There IS a Single Magic Bullet mr Hammond. The only reason you won't use it is that it would cost your mates.

[pezo]

IMO more houses will only leave the houses that people dont want to live in derelict - more options won't change the cost it will increase the quality of home people live in.

I belive there is a simple way to reduce house prices and that is put in lending controls. Something like no more debt than 3 times your yearly wage and 25% deposit.

It will never happen though because we have a system that depends on debt to provide wealth.

[ebull]

4 minutes ago, guest_northshore said:

I understand the term. But assuming someone except the Government owns that farm land, how do they get compensated?

There is currently plenty of farm land for sale [search rightmove]. It's a strange market since it has very little possibility for yield so 10k/acre is crazy high but that is what it sells for. Part of it's value is CAP payments and the like from EU - except they are not necessarily attached to the land. Another part is exemption from death tax. Both easy and cost saving for gov to remove. Post Brexit what do you guess will happen to land prices if CAP-EU-payment schemes are simply removed as they should be?

You know the 100k part of the famous-bus-350k a week that is returned to the UK. A chunk of that is these payments of which Duke of Westminster takes 1/2 mil a year and Charles another 1/2 mil. Some less visible offshore owners take more I believe.

Even after those gov gifted benefits, I cannot work out why farmland sells for what it does.

[guest_northshore]

4 minutes ago, ebull said:

There is currently plenty of farm land for sale [search rightmove]. It's a strange market since it has very little possibility for yield so 10k/acre is crazy high but that is what it sells for. Part of it's value is CAP payments and the like from EU - except they are not necessarily attached to the land. Another part is exemption from death tax. Both easy and cost saving for gov to remove. Post Brexit what do you guess will happen to land prices if CAP-EU-payment schemes are simply removed as they should be?

You know the 100k part of the famous-bus-350k a week that is returned to the UK. A chunk of that is these payments of which Duke of Westminster takes 1/2 mil a year and Charles another 1/2 mil. Some less visible offshore owners take more I believe.

Even after those gov gifted benefits, I cannot work out why farmland sells for what it does.

 

Farm land for sale - I buy it at agricultural price then build. Is that what you mean?

If it is, why would the owner sell land with embedded permitted development rights at agricultural price?

[nothernsoul]

The debt money would just create a market bubble in farmland that just happens to be in the most desirable places. Instead of developers getting the money lucky farmers would. 

As long as residential housing is seen as a forever winning speculative asset, whether by developers, owner occupiers, landlords, or even people wanting to buy,  and there is sufficient money to feed it,  taxation on the asset is low, prices will be high. The only way for property prices to become affordable is for human beings no longer wanting/or being able to throw every penny they possess or borrow into it. 

[ebull]

6 minutes ago, guest_northshore said:

 

Farm land for sale - I buy it at agricultural price then build. Is that what you mean?

If it is, why would the owner sell land with embedded permitted development rights at agricultural price?

Wow, how ingrained is the idea that price of the land that a house stands on is somehow gold plated as valuable as gold?

If houses are allowed to be stood on any land - ie all land in the whole country has embedded permitted development rights, those rights are a bit too ten a penny to have much added value  . So yes all land would continue to be priced at around the price farm land goes for now.

New meme .... all UK built land has a chance of a hidden burried leanordo? [that explains it's price !!]

[guest_northshore]

12 minutes ago, ebull said:

Wow, how ingrained is the idea that price of the land that a house stands on is somehow gold plated as valuable as gold?

If houses are allowed to be stood on any land - ie all land in the whole country has embedded permitted development rights, those rights are a bit too ten a penny to have much added value  . So yes all land would continue to be priced at around the price farm land goes for now.

New meme .... all UK built land has a chance of a hidden burried leanordo? [that explains it's price !!]

If only that was true. I commented previously on elimination of planning so won't repeat myself.

The belief that planning restrictions limit aggregate supply is a fundamental error. I think that error derives from conflating houses with land to put houses on, and transposing normal supply/demand relationships to that for land. Land supply is fixed so it doesn't work that way.

If you choose to believe otherwise then good luck, but prepare for continued price disappointment.

 

[ebull]

15 minutes ago, guest_northshore said:

If only that was true. I commented previously on elimination of planning so won't repeat myself.

The belief that planning restrictions limit aggregate supply is a fundamental error. I think that error derives from conflating houses with land to put houses on, and transposing normal supply/demand relationships to that for land. Land supply is fixed so it doesn't work that way.

If you choose to believe otherwise then good luck, but prepare for continued price disappointment.

 

Sorry but I think you are just wrong  that all UK farm land would suddenly be worth 200-400k an acre [current price after pp granted for 1 or 2 houses]. It may go up temporarily a bit whilst not enough is available but unless some speculators managed to buy everything and create a bubble [sound familiar?], there is more than enough land to go round and enough farmers who would sell.

I am guessing we wont get to find out in the UK or well, maybe we could ......

It's usual in Germany to build whatever wherever. People like to build their forever home not buy one.  How much does land with development rights cost there? Answer: less than farmland here.

Other countries could probably be compared with pop density closer to UK.

Again I admire your faith in the hidden undiscovered Leonardos. [You do know they're priced in already?]

[guest_northshore]

21 minutes ago, ebull said:

Sorry but I think you are just wrong  that all UK farm land would suddenly be worth 200-400k an acre [current price after pp granted for 1 or 2 houses]. It may go up temporarily a bit whilst not enough is available but unless some speculators managed to buy everything and create a bubble [sound familiar?], there is more than enough land to go round and enough farmers who would sell.

I am guessing we wont get to find out in the UK or well, maybe we could ......

It's usual in Germany to build whatever wherever. People like to build their forever home not buy one.  How much does land with development rights cost there? Answer: less than farmland here.

Other countries could probably be compared with pop density closer to UK.

Again I admire your faith in the hidden undiscovered Leonardos. [You do know they're priced in already?]

You're confusing permitted development or rezoning with an obligation to actually build, and build at a greater aggregate rate than otherwise.

Condescension is lazy. You're not the first to ponder on & research these things.

[longgone]

there are loads of bullets 

the politicians will tell you all the amo is spent and all they have is the empty casing to play with. 

whack up interest rates = crash 

massive building of modern factory built houses 1,000,000 that can go up in a month = crash 

restrict lending = crash 

relax planning and force existing plots to be built on =crash 

how can they be perceived to be helping the renters young and not crash ?? more debt ?

 

[Riedquat]

What will that do to break the bubble sentiment? Unless there's a serious shortage of housing, and ignoring locations where there's high demand but no space, e.g. the middle of London, all you're going to end up with is a bit more crap built in a place that would be better with less. Anything to encourage more building is tinkering at the edges and not addressing the main issue. HPC goes on about it being down to lending a lot because it is. If the government were to step in and feck up loads of places with massive oversupply that might just about burst the bubble but it's not done so by addressing the cause, and the side effects are unpleasant to say the least.

[ebull]

17 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

What will that do to break the bubble sentiment? Unless there's a serious shortage of housing, and ignoring locations where there's high demand but no space, e.g. the middle of London, all you're going to end up with is a bit more crap built in a place that would be better with less. Anything to encourage more building is tinkering at the edges and not addressing the main issue. HPC goes on about it being down to lending a lot because it is. If the government were to step in and feck up loads of places with massive oversupply that might just about burst the bubble but it's not done so by addressing the cause, and the side effects are unpleasant to say the least.

Who said I suggested this to break a bubble sentiment. Don't care about sentiment, would prefer that all prices dropped.

I want a housing market with an option for buying at sensible prices for most people. If you achieve that you fix the housing crisis. I appreciate that won't make everyone at HPC happy.

