We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The stich up keepiing homes unaffordable
Comments
-
vivatifosi wrote: »For me, the far bigger issue is availability of land and what will get permission to build. However if this was massively relaxed, the speculative boom in terms of buying up farmland would be like something out of the wild west and could lead to food insecurity. I'm not sure how to get around this.
I remember seeing an advert in Ireland a few years back for some pasture land described as having "spectacular sea views". It seems that the Irish must really pamper their cattle, as the land was advertised with a huge premium over normal farmland without the views.
"When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson0 -
It's all a conspiracy at Cabinet level keeping house prices high, stitching up the man on the street by disguising it by restricted planning applications.0
-
Planning already granted for 400,000 homes. Has to be a argument for taxing the land owners/developers/speculators.0
-
Planning already granted for 400,000 homes. Has to be a argument for taxing the land owners/developers/speculators.
There are strong arguments for land value taxes to help improve the efficient use of land. So land with planning permission, being more valuable would attract a higher level of tax than agricultural land.
However unless the existing taxes (infrastructure charges, social housing subsidies etc) were reduced then the overall effect of increasing taxation would be higher housing prices and lower volumes.0 -
A bit more on land banks:
Barratts:
54k plots as at 2012 with a development timescale of 4.3 years.
http://www.barrattdevelopments.co.uk/barratt/reports/ar2012/business-review/land-and-planning.html
Taylor Wimpey:
101k plots as at 2013 with what appears to be a slower build rate. I think it works out at about 10 years.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/adf95b0c-f9db-11e2-b8ef-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2cgYwASSx
Persimmon:
70,716 owned and controlled plots as at 2013. Completions approx 10k pa based on doubling six month figure (crude measure, sorry)
http://corporate.persimmonhomes.com/investor/kfd/highlights.aspx
Berkley Homes
26,021 plots as at 2012. Not sure of completion rate (too much reading).
http://www.berkeleygroup.co.uk/media/pdf/l/6/Annual_Report_2012.pdf
Proof that they were buying land at the bottom of the market:
http://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/51308/berkeley-and-bellway-reveal-the-effects-of-the-great-regional-divide-51308.html
That's the top 4, here's the rest of the big builders if anyone wants to find out more about their land banks:
http://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/market-data/top-20-house-builders/2012Please stay safe in the sun and learn the A-E of melanoma: A = asymmetry, B = irregular borders, C= different colours, D= diameter, larger than 6mm, E = evolving, is your mole changing? Most moles are not cancerous, any doubts, please check next time you visit your GP.
0 -
MacMickster wrote: »http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23790071
If this is the case, and there is a wealth of publically owned land shovel-ready with planning permission, that restrictions from central government are preventing from being developed, then maybe those donations to the Conservatives are having the desired effect.
Makes a mockery of everything is it's the government themselves blocking new builds where there is already planning permission.
However, as you allude, I would imagine the builders are on side on this one. Keeps land values high.0 -
The argument behind suggestions that builders are sitting on land intentionally is that by increasing scarcity they can drive up prices and thus profits when they develop in the future.
If land and property was a truly free market then this might be hard to orchestrate but with land being limited it makes it possible to buy up the available land in an area and hoard it.
The current government efforts to increase money supply to buyers actually makes this kind of hoarding even more attractive to builders. The government should change the rules such that when they allocate new land for housing it is sold based on a commitment to develop within ~2 years. They should also bring in a planning premium for people who don't develop within x months of getting the land.
I'd say that both measures should be temporary (perhaps 5 years) but given that we need to build 1,000,000s of new houses to meet demand I doubt that would be long enough.Having a signature removed for mentioning the removal of a previous signature. Blackwhite bellyfeel double plus good...0 -
Or simply tax the land until it is developed. Very simple to administer and if it does not get them building it will at least get a few quid to the treasury.0
-
What???Graham_Devon wrote: »Makes a mockery of everything is it's the government themselves blocking new builds where there is already planning permission.
However, as you allude, I would imagine the builders are on side on this one. Keeps land values high.
The builders build when they feel the market is right and profit margins can be achieved. It's dependent on many fixed and variable costs and factors - labour, materials, house prices for that area, employment in that area, demand... amongst many others.
Advocating that builders should build when you want them to build is just stupid. They are a business and not their to get you cheap house.0 -
This year, builders are showing profits for the first time in about 5 years.
Many narrowly escaped bankruptcy during the massive down turn.
Presumably this was all a conspiracy and it actually was a long term plan to make massive profits in the coming years but restricting supply.
Given we live in a greedy capitalistic economy I am very surprised that other builders didn't leap in during the period of deliberate non-building and clean up with massive profits.
Of course some (totally deluded) people think the low level of house purchases (both new and existing stock) had something to do with the world wide financial collapse.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards