Blue Print For Disaster

[Guest muttley]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/main.j...1/ixptop12.html

John Prescott's drive to build thousands more houses in the South-East is in danger of becoming a "developers' free-for-all", with housebuilders taking increasing control of the planning, design and inspection process as local authorities struggle to keep up with the pace dictated by the Government.

John Prescott giving the fox the run of the chicken coop.

Edited February 11, 2006 by muttley

[Wayo]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/main.j...1/ixptop12.html

John Prescott giving the fox the run of the chicken coop.

The Local Authorities should consider their planning staff to be an investment rather than a cost.

When all these thousands of new homes come under occupation, they will be laughing all the way to the bank. But needless to say the Council Tax will keep going up....

[waitingpatiently]

If they are building 1000's of new houses in the South East over the next few years, maybe this will be the catalyst that will cause house prices to fall?

It will be such a shame if it is all rushed through - a real missed opportunity to create amazing communities for people to live in, that could be an example to the rest of the world.

[BuyingBear]

Good, you know you're doing something right when the nimbies are screaming, if only the developers can take complete control and dispense with density targets and s.106.

With density targets they can never deliver what people actually want because everything ends up being flats.

[We've gone]

I skimmed through this & saw stuff about energy efficiency. I thought there was a lot of concern that developments were ignoring risks of flooding - especially with the South East literally slowly sinking.

[Guest Bart of Darkness]

John Prescott giving the fox the run of the chicken coop.

No doubt that fat class-traitor will be getting a nice big backhander out of it as well.

Still plenty of people will no doubt queue up like lemmings for one of these places and be pathetically grateful for a chance to "get on the ladder".

[tonification]

I don't know which side I dislike more in this story - Prescott, the homebuilders or the nimby's at the CPRE (Campaign for the Protection of high Real Estate prices)

[Mr Blek]

No doubt that fat class-traitor will be getting a nice big backhander out of it as well.

Still plenty of people will no doubt queue up like lemmings for one of these places and be pathetically grateful for a chance to "get on the ladder".

Labour sold out ages ago. I'm refusing to call it a ladder anymore. Ladder has been basterdised to imply that you will climb to a higher rung. Bloody muppets.

Edited February 12, 2006 by Mr Blek

[North London Rent Girl]

I skimmed through this & saw stuff about energy efficiency. I thought there was a lot of concern that developments were ignoring risks of flooding - especially with the South East literally slowly sinking.

from one watery issue to another - isn't one of the new towns going to be in Essex, which is literally a desert.

rainfall in UK

Nice thinking two jags. Progressive and far-sighted as ever.

[malco]

Good, you know you're doing something right when the nimbies are screaming, if only the developers can take complete control and dispense with density targets and s.106.

With density targets they can never deliver what people actually want because everything ends up being flats.

Would you prefer the sprawl associated with US-style development? This is now being taken as a terrible weakness because it is so vulnerable to fuel price rises - the low density makes it nearly impossible to serve these sprawls with public transport. It may prove to be very short-sighted to increase sprawl from now on.

Granted living in a flat for life is not a great prospect. I suppose it boils down to a case of balancing the cake and the eating. You won't get that balance through a free-for-all.

I don't understand this belief that planning controls increase house prices. House prices relative to incomes follow a long-term average of 3.5X, as has been long discussed on this site. There are more houses now per capita than ever before - so prices by rights should be lower than 30 years ago (relative to incomes). The principal factor in house prices is credit affordability/availability, with numbers employed coming second. I am skeptical that relaxed planning laws would reduce house prices, since it would not necessaroliy increase the number of units built, but rather the size of each unit. Bear in mind that with more land coming into the picture, builders would have to compete on garden size/houseprint size. The Tories relaxed planning rules in the late 1980s and it seems to have merely fed the fires of price mania, rather than eased it.

[BuyingBear]

Would you prefer the sprawl associated with US-style development? This is now being taken as a terrible weakness because it is so vulnerable to fuel price rises - the low density makes it nearly impossible to serve these sprawls with public transport. It may prove to be very short-sighted to increase sprawl from now on.

