emergency uk budget

[Sergeant_Torpedo]

I am honest enough to say I am a NIMBY, and so is everyone else. We need homes, but unlike western Europe we build crap houses on greenfield sites. I live in the country but there is a prime brown site in a nearby town, however the developers want an ancient former common a mile away because the plots there will sell at a higher profit. We don't need a country mortgaged to the hilt, we need well built homes with local facilities and transport near the middle of towns (that is what people want and need) that you can rent. Yes rent, that shopkeeper's daughter dirty word. I know several well off Continetals in Germany and France who rent from property companies that provide superb accommodations.

 

[Drifterwood]

Agreed Sarge, and I think that affordability is an economic reality that is coming back into fashion.

 

[dandelion]

I am honest enough to say I am a NIMBY, and so is everyone else. We need homes, but unlike western Europe we build crap houses on greenfield sites.

The countryside is suffering from a desperate need for housing for people who work there (or want to work there) on countryside jobs, like maintaining it.There is a lot of scope for infill housing in the countryside which would not make any real difference to its look, might indeed make it look better. Probably the need is to have regulations about house quality, landscaping, etc. However, the way things are at the moment every time someone makes a quality rule it is used as another way to prevent anything being built.

I live in the country but there is a prime brown site in a nearby town, however the developers want an ancient former common a mile away because the plots there will sell at a higher profit.

Strange that. There used to be a rather nice stone mansion house just near me. Not old enough to be listed. Unusual design, bit of a one-off. Council granted permission to build on the grounds on condition the house was renovated and turned into flats. That wasnt good enough: the developers left it 5 years for the vandals to get to work, then insisted it was no longer safe and demanded the right to knock it down. This should not be allowed.

We don't need a country mortgaged to the hilt, we need well built homes with local facilities and transport near the middle of towns (that is what people want and need) that you can rent.

Well some of them want houses in the middle of the countryside, thank you.The countryside in the UK is entirely unnatural and a man made environment, and right now there arent any men mantaining it. Its too expensive to live there unless youre a merchant banker. At the moment there is no such thing as building in the countryside so people can live there, there is only turning countryside into town.

The countryside needs to be regarded as a park, not as a natural wilderness. Because it is a park just as much as the one in the middle of town, and it looks terrible for exactly the same reasons that it is neglected. It needs to have housing added with an aim to improve its look, not conserve it exactly as it is (which is slowly falling back into decay), Landscapes look good because there are interesting things in them. This includes houses, pylons, windmills, and all sortts of man made interruptions. Standing in the middle of a natural forest you dont get a very nice view.

Yes rent, that shopkeeper's daughter dirty word. I know several well off Continentals in Germany and France who rent from property companies that provide superb accommodations.

I think I agree. The government needs to bring in subsidised rental accommodation. Renting at market rates isnt going to work, rents need to be forced down. I dont believe their idea of cutting housing benefit is going to work either. Didnt labour withdraw the scheme whereby if you managed to get a house at below market rental you got to keep some of the difference between benefit standard rate and what you were paying? Not much incentive to negotiate down prices.

If councils have the right to grant themselves planning permission on odd squares of land for cheap rental housing they would halve the cost immediately.

 

[Drifterwood]

The countryside needs to be regarded as a park, not as a natural wilderness.

I don't know where to begin with this incredible statement. As a "countryside steward" I can't tell you how wrong you are, but then I suppose you are living in the shitty suburban countryside of England.

Come to Wales and enjoy real countryside.

 

[798686]

Renting is much more common on the continent apparently.

I think all available options need to be explored - and balanced with other considerations. Brownfield redevelopment, new council houses?, rented accommodation, etc.

Im not sure about green belt - I think we need to retain as much of that as possible, but obviously houses need to be built somewhere, so what dya do? I'm not sure building them all in the South East on flood plains is a brilliant idea...so spread them out around the country? (or anywhere where there's enough demand?). Might require small sacrifices of greenbelt - but not wholesale, and should be taken in the context of the area - how much/little greenspace is there already, etc...

 

[798686]

Back on the economy...

The Times CEO summit recently seems fascinating (in today's paper, but you need to log in to see it). A whole host of guest speakers and heavyweight CEOs thrashing out ideas and options to improve Britain in a variety of ways: cutting the deficit, improv education, conservation, etc etc.

Some really interesting options were put forward.

 

[Jason]

The government needs to bring in subsidised rental accommodation. Renting at market rates isnt going to work, rents need to be forced down.

This just isn't going to happen. Problem one is that in a time of austerity it could only be funded by tax hikes. Problem two is that if you don't ration scarce resources by the market you ration them by a waiting list with all the problems this causes.

What we do need is:
- building within existing cities and towns and on brown-field sites. We need legislation to stop the local authorities blocking such schemes, often on spurious grounds. In my local area I know of three big housing development schemes (all brownfield in city centre) blocked by the local council on what I think are silly grounds (making the population density too high, putting too much strain on the existing infrastructure, out of keeping with the ambience of the area).
- accepting that space costs and using less. My first (bought) home was a studio flat. Why do we see a 1 bed flat as pretty much the minimum for people who are on long-term housing benefit? For generations unmarried mums have moved in with their parents - is this so wrong?