Some folk who can't get a victorian villa for 3x their salary is not how I would describe the crisis. Lots of folk who can't get anything adequate that's affordable for them is a crisis and I think that's what both MSM and government / Hammond mean by housing crisis.

Perhaps the result is only those who make an effort will get a reduced cost house. Ie. are prepared to go to the effort of chatting to farmers and pursuading them to part with a field and then arranging a factory house [or print a house with a builder-printer - coming soon].

It won't do a lot for London except a few freed up homes from people who move out.

"loads of places with massive oversupply " - you mean like Germany? No-one here want a rental market with oversupply any more? THAT is a controlled rent market that works [or did -the 1.5M new arrivals may have tipped the balance].

To answer the response to this upthread, if you have oversupply then a controlled price market is fine. In a market without enough supply and controlled prices there is never a good answer to who gets the limited units.

[ebull]

1 hour ago, guest_northshore said:

You're confusing permitted development or rezoning with an obligation to actually build, and build at a greater aggregate rate than otherwise.

Condescension is lazy. You're not the first to ponder on & research these things.

LOL

[macca13]

4 hours ago, ebull said:

Don't know the numbers but am guessing the house cost is order of 150k. Greedy builder has put two too close together though.

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-51626931.html

www.artichouse.co.uk/technical-info/the-artic-frame-system-/

Ive seen 2 story pre fabs for 30k+ this one attached looks a nice 3 bedroom..  

its like house boats, they are cheap as chips, it’s the mooring that costs the money, so corbyn’s land tax is the killer of the house price bonanza.. 

[Parkwell]

One potential problem.

Landowners are not compelled to sell at a low price. The price could rise quickly after an announcement for such a scheme. Banks could offer self build mortgages (they already exist) to meet the price demanded by landowners. Prices may drop but perhaps not by as much as hoped. It could be a very slow process too. It would certainly improve the quality of housing stock as a whole in the long term. But I’m not sure this is a silver bullet.

I still lean towards government releasing cheap land for self build with restrictions over who buys, flipping etc. A more targeted approach that need not cost the earth. And a use it or lose system for developer owned land.

I’m not entirely opposed to your scheme , I'm massively in favour of self build and lots of small independent competing developers, but the credit side needs to be addressed simultaneously.

[disenfranchised]

I fully support making self build more viable - but not as a way for landowners to further cash in on their oft ill gotten gains.

Your patrilineal forbear was Henry VIII official boot licker, so you get a free pass to develop and flog some land at a handsome profit? 

Hell no.

The government oversaw the construction of millions of homes and entire new towns in the years following WW2. They know how to do it and need to get on with it again.

[winkie]

There is indeed a lot of home building that needs doing......governments don't do it, private companies won't do it unless they get 'help' in the form of money and benefits from governments.....the land is there because the state own plenty of land that could if they wanted use it....the biggest hurdle is the lenders will they lend to people working hard on low pay with high outgoings, with work that is not stable or regular, a debt is every month for ~ 25 years a job contract could be for ~6 months.........then the other elephant in the room. the dire state of our infrastructure in many places....homes require sewers, water, broadband, utilities, roads, public transport that works together etc....what about the skills shortage of builders, plumbers, electricians.....is it me or have these important jobs been seen to be inferior and dirty to an office job in clean smart suit or are men becoming more feminine like?.....but that's another story.

[tomandlu]

High multiple mortgage lending is the iceberg; everything else is just design-flaws and lack of lifeboats.

[winkie]

13 minutes ago, tomandlu said:

High multiple mortgage lending is the iceberg; everything else is just design-flaws and lack of lifeboats.

High debt of all kinds (low interest) to get anything done......lack of investment of own money into risky projects with no guarantees.......when peoples future income/growth/jobs/work has no guarantees.

Anyway who will pay to rent the roads in the future with driverless cars, when today we all still have choices and have the freedom to roam?