6% of the UK is classified as urban, we are in no danger of replicating the US unless half of Europe came to live in this country, you are creating baseless comparisons, you only need mention the utterance of "concreting over the countryside" and you will have the nimbies creaming themselves with such hyperbole. How's this for an equivalent argument; "would you like to eat another packet of biscuits or do you want to starve to DEATH!".

I'm always amazed by the fact so many nimbies live on land releasing for development in the interwar period or from the 1950's to 70's. It's different now of course, each little troll is sitting guarding their own little drawbridge.

Edited February 12, 2006 by BuyingBear

[malco]

You didn't answer my point about planning regulations and house prices. If you can come up with any serious reaesrch on this point you should post it, I for one would be interested to see it.

Otherwise, what would you have? What have you got against countryside? I must admit I don't have a lot of time for unduly stringent private property laws in cases of national treasure, but I will say that I appreciate Britain precisely because the countryside is still of high quality, despite all the pressures on it from over-crowding. In this respect Britain has fared much better than France. The French have ruined much of their best scenery by over-developing it for the skiiing industry, inter alia.

[BoredTrainBuilder]

from one watery issue to another - isn't one of the new towns going to be in Essex, which is literally a desert.

Yes, a cultural one.

[BoredTrainBuilder]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/main.j...1/ixptop12.html

John Prescott giving the fox the run of the chicken coop.

It's hard to understand HPCers moaning about this, when (rightly) the constant refrain is that house prices are high because of over-restrictive planning. When the government is genuinely wrong it should be lambasted, but to lambast it for everything it does is just boring.

The real failure here is of the local authorities - the Thames Gateway has been flagged for nearly a decade, how long does it take to employ a few more planning officers?

In any case, the great advantage of the Thames Gateway scheme is that all the crap architecture and rabbit hutch houses will be in places like Thamesmead, Dagenham, Barking, Ashord, Gravesend: so no one need see them, except as a 190mph blur through the windows of a continent-bound train.

[newbie]

It will be such a shame if it is all rushed through - a real missed opportunity to create amazing communities for people to live in, that could be an example to the rest of the world.

They can still be an excellent example to to the rest of the world - but an example of how not to do it...

[Justice]

It’s very hard to make money in a flat market.

Banks, Politicians all wanted a boom and that’s why they lowered interest rates and restricted planning permission and allowed ton’s of immigrants to flood in.

Now we all know that booms must come to an end sooner or later and this is a great opportunity for banks to introduce extra charges on people who pay a few days late or have negative equity. Government can then buy up all the cheap property so the cycle can start all over again and that’s why we will be flooded with new builds.

I don’t know, some people never learn.

[Marina]

You didn't answer my point about planning regulations and house prices. If you can come up with any serious reaesrch on this point you should post it, I for one would be interested to see it.

Otherwise, what would you have? What have you got against countryside? I must admit I don't have a lot of time for unduly stringent private property laws in cases of national treasure, but I will say that I appreciate Britain precisely because the countryside is still of high quality, despite all the pressures on it from over-crowding. In this respect Britain has fared much better than France. The French have ruined much of their best scenery by over-developing it for the skiiing industry, inter alia.

Surely the simple fact that only 6% of the land in this country is developed is enough to give the lie to your 'urban sprawl' myth?

The CPRE are the biggest bunch of idiots going. The big landowners must really, really love them. 'I'll just sit on my 10,000 acres and, every generation or so, sell off 50 acres for £50 million, just to keep the family ticking over. Thank God for the CPRE, making sure England stays a green and pleasant land and making sure, that, when, every now and then, the planners have to relent and let something be built - the land I sell is worth a large fortune. If you were a member of the land-owning aristocracy, you could not have planned it better.'

[apom]

Surely the simple fact that only 6% of the land in this country is developed is enough to give the lie to your 'urban sprawl' myth?

