Are Developers and Builders Sitting on Unused Land?

snugglepet20

I live on a new estate that was meant to be developed over several phases and should have been completed in less than 12 months time. I have been here 3 and a half years and there are still large parts of land that have not been touched and diggers etc are just lying around. The homes have dropped in value by about 25k since I bought mine and I reckon only about 400 of the 850 have been built. Considering they cost next to nothing to build and the land was acquired quite cheaply from what I have heard I guess they are holding out for even more profit. All the built houses are occupied and it is a popular area so no doubt they would sell (just not for as much).

CLAPTON

antrobus wrote: »

And therefore an incentive not to apply for PP.



Yes, but I think the problem is (and a lot of people don't get this) that a lot of land that is banked is simply land that could be developed (it fits in with the regional development land or whatever). There is no PP on it, outline or otherwise, and no reason to apply for it until you have the definite intention of actually developing it.

you don't have to be the owner of land to apply for planning permission

I'm not saying this is a perfect solution to improved land usage but it has main major advantages over our current system and of course addresses the issue of all the land currently with planning permission and indeed where they is already development

System

MacMickster wrote: »

Surely the answer is for the government to compulsorily purchase land which it considers suitable for development.

The land could then be sold or leased to any developer covenanting to actually develop the land within an agreed timescale. Any further quantative easing (which is surely now just a matter of time) could be directed towards the construction sector to stimulate the economy rather than towards the banking sector.

Development companies are not building on the land because currently they would not be able to sell the houses at any sort of profit. You now expect the government to build up a land bank that is unprofitable to develop? That put the government in exactly the same position as the developers.

antrobus

MacMickster wrote: »

Surely the answer is for the government to compulsorily purchase land which it considers suitable for development.

Sadly the government isn't in a financial position to do so.

MacMickster wrote: »

Any further quantative easing (which is surely now just a matter of time) could be directed towards the construction sector to stimulate the economy rather than towards the banking sector.

Quantative easing consists of the Bank of England buying gilts. It can't be directed at any particular sector.

System

CLAPTON wrote: »

this would make holding land with planning permission expensive and so incentivice either developement or selling

As has been pointed out, you do not need to own land to get PP.

I can imagine a turf war between builders where one gets PP on their rival's land to force them to go broke due to the increased 'rates'

antrobus

CLAPTON wrote: »

you don't have to be the owner of land to apply for planning permission

Well that's perfectly true at present. But I don't expect that would survive the move to a Land Value Tax. I don't imagine that you'd be best pleased if I got planning permission to demolish your house and build a block of flats on the site and lumbered you with a ginormous tax bill.

CLAPTON wrote: »

I'm not saying this is a perfect solution to improved land usage but it has main major advantages over our current system and of course addresses the issue of all the land currently with planning permission and indeed where they is already development

That assumes that 'land usage' is the problem. The problem is really one of financial resources; primarily the issue is that we (as a nation) have decided collectively to devote our economic resources to consumption (buying iphones and flat screen TVs) rather than investment (building houses).

CLAPTON

antrobus wrote: »

Well that's perfectly true at present. But I don't expect that would survive the move to a Land Value Tax. I don't imagine that you'd be best pleased if I got planning permission to demolish your house and build a block of flats on the site and lumbered you with a ginormous tax bill.



That assumes that 'land usage' is the problem. The problem is really one of financial resources; primarily the issue is that we (as a nation) have decided collectively to devote our economic resources to consumption (buying iphones and flat screen TVs) rather than investment (building houses).

well we will have to disagree

to me, the quantity of land we have and it's usage is central to the problems of finding houses for the existing popoluation let alone the 70million we are expecting

I don't want to see teh country concreted over and so I want to see a better use of the land and a lot more house building for people to live in with sufficient for business / commercial development

ILW

MacMickster wrote: »

Surely the answer is for the government to compulsorily purchase land which it considers suitable for development.

The land could then be sold or leased to any developer covenanting to actually develop the land within an agreed timescale. Any further quantative easing (which is surely now just a matter of time) could be directed towards the construction sector to stimulate the economy rather than towards the banking sector.

Under a land tax scheme, the local council could grant PP whether applied for or not, at which point, the owner of the land would be liable for the tax. They can then decide to build, sell to someone who will, or pay the tax. Everybody (with the possible exception of land speculators) wins.

System

Am I missing something? how can you grant PP if nobody applies?

Or are you trying to say that a council will unilaterally decide that a piece of land be given PP for an unspecified development even though there may well be other criteria that prevent it E.G. lack of transport or utilities infrastructure.

It's a licence to print money.

CLAPTON

!!!!!! wrote: »

Am I missing something? how can you grant PP if nobody applies?

Or are you trying to say that a council will unilaterally decide that a piece of land be given PP for an unspecified development even though there may well be other criteria that prevent it E.G. lack of transport or utilities infrastructure.

It's a licence to print money.

the land can be zoned for development i.e. residential or commercial or industrial etc as is seen fit

specific planning still needs to be applied for however.

anyone (even you) can apply for planning permission on any bit of land, usually pointless unless you own it but nevertheless possible