Reply to: HMRC's time machine setting sights on all graduates!

[tiggat]

I don't think there's a fight really.

Tiggat sort of has a point but it's a fledgling nugget of thought, that will eventually turn into an understanding of the complexities and challenges of the UK housing market.
It's just not very well articulated as too many Momentum videos have softened the grey matter into thinking that all problems will be easy to solve once Comrades Corbyn and McDonnell are in charge.

EDIT: I blame Brexit. Just because.

Is the above legislation not enough evidence for you? Or have reading the tabloids for too long depleted your ability to do anything other than moralise?

[tiggat]

So you're still not telling me the legislation.

And those points are still flawed. The debt cap was introduced 2012 - after the problem. And it caps debt, not prevents them from building.
Council houses aren't supposed to be an investment. The investment limit was to prevent councils doing bad things with money. I cannot find the law (it's your argument you find the legislation).
Revenues - that's a fair point that it limited building by councils. They have other sources of money, and very little from right to buy any more so that's a duff argument.

None of these stop councils from building, and none of these prevent more houses from being built. There's enough demand, and money, for more houses but no planning permission. I can find you acres and acres of land ready for houses, that the owners would love to get permission for. And councils would have the same issue as private developers. as they still have to go through their own planning procedures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_...tcher_policies

Half the proceeds of the sales (of council houses to their tenants) were paid to the local authorities, but they were restricted to spending the money to reduce their debt until it was cleared, rather than being able to spend it on building more homes. The effect was to reduce the council housing stock, especially in areas where property prices were high such as London and the south-east of England. This trend was exacerbated by a government imposed ban on local authorities using their revenues from council house sales to fund new housing.

If councils can't borrow for the purposes of housing construction, due to caps or restrictions on the use of money, imposed in the 80s (Local Government and Housing Act of 1989) not 2012, how are they to be expected to build houses? I don't understand how you class caps on council borrowing as not being legislation.


There are numerous pieces on how homes with planning permission are left unbuilt because they can't be financed due to restrictions on financing council housing:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23790071
https://fullfact.org/economy/are-400...lying-unbuilt/
https://www.localgov.co.uk/The-numbe...ord-high/40098
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41324305

[Whorty]

Most of us earn £8k a year. Dividends are discretionary....

Exactly - so why the crying?

[zeitghost]

They're building 300 shoeboxes up the road from ZeityTowers.

The farmer whose field it used to be must be happy.

However it is in-filling the "green wedge" between Neath & Tonna, as was tried back in the 30s apparently.

You used to be able to see the curb stones where the next drive would have gone for another pair of semis.

What amazed me was the depth of the hole for the soakaway pit.

I was expecting them to find coal becuase it was so deep.

[northernladyuk]

Builder start building before the planning permission runs out but don't finish. In fact some developments are never finished properly so I guess only 3 would work.

You have to finish. Or it gets auctioned off (presumably fire sale prices). All of this is manageable. But there is a need to see planning permission as a national resource and the value inherent in planning permission as a national asset.

[SueEllen]

How big a problem is landbanking though?
It might be around London but not up 'ere.
Didn't one of the parties say they'll make planning lapse after a period of time to prevent that though?

It does lapse so the builders build something on the land to say they have started the work.

They then don't finish until house prices go up. Seen it everytime the market has dipped with non-commercial private developments.

The issue isn't councils not giving planning permission as the government can and does ride roughshot over them, it's developer tricks.

[SueEllen]

Things you can do:

1. Make planning permission expire after x years if not built on.
2. Make a condition of sale to builders that they complete building within x years.
3. Set up a partnership with builders where the builders never take ownership of the land but are instead contracted to build and sell houses on behalf of the state or local authority.

Refine the above and there's a workable solution.

Builder start building before the planning permission runs out but don't finish. In fact some developments are never finished properly so I guess only 3 would work.

[northernladyuk]

the thing is. What's wrong the landowners getting fair value for their land?
Neither they, nor the people who want to buy houses care. And we live in a free market don't we.
Fix the planning system and the market will solve the rest IMO

They do get fair value. The state buys land without planning permission. Nobody has to sell. Then the state grants planning permission. Seems both fair and in the public interest.

[northernladyuk]

One thing you ignore in your arguments is builders landbanking.

So the landowner sells up, the land gets planning permission and the builder sits on it.

The only land I've not seen this happen to is where a commercial company e.g retailer wants a store. Then the store and flats get built.

Things you can do:

1. Make planning permission expire after x years if not built on.
2. Make a condition of sale to builders that they complete building within x years.
3. Set up a partnership with builders where the builders never take ownership of the land but are instead contracted to build and sell houses on behalf of the state or local authority.

Refine the above and there's a workable solution.

[Lance]

One thing you ignore in your arguments is builders landbanking.

So the landowner sells up, the land gets planning permission and the builder sits on it.

The only land I've not seen this happen to is where a commercial company e.g retailer wants a store. Then the store and flats get built.

How big a problem is landbanking though?
It might be around London but not up 'ere.
Didn't one of the parties say they'll make planning lapse after a period of time to prevent that though?

[Lance]

Yes, build the houses, to whatever mix of private and social is desired. But don't let the landowners pocket the increase in value that comes with planning permission.

the thing is. What's wrong the landowners getting fair value for their land?
Neither they, nor the people who want to buy houses care. And we live in a free market don't we.
Fix the planning system and the market will solve the rest IMO

[SueEllen]

One thing you ignore in your arguments is builders landbanking.

So the landowner sells up, the land gets planning permission and the builder sits on it.

The only land I've not seen this happen to is where a commercial company e.g retailer wants a store. Then the store and flats get built.

[northernladyuk]

you would have thought.
The manifesto says


Sounds similar to the 250k new homes a year under Blair/Brown/Cameron. A vague aspiration without a plan.
We'll see if the conference season changes anything, but I doubt it as they need the middle-England voters to get over the line in a GE (unless they can win Scotland back).

Yes, build the houses, to whatever mix of private and social is desired. But don't let the landowners pocket the increase in value that comes with planning permission.

[Lance]

It's a bleedin' obvious policy for Labour. Obviously the Tories won't upset the landowners.

you would have thought.
The manifesto says

It doesn’t have to be like this. Labour will invest to build over a million new homes. By the end of the next Parliament we will be building at least 100,000 council and housing association homes a year for genuinely affordable rent or sale.

Sounds similar to the 250k new homes a year under Blair/Brown/Cameron. A vague aspiration without a plan.
We'll see if the conference season changes anything, but I doubt it as they need the middle-England voters to get over the line in a GE (unless they can win Scotland back).

[northernladyuk]

The only thing more powerful (and more Tory) in the UK than the Nimbys are the landowners.
You're right that would work, but would be suicide for a Tory leader (although they've got that as a habit right now). It's probably (one of) the argument Tiggat is looking for though.

It's a bleedin' obvious policy for Labour. Obviously the Tories won't upset the landowners.