The CPRE are the biggest bunch of idiots going. The big landowners must really, really love them. 'I'll just sit on my 10,000 acres and, every generation or so, sell off 50 acres for £50 million, just to keep the family ticking over. Thank God for the CPRE, making sure England stays a green and pleasant land and making sure, that, when, every now and then, the planners have to relent and let something be built - the land I sell is worth a large fortune. If you were a member of the land-owning aristocracy, you could not have planned it better.'

People are making a fortune, but only from people who are prepared to give it to them..

there is no more a housing shortage now then there was at the bottom in 1995 or the top in 1989 or the bottom.. Etc, etc..

The market crashes, it crashes too far.. it heads back up to its sustainable average and people get all excited and carried away that is all that causes a boom.. houses being too cheap at the bottom... It was crashing in 2003 that was to be the peak...and then IR's were dropped... now we crash..

Now we are in hideous debt and its all happening again..

We have seen 3 periods of massive wage push inflation followed by recession and a House price crash last time.. all following booms..

So, what have we been promised this time folks?

You are right, "No inflation to pay of mortgages" "House prices will plummet" who promised that?

Mervin King.. the dropper of the ball... but good to his word..?

I believe so..

Which is why I don't have a massive mortgage and the hope that one day it will become easier to pay..

I don't have one because I have been promissed that it would not get easier to pay.

Good luck.

Unless Mervin King lied there will be a house price crash.

He has promissed that when comenting on the economy.

Edited February 13, 2006 by apom

[Smell the Fear]

Labour sold out ages ago. I'm refusing to call it a ladder anymore. Ladder has been basterdised to imply that you will climb to a higher rung. Bloody muppets.

How about property pole, with variable levels of grease?

I mentioned this on a thread a few days ago, but I'll say it again.

I really think there should be minimum criteria put in place for new build. They should be forced to build spacious properties (i.e. minimum specified room sizes, and 10% of space set aside for storage).

Most of what is built now is a bad, bad joke, and unfit for human habitation.

[malco]

I am still waiting for an objective justification of the view that restrictive planning has a major impact on house prices. I am very skeptical about this. The drivers of house prices are employment levels, nominal income and interest rates. If you relaxed planning laws wouldn't you get just he same high prices in the lovely new suburbs next to the Greenbelt (but only for a short time until the next wave of building!) whilst other areas would become backwaters?

I can readily accept that more land for housing equals more land per house and more land for your buck, but don't regard there as being strong reasons for allowing further low density suburbs in the heavily crowded south o0f England. This would be a very short-sighted policy, leading to even worse transport problems than there already are. The SE already has a pretty good stock of dwellings with gardens. Perhaps the problem is that these are less and less occupied by folk with young families, because these people can't afford a decent family home any more?

Perhaps the real solution is to deter low occupancy of large homes by suitable incentives.

[BuyingBear]

Otherwise, what would you have? What have you got against countryside? I must admit I don't have a lot of time for unduly stringent private property laws in cases of national treasure

I have nothing against the countryside, this isn't an either-or argument, there is plenty of it and there always will be, if 90% of the people lived on 10.5% of the land instead of under 10% it would make very little difference, such a slither would be imperceivable on marginal land and would have no impact on prime countryside. It's like accusing someone of having a grudge against trees because they've picked up a sheet of paper.

Dig out he minutes to the Treasury select committee, despite the recent boom and previous cycles, our house price inflation has run at twice the level compared continental Europe and this is directly correlated to the number of new properties built each year. The bust following a boom never sinks below the high tide mark set by the previous boom.

We actually build very little in this country, the recent 'boom' has mainly produced small flats in the middle of dark industrial sites, usually next to major trunk roads, the vast number is the only thing that makes the headline number of units look 'good'. If you think that's fit for a nation that purports to be a first world country then fair enough, but don't be suprised if others don't exactly agree and eventually choose to go elsewhere. Unless there is something special about this place that it's worth taking out a 50 year mortgage to buy a small 'apartment' made out of paper next to a motorway junction.

I'm sure those lovely 'executive apartments' will make perfect rundown social housing schemes in no time at all.

