What will the new government mean for tenants?

tbs624

Jowo wrote: »

Housing, like immigration, was simply another area which is virtually absent from any of the policies of the major parties.

I can recollect few discussions on it by the politicians and I can recall little in the way of changes to legislation in this whole area, save for perhaps the potential scrapping of HIPs.

Check the manifesto:

http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/Housing.aspx
http://network.libdems.org.uk/manifesto2010/libdem_manifesto_2010.pdf and see Sara Teather's speech last autumn

and for what it's worth
http://www.labouremail.org.uk/files/uploads/339ddeb4-8aaf-bf94-ede7-5a8846bccbc6.pdf

clutton_2

What will the new government mean for tenants ?


possibly a whole lot less choice of property as there is a plan to increase Capital Gains Tax to 40% from 18% - methinks there will be a lot of investment property coming to market quite soon........

Wee_Willy_Harris

pyueck wrote: »

In the south east almost no planning permission in granted on greenfield sites, and is only granted on brownfield sites. Hence towns with huge fields next to it and people living on top of each other in overcrowded accomodation.

The fact remains that planning permision still dictates what can be built on an individual site, regardless of the view!

pyueck

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

The fact remains that planning permision still dictates what can be built on an individual site, regardless of the view!

Wee Willy Harris. Not really understanding your arguement with regard to planning permission. I am not disputing that planning permission dictates what can be built on sites. Planning permission decisions though are based on policies set by the council, which ultimately need to tie in with government policy on housing. Please elaborate your argument and I will be happy to respond.

Wee_Willy_Harris

pyueck wrote: »

Wee Willy Harris. Not really understanding your arguement with regard to planning permission. I am not disputing that planning permission dictates what can be built on sites. Planning permission decisions though are based on policies set by the council, which ultimately need to tie in with government policy on housing. Please elaborate your argument and I will be happy to respond.

That's only partly true because, of course, planning permission in this context is primarily governed by the planning requests of developers. Developers are, of course, predominantly driven by profit and demand. As long as people are prepared to pay good money for small flats, they will continue to build them.

franklee

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

That's only partly true because, of course, planning permission in this context is primarily governed by the planning requests of developers. Developers are, of course, predominantly driven by profit and demand. As long as people are prepared to pay good money for small flats, they will continue to build them.

The builders want to build what sells otherwise they don't get their profits and small newbuild flats often don't sell especially now the BTL boom is over. It was John Prescott upped the housing density requirements:

http://www.propertyweek.com/story.asp?storycode=3023987
13.12.02
"This month a new directive comes into force that will require planning authorities to favour higher-density residential development applications. The object is to boost numbers of new houses and affordable homes for key workers in London and the south-east. But will deputy prime minister John Prescott's latest initiative deliver the goods?"

...

"For Geoff Armstrong, housing specialist at the Development Planning Partnership (DPP), the sticking point is local authorities. 'They simply aren't on message, particularly the elected councillors,' he says. 'The problem is that they don't like all the existing development schemes, never mind the new higher-density schemes.

Time after time schemes are rejected locally for being an overdevelopment of a site. But now Prescott is waving the big stick and telling them they've got to go for even more densely populated schemes.' "

...

"Housebuilders feel they have already put themselves at considerable risk. As the HBF points out, the latest Land Registry statistics show that the mix of new homes is changing. Detached houses account for 42.6% of all new homes, down from 51% in 2000. And the flat share has risen to 27.2% from only 17% in 1999.

If an economic downturn arrives, where will that leave all those multistorey blocks springing up everywhere? There is a feeling that if the deputy prime minister pushes developers too hard, too soon, then there could be a flight of capital from the industry."

So the local authorities don't want the higher density, the buyers don't want them, they sit empty so presumably the builders don't want more of them, yet Prescott said they have to be built that way.

Round here the builders have to build flats that that they know aren't selling in order to meet the required density for the rest of the development which are houses that sell. There are loads of new build flats that have been empty for more than two years yet the builders are still building more, frustrating for me as I'd be happy to rent one if they came available for rent instead of sitting empty and unsold.

pyueck

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

That's only partly true because, of course, planning permission in this context is primarily governed by the planning requests of developers. Developers are, of course, predominantly driven by profit and demand. As long as people are prepared to pay good money for small flats, they will continue to build them.

Sorry but why was I 'only partly true', just what did I say that was not true? I assume you meant only part of the story?

Planning permission is not at all governed by developers. Yes they submit planning proposals but they do not govern planning permission at all. It is the council who govern planning permission, who decide their policy primarily on the strategy of central government.