In passing I note that we once again seem to be entering a period of rising property prices. We have pretty much a fixed supply. We have a population that is getting bigger, pent up demand from the last two or three years, and someone is going to find a way to encourage the banks to give more and bigger mortgages. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation the reality is surely that prices are heading up again.

 

[dandelion]

Im not sure about green belt - I think we need to retain as much of that as possible, but obviously houses need to be built somewhere, so what dya do? I'm not sure building them all in the South East on flood plains is a brilliant idea...so spread them out around the country?

Theres loads of space inthe south east grade 3 agricultural, I think its classed, in sussex for example, which isnt much good for groing stuff. No reason to build on the green belt, except that it surrounds London so its close to it. The point was to have a firebreak and continue development outside the green belt. The problem is that now the entire south east, which is mostly countryside, is similalry preserved. Quite often for no very good reason except it makes a nice view for someone who owns a very expensive house.

As for flood plains, again the reason for building on them is usually because they are close to an existing town, and no one wants to use them for anything else (because they flood).

Might require small sacrifices of greenbelt - but not wholesale, and should be taken in the context of the area - how much/little greenspace is there already, etc...

We do not need to develop greenbelt as it was originally conceived. But interested parties regard the entire south east of england as green belt. It becomes a nonsense if you define it that way.

I don't know where to begin with this incredible statement. As a "countryside steward" I can't tell you how wrong you are, but then I suppose you are living in the shitty suburban countryside of England. Come to Wales and enjoy real countryside.

Its very nice countryside, but there is nothing natural about it. Everyone wants to live in SE england and thats fine, theres plenty of room if people agree to use it. But it is parkland with inset housing, not wilderness. Im perfecly fine with having wild countryside inWales where there isnt the population pressure. (Though I still doubt it is natural countryside rather than wholly man made)

This just isn't going to happen. [Government rental property]

No it isnt just now, and right now the housing market needs depressing like an alcoholic needs afree pass to the offie. But if this mess unwinds successfully, then action needs to be taken in the medium term to bring down property prices.

Problem one is that in a time of austerity it could only be funded by tax hikes.

No, as I said half the cost of housing is land. If councils grant themselves permission on otherwise unusable and thus cheap land, the planning gain goes to the state. It would then be possible to have property both rented cheaply and paying its costs. On the clear understanding of no right to buy, of course.

Problem two is that if you don't ration scarce resources by the market you ration them by a waiting list with all the problems this causes.

The government just stated that it believes housing benefit is artificially pushing up rental prices. So a scheme to push down rental demand should lower prices and make property more affordable for everyone. It isnt necessary to provide all of the demand, just enough to make a difference.

What we do need is:
- building within existing cities and towns and on brown-field sites.

We have this already. Although there is usually quite a bit of brown field site around, it does turn over and get built on. As in my example, I agree, developers frequently are holding out for whatever will make most money for them rather than what most people would think appropriate. So they sit on sites waiting for the council to give in.

- accepting that space costs and using less. My first (bought) home was a studio flat. Why do we see a 1 bed flat as pretty much the minimum for people who are on long-term housing benefit?

Because it is a reasonable amount of space for a very rich country to allocate even to one of its poorest cirtizens. This is not India. We really have no land shortage, no resource shortage and no money shortage. What we do have is a shortage of an agreed building program. Planning permission is not being granted. A reasonable space allocation long term for a single person is more like a two up two down terrace. A 1 bed flat is already very little.

For generations unmarried mums have moved in with their parents - is this so wrong?

It might be if their mum (or dad) is inclined to beat them up. But again, there is no need. Except that governments have artificially rationed housing so that rich people get a nice view.

In passing I note that we once again seem to be entering a period of rising property prices. We have pretty much a fixed supply. We have a population that is getting bigger, pent up demand from the last two or three years, and someone is going to find a way to encourage the banks to give more and bigger mortgages. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation the reality is surely that prices are heading up again.

As you acknowledge, this is entirely because government refuses to grant planning permissions to build new houses. It is an artificial distortion of the market imposed by the rich for their own benefit. Really, it is outrageous that governments have been allowed to get away with this mistreatment for so long. The trick as always is to get people to believe they somehow benefit from the housing shortage. They dont.

 

[Jason]

We really have no land shortage, no resource shortage and no money shortage. What we do have is a shortage of an agreed building program. Planning permission is not being granted.

We have one of the highest population densities in the UK - and when you chop off the wide open spaces of Scotland, N England and Wales we have very high population densities indeed. Yes we could build on all the green we still have, but I would see preservation of this as a moral line in the sand. I'm pretty much of the view that the land has run out.

Then we are looking at water shortages in much of the country. Plus power issues as a dense population is hardest to support with renewables. Plus a money problem. If a council identifies a brown field site it should sell it to a developer (and reduce the council tax) or itself build homes at market rate. Subsidised housing has a money cost somewhere. With a nation as deeply into debt as we are we just cannot accept subsidy.

It is a resource problem.