Edited February 13, 2006 by BuyingBear

[malco]

I have nothing against the countryside, this isn't an either-or argument, there is plenty of it and there always will be, if 90% of the people lived on 10.5% of the land instead of under 10% it would make very little difference, such a slither would be imperceivable on marginal land and would have no impact on prime countryside. It's like accusing someone of having a grudge against trees because they've picked up a sheet of paper.

Dig out he minutes to the Treasury select committee, despite the recent boom and previous cycles, our house price inflation has run at twice the level compared continental Europe and this is directly correlated to the number of new properties built each year. The bust following a boom never sinks below the high tide mark set by the previous boom.

OK, now you are talking numbers I can see where you are coming from. It still needs some degree of control, though, or you get ribbon development, building on flood planes (which you get despite controls), lack of connection to public transport etc etc. I suspect a lot of the problems arise from the concentration of economic growth in the SE, where the countryside is very beautiful and already under a lot of pressure. When I visited Kemsing recently I was dismayed that although there is still a good deal of greenery, and noisy guard dogs!, you can't get away from the roar of motorways and aircraft. There is no peace in that countryside any more.

Even having written that I must admit it's probably the least worst outcome, given collective desires for mobility and personal space.

Do you have any net links to the Treasury Select Committee minutes you mention?

[BuyingBear]

Even having written that I must admit it's probably the least worst outcome, given collective desires for mobility and personal space.

Do you have any net links to the Treasury Select Committee minutes you mention?

Nobody likes ribbon development and even planners in favour of further development don't want a framework where there are no controls, which would result in a decentralised sprawl. However we've gone to the opposite extreme of demanding that nothing can be built anywhere, in any form. Demanding that 94% of our country should resemble a living museum where nothing can be touched or improved is patently absurd and unreasonable, it amazes me how we've even got to this stage.

I've seen cases where planners have tried to realign a short section of road to remove a dangerous bend and groups of nimbies from over 30 miles away descend on the scene, usually aided by the local cabal of misanthropic groups. They howl and they cry, and of course no changes are made, so the emergency services are called out time again to pick up the pieces of some biker, or see what's left of a car that has disappeared under a lorry, better to sacrifice 10 human lifes than move 10 meters of tarmac onto a useless bit of scrub.

Back in the day even the Victorians objected to the construction of the elegant railway viaducts, many are now listed of course and form a natural part of the landscape, many are now unused, ironically if you tried to knock one down today the nimbies and ramblers would be all over you.

Ribbon development is so easy to combat because it's so obvious, for example McDonalds made a lot of their money through buying up vast tracks of land in the middle of no where, usually next to a road, and dropping a restaurant on part of the plot. What at first was restaurant in the middle of nowhere becomes a restaurant with shops, factories, houses surrounding it, and of course McDonalds then sell off their excess land at a premium.

By comparison look at the McDonalds at Poundbury, the new town built by Princes Charles.

Yup, that's a McDonalds.

Personally I find the place a bit twee, and the affect of excessive density targets is all too apparent. However, this is a brand new place dropped in the countryside and I wouldn't say it has destroyed anything, it has added more than it has taken away.

So instead of sprawl we should have a new generation of new towns, there is nothing wrong with modest density and centralised clusters. This approach also avoids the problem of infill and speculation based on the hope of the sprawl catching up.

Transport is an issue, another myth on the scale of "concreting over countryside" is the unchallenged assertion that roads generate traffic, logic dictates that the road would never have been built in the first place if it wasn't going to be used. The following is the M45 at one of its more busier moments, this is where the M1 used to terminate north before the M6 was built, it has been there since 1959 and has spectacularly failed in generating more traffic.

To avoid trouble with congestion they should work out new rail capacity and put this in place first, or maybe in the future we will pay people to do nothing lest they create wealth and harm the environment in the process.

The Treasury select committee commented on the Barker Review into housing supply, you can dig through Hansard to find the minutes of the committee (back in December IIRC), however everything covered is in the main review.