[North London Rent Girl]

13 hours ago, Maynardgravy said:

Why five years? If you bought it to build on it, build on it.

But that's the thing, they're not - and why would they? they're limited companies with a duty to maximise value for their shareholders - if they can best achieve that through land speculation, which has the lovely effect of not having to do anything whilst watching the value of your assets climb - the land (and, a bit, the stock they are building, shortage not main factor at all but it can't hurt) - why wouldn't they do it? It's an argument for reforming directors' duties but that's never going to happen so I think ebull's suggestion is a good one. The only change I'd make is that, if they haven't built on it within five years of permission being granted, it's compulsorily purchased from them at its value without permission. Easy enough to assess I should think. Yes, purchased by the government, which can then build on it itself, employing lots of people in fairly-waged jobs on safe building sites to build nice homes to be rented out at an affordable price. Crazy commie nonsense!

[guest_northshore]

10 hours ago, ebull said:

LOL

Annoying isn't it.

[winkie]

1 minute ago, North London Rent Girl said:

But that's the thing, they're not - and why would they? they're limited companies with a duty to maximise value for their shareholders - if they can best achieve that through land speculation, which has the lovely effect of not having to do anything whilst watching the value of your assets climb - the land (and, a bit, the stock they are building, shortage not main factor at all but it can't hurt) - why wouldn't they do it? It's an argument for reforming directors' duties but that's never going to happen so I think ebull's suggestion is a good one. The only change I'd make is that, if they haven't built on it within five years of permission being granted, it's compulsorily purchased from them at its value without permission. Easy enough to assess I should think. Yes, purchased by the government, which can then build on it itself, employing lots of people in fairly-waged jobs on safe building sites to build nice homes to be rented out at an affordable price. Crazy commie nonsense!

Common sense to me.....but only sensible when sense pays.....at the moment it doesn't, so nothing gets done.

[guest_northshore]

15 hours ago, BuyToLeech said:

...I think that, like me, most people here support at least a loosening of planning restrictions.

I am very skeptical that it would work. It definitely is not a magic bullet because, apart from the fact it might have little effect, building homes costs money and takes years. 

There really is a magic bullet, that would absolutely solve the crisis and would also be a massive boost to the economy.

That solution is to tax the value of land instead of taxing income.  Economists have known this for the best part of 2 centuries. 

Do you mean relaxation to lower prices or maybe increase supply, or to alter the mix of what's built where?

I don't see how a loosening could lower prices given constant price demand & fixed supply & incentives. But if I'm wrong I'd like to understand why.

[Maynardgravy]

8 minutes ago, North London Rent Girl said:

But that's the thing, they're not - and why would they? they're limited companies with a duty to maximise value for their shareholders - if they can best achieve that through land speculation, which has the lovely effect of not having to do anything whilst watching the value of your assets climb - the land (and, a bit, the stock they are building, shortage not main factor at all but it can't hurt) - why wouldn't they do it? It's an argument for reforming directors' duties but that's never going to happen so I think ebull's suggestion is a good one. The only change I'd make is that, if they haven't built on it within five years of permission being granted, it's compulsorily purchased from them at its value without permission. Easy enough to assess I should think. Yes, purchased by the government, which can then build on it itself, employing lots of people in fairly-waged jobs on safe building sites to build nice homes to be rented out at an affordable price. Crazy commie nonsense!

I think my point is being missed. Five years is far too long IMO. 

[North London Rent Girl]

Just now, Maynardgravy said:

I think my point is being missed. Five years is far too long IMO. 

Oh, Mr Gravy, my apologies - you mean foundations down within 6 months, landscaping by the end of year 2, like that? Magic. Never going to happen but ee, lad, ye can allus dreeyum. God, wouldn't it be great. Imagine, builders really building houses, eh? It's political correctness gone mad.

[winkie]

3 minutes ago, Maynardgravy said:

I think my point is being missed. Five years is far too long IMO. 

.....been sitting on it five years too long already.