Developers must obtain planning permission to build property in the UK. Currently they are only granted such permission is various areas if the development is on a brown field sites, and the council normally has no objection to very badly proportioned properties so long as it fits within the brownfield site, with no regard for the occupants need to park a car, have living space etc. My thinking is that currently the focus of planning officers is wrong, too much emphasis on not allowing any building on green belt land and not enough on ensuring the plans provide appropriately sized accomodation. A plan should be rejected if the property is too small to be lived in, this is well within the powers of a planning officer and the developers could do nothing about it but build larger properties.

clutton_2

any plans i have seen for newbuilds has to include some "amenity space" - for dustbins, washing lines, parking in some sites.....

Developers sometimes collude with councils in order to gain PP - they are prepared to build roundabouts, play-areas, pavements, anything to get PP - councils sometimes bite their hands off in order to save themselves money by not bulding these things for which the council has a statutory duty

Wee_Willy_Harris

pyueck wrote: »

Sorry but why was I 'only partly true', just what did I say that was not true? I assume you meant only part of the story?

Planning permission is not at all governed by developers. Yes they submit planning proposals but they do not govern planning permission at all. It is the council who govern planning permission, who decide their policy primarily on the strategy of central government.

Developers must obtain planning permission to build property in the UK. Currently they are only granted such permission is various areas if the development is on a brown field sites, and the council normally has no objection to very badly proportioned properties so long as it fits within the brownfield site, with no regard for the occupants need to park a car, have living space etc. My thinking is that currently the focus of planning officers is wrong, too much emphasis on not allowing any building on green belt land and not enough on ensuring the plans provide appropriately sized accomodation. A plan should be rejected if the property is too small to be lived in, this is well within the powers of a planning officer and the developers could do nothing about it but build larger properties.

Developers submit plans. On the basis of those plans and only those plans, PP is either granted or declined. The LA will not consider the grant of PP unless the developer stipulates the type and size of property they intend to build. If developers stopped submitting ANY plans for 3 bed houses, for example, then planning permission would never be granted for 3 bed houses. I will admit that, to a certain extent, it is a petty point, but it has much wider implications. The developer decides what the LA makes decisions on. The LA simply deals with whatever the developer decides to put in front of them. It might be argued that the LA could examine all available brown field sites under its control and grant what outline permission it feels suitable, with the wider view of the area as the primary concern. Maybe this would be a beter way of dealing with the issue.... ie, plot A has outline PP for 3 x 3 bed detached houses, or 2 x 2 story blocks of 6 unit flats etc. Leaving developers in control of what PP is sought, with their narrow self interest at heart, is part of the problem. Of course, that may impact on land values.

The other issues you raised (parking space, size etc) is addressed within the rules of supply and demand. Build the property no-one wants, and you won't sell it! Of course, localised housing shortages do have an impact on this, and an impact on land values as well. Ultimately, the restrictions you mention may force the price of property out of many buyers budgets, which may not be the most favourable outcome.

pyueck

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Developers submit plans. On the basis of those plans and only those plans, PP is either granted or declined. The LA will not consider the grant of PP unless the developer stipulates the type and size of property they intend to build. If developers stopped submitting ANY plans for 3 bed houses, for example, then planning permission would never be granted for 3 bed houses. I will admit that, to a certain extent, it is a petty point, but it has much wider implications. The developer decides what the LA makes decisions on. The LA simply deals with whatever the developer decides to put in front of them. It might be argued that the LA could examine all available brown field sites under its control and grant what outline permission it feels suitable, with the wider view of the area as the primary concern. Maybe this would be a beter way of dealing with the issue.... ie, plot A has outline PP for 3 x 3 bed detached houses, or 2 x 2 story blocks of 6 unit flats etc. Leaving developers in control of what PP is sought, with their narrow self interest at heart, is part of the problem. Of course, that may impact on land values.

The other issues you raised (parking space, size etc) is addressed within the rules of supply and demand. Build the property no-one wants, and you won't sell it! Of course, localised housing shortages do have an impact on this, and an impact on land values as well. Ultimately, the restrictions you mention may force the price of property out of many buyers budgets, which may not be the most favourable outcome.

Not sure about your first point, I have nothing against developers building a flat or a house on the site so long as they are appropriately sized and facilitated. A large flat can easily hold a large family, unfortunately no such flats are being built. I think completely determining the property being built would not be in anybodies interest.

With regard to supply and demand, developers know two tiny flats will eventually sell for more than one large one. Some mug will eventually come along.

Don't really see how my plans of opening up land greenbelt land to built appopraitely sized family properties will push up prices. With this land in use property prices are far more likely to fall, (especially the teeny flats being currently built, when everybody sees them for what they are a complete rip off).