) then they could at least put some effort into explaining to the general public exactly where the new homes are going to be built.

The final paragraph of your link seems to agree with my general point of view.

We need to continue to build more houses. And it is likely that, with accelerating population growth, the rate of new house-building in the future in the UK will need to be more rapid than it was in the recent past. But we do not have a housing shortage in England as a whole or in any region of England. High house prices are not because we have run out of houses. It’s perfectly understandable, given the data at the time, that people believed that in 2000. It’s simply refusing to look at the data if people continue to believe that now.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until they fix the immigration numbers (cf 400k+ per year), I'm not supportive of building on previously unbuilt land in large blocks. I was lucky enough to grow up in a village surrounded by countryside, and I don't agree with building a megopolis in the southeast, which is what would happen. Already, in my old childhood area within the M25 the villages are all linked now by sprawl development and a majority of the woodland I played in has gone....

And I am someone who would dearly like a HPC, massive reduction in planning regs - but only one immigration is down to near zero.

Agree. Good post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until they fix the immigration numbers (cf 400k+ per year), I'm not supportive of building on previously unbuilt land in large blocks. I was lucky enough to grow up in a village surrounded by countryside, and I don't agree with building a megopolis in the southeast, which is what would happen. Already, in my old childhood area within the M25 the villages are all linked now by sprawl development and a majority of the woodland I played in has gone....

And I am someone who would dearly like a HPC, massive reduction in planning regs - but only one immigration is down to near zero.

I feel tearful when I visit the place I grew up. Everything is under concrete and brick and the air polluted, what a sacrifice to pay so we can house the world's poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I am someone who would dearly like a HPC, massive reduction in planning regs - but only one immigration is down to near zero.

"Massive reduction in planning regs". I think you miss a fundamental point: the building firms want low volumes and high prices; they are the last people who want a reduction in planning regs, despite what they say. In this they are at one with the NIMBYS, although they would never admit it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link.

I'm already familiar with the points made in that link and they're regularly made on HPC (wth associated links) and in general principle I agree with them - crazy house prices are mainly created by levels of credit and that rent levels are relatively flat etc. It's a house price crisis and not really a housing shortgage crisis.

That particular article (as well as other similar articles) appears to have a possible limitation in that it seems to assume that census figures/official figures on population etc are more or less accurate whereas some people think that the UK population figures could be well underestimated even by several millions. That possibility seems to get brushed under the carpet and isn't ever thoroughly addressed. Official figures always seem to be so sacrosanct and in the meantime they're all there is to work with unless fresh evidence is produced.

The link still makes many fair points.

However under the circumstances of it being official government policy to build more houses and officially justified as being for a rapidly increasing population (even if building in insufficient numbers by their own calculations) along with more than 600,000 new immigrants every year (net migration more than 300,000 a year) then they could at least put some effort into explaining to the general public exactly where the new homes are going to be built.

The final paragraph of your link seems to agree with my general point of view.

Hm, I wonder what might happen if we Brexit (unlikely) or the eastern European economies pick up so that many of the "immigrants" return?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Massive reduction in planning regs". I think you miss a fundamental point: the building firms want low volumes and high prices; they are the last people who want a reduction in planning regs, despite what they say. In this they are at one with the NIMBYS, although they would never admit it.

Needless to say the big builders are mainly profiting from their land hoarding and build so called houses and provide an amount of employment to justify their land hoarding and their restrictions on their land release.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Needless to say the big builders are mainly profiting from their land hoarding and build so called houses and provide an amount of employment to justify their land hoarding and their restrictions on their land release.

That appears to be the point I am making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Massive reduction in planning regs". I think you miss a fundamental point: the building firms want low volumes and high prices; they are the last people who want a reduction in planning regs, despite what they say. In this they are at one with the NIMBYS, although they would never admit it.

I think their desire for high prices is more symptomatic of the embedded nature of the planning system. People will want houses whether prices are high or low...constructon firm profitability isnt anomalously high...its simply they loaded up on land in 2000-2007, paying well over the odds for poor sites and need high prices to bail them out.

Of course, virtually every major housebuilder in the country should have gone bust in 2008/9, their landbanks sold off for a fraction of what they paid in a firesale, and affordable housing delivered...but as we know, its incredibly hard for large companies to go bust in this age of 'too big to fail'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Housing shortage chimera arises (Australia)

"...Confronting the real causes would require our compromised legislature to proactively respond, instead of rigging government and market outcomes to benefit the growing power, profit and authority of the horde of private monopolists, usurers, speculators, rent seekers, free riders, financial robber barons, control frauds, inheritors and the indolent rich..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Housing shortage chimera arises (Australia)

"...Confronting the real causes would require our compromised legislature to proactively respond, instead of rigging government and market outcomes to benefit the growing power, profit and authority of the horde of private monopolists, usurers, speculators, rent seekers, free riders, financial robber barons, control frauds, inheritors and the indolent rich..."

Quite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think their desire for high prices is more symptomatic of the embedded nature of the planning system. People will want houses whether prices are high or low...constructon firm profitability isnt anomalously high...its simply they loaded up on land in 2000-2007, paying well over the odds for poor sites and need high prices to bail them out.

Of course, virtually every major housebuilder in the country should have gone bust in 2008/9, their landbanks sold off for a fraction of what they paid in a firesale, and affordable housing delivered...but as we know, its incredibly hard for large companies to go bust in this age of 'too big to fail'

Any sensible business wants high margins and lower output - it's less bother all round and housebuilding is no different. These (high margins/low output) are complementary in terms of pricing power. Even if the planning regs were loosened quite considerably would the price of houses go down? I suspect not; some other scapegoat would arise to justify the status quo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until they fix the immigration numbers (cf 400k+ per year), I'm not supportive of building on previously unbuilt land in large blocks. I was lucky enough to grow up in a village surrounded by countryside, and I don't agree with building a megopolis in the southeast, which is what would happen. Already, in my old childhood area within the M25 the villages are all linked now by sprawl development and a majority of the woodland I played in has gone....

And I am someone who would dearly like a HPC, massive reduction in planning regs - but only one immigration is down to near zero.

I agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That appears to be the point I am making.

I'm sure what you said leads to the same conclusion. I like to put it in my own words and it often bears very regular repeating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any sensible business wants high margins and lower output - it's less bother all round and housebuilding is no different. These (high margins/low output) are complementary in terms of pricing power. Even if the planning regs were loosened quite considerably would the price of houses go down? I suspect not; some other scapegoat would arise to justify the status quo.

Who would pay over the odds for some developers identikit home if they could buy some cheap land and hire a builder to stick a house on it. Competition would drive quality up and prices down. The current planning regs mean that only developers stand a reasonable chance of acquiring land with PP meaning they have a monopoly.

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:   37 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.