Sunday, July 10, 2011

Allowing conversions of commercial property to residential use without need of planning permission

Government has managed to mess up its own great property conversion plan

"If the proposal to be able to convert without planning permission goes through, we should see the number of conversions rise, putting upward pressure on commercial property prices and downward pressure on residential prices. Meanwhile, the money spent in doing the conversions would boost activity in the construction sector. There is a snag, though. The Government's proposal does not apply to retail property...."

Posted by tom101 @ 10:06 PM (2029 views)
Please complete the required fields.



9 thoughts on “Allowing conversions of commercial property to residential use without need of planning permission

  • general congreve says:

    Converted 19th Century wool mill down by the canal? Don’t mind if I do. Converted 1970’s office block on bleak industrial estate, f4ck you.

    Actually we should convert tonnes of those sh1tty office blocks. Need social housing, then that’s what you get. Running water, electricity, basic cooking and washing facilities, job done.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • It’s generally a bad idea though. Purpose-built office blocks don’t make good homes – the built-in air vents, the high ceilings, the awkward internal layout, the lack of doors. Besides, the demand for (and price of) new-build flats in places like Manchester or Leeds has crashed.

    Worst of all though, offices are generally built in central locations which are easily accessible by public transport. This means for most people, getting to work requires just one bus or train. If you move all the offices to business “parks” in the suburbs and move all the shops to malls on the ring road, then it takes a minimum of two buses for most people – one into town and one out the other side again. The result is more people need to drive, congestion gets worse, commutes get longer, and as a nation we become more oil-dependent.

    Of course LVT would sort this out in no time. The land value in city centres is high, precisely because of all that public transport. Few people would choose to live in the central business district if they had to pay for the land value.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • general congreve says:

    @2 – You are Mark Wadsworth, I claim my five pounds! 😉

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • I’m not – though we do sometimes think scarily alike! Mark has persuaded me of the benefits of LVT, and you (and others) have persuaded me of the benefits of gold 🙂
    I must admit, a while back I did think you were a bit of a gold nut, but I’ve gradually come round to your way of thinking.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • drewster,

    You’re suffering from a bad case wadsworthitis – LVT theory hinges on a set of childish notions that don’t bear close scrutiny, and there are very good reasons why it will never happen – so get better and come back to the real world..

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Uncle Tom, care to expand on what Mark Wadsworth’s “childish notions” are? We don’t usually have one-line ad hominem put-downs on HPC and I would like it to stay that way.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Monty,

    It’s trite little phrases like: “Of course LVT would sort this out in no time” (see above..) that are so childish.

    Anyone who thinks you can re-order the UK tax collection system overnight is living in la-la land..

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    Good for Bootle – he mentions “Indeed, even without the current huge tax privileges to owner-occupiers…” so it’s only a matter of time before he wakes up to the merits of LVT.

    Monty 0.32, ta for back-up.

    UT: “Anyone who thinks you can re-order the UK tax collection system overnight is living in la-la land”

    I never said “overnight”, did I? We can make a small start by replacing Council Tax, SDLT, IHT & TV licence and then busk it from there. I’d replace or reduce VAT next, and just to keep the rich folk happy, get rid of additional rate and higher income rate as well.

    Plus it appears you didn’t read and understand the article – the main reason why residential land values have grown so much faster than commercial land values is because the former are subsidised and the latter are subject to Business Rates, which is pretty close to Land Value Tax. So that’s yet another example of Land Value Tax working in practice. It always works, it does what it says on the tin, and wherever it has been implemented, at however modest a level, the results have been surprisingly positive.

    I also refer you to Domestic Rates in Northern Ireland as an example of “Things which work”.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • UT,

    Indeed, nobody mentioned “overnight”. I agree it’s hard to persuade people of the merits of LVT, and I don’t hold out much hope for it in the next ten years. However even just being aware of it gives me a new perspective on how these things work.

    As Mark says, it works for businesses.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



Add a comment

  • Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
  • Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user´s views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>