How much undeveloped land is owned by builders?

ILW

CLAPTON wrote: »

very interesting

although they give the land bank for the private sector they don't actually give the equivalent figures for the public sector

I've often advocated a land value tax that would partly help as this would be paid on the land potential so hoarding land would be a real cash drain on the owners.

As far as I can see, the only possible losers would be land speculators and hoarders. it would also be pretty simple to administer.

Graham_Devon

ILW wrote: »

As far as I can see, the only possible losers would be land speculators and hoarders. it would also be pretty simple to administer.

I'm sure I heard a member of the association of "x" (can't remember the actual association) suggest this would simply push house prices up, as the taxes would be passed on to buyers.

He also stated there would be less housing built, as they wouldn't buy land.

I can see the second paragraph being true, not sure how feasible the first is though.

At the moment, business has the government by the knackers. May not always be the case going forward, but it's certainly the case at the moment. They just threaten unemployment etc.

vivatifosi

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Plots with planning permission is currently around 350,000 from memory, which is about a 3 year supply at current build rates.

No idea how much is owned without planning permission.

Here's an article that backs up Hamish's numbers:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/hands-off-our-land/8763931/Hands-Off-Our-Land-the-300000-new-homes-already-in-the-bank.html

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ILW wrote: »

So just forcing the stuff that already has planning could make a fair dent in the housing shortage.

Sure.

Now who's going to fund it?

You only need to find roughly £52,800,000,000 down the back of a couch somewhere.....

And that's after a 40% discount from current newbuild prices.;)

Oh, and of course it's only a single year's supply of current housing need, plus making up for one of the last ten year's shortfall.

But it would take more like two years to build, as the building industry has been decimated and is simply not capable of building that many at once any more.

And by then you'd need to build another 250,000 houses.....

Perhaps now you're starting to see the scale of the problem. But I won't hold my breath.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You only need to find roughly £52,800,000,000 down the back of a couch somewhere.....

And that's after a 40% discount from current newbuild prices.;)

You state that demand is massive. Surely the banks would fund something which has massive demand such as you state? Win win....no?

Unless the prices are too high and no one can afford to actually buy them, of course. And of course, this isn't funded all at once. Infact, with the demand you talk of, it could be self funding in a short period of time.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm sure I heard a member of the association of "x" (can't remember the actual association) suggest this would simply push house prices up, as the taxes would be passed on to buyers.

He also stated there would be less housing built, as they wouldn't buy land.

I can see the second paragraph being true, not sure how feasible the first is though.

At the moment, business has the government by the knackers. May not always be the case going forward, but it's certainly the case at the moment. They just threaten unemployment etc.

some-one will own the land
some-one will have to pay the land value tax
that person will have an incentive to sell the land to avoid the tax
so one might expect more land to become available than otherwise


I'm not saying this is an panacea but will encourage the sensible use of the land

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You state that demand is massive. Surely the banks would fund something which has massive demand such as you state? Win win....no?

Oh they'd love to.... But can't.

They don't have access to the cash you see, as the international money markets, and UK mortgage market, are still "dysfunctional" to quote the CML. And they should know.

Unless the prices are too high and no one can afford to actually buy them, of course. And of course, this isn't funded all at once. Infact, with the demand you talk of, it could be self funding in a short period of time.

Eh?

Now you're just speaking nonsense again Graham.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

CLAPTON wrote: »

some-one will own the land
some-one will have to pay the land value tax
that person will have an incentive to sell the land to avoid the tax
so one might expect more land to become available than otherwise

No what you'd expect is for the land to revert to agricultural use.

Because there is no funding to build the houses.

And the owners will seek to avoid paying tax on something that cannot be used.

So then house building will reduce further.

grizzly1911

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

No what you'd expect is for the land to revert to agricultural use.

.

And the owners will seek to avoid paying tax on something that cannot be used.

But if that land has a value attributed to it as development land, bolstering the accounts of development companies and it is simply revalued downwards that could/would make them go out of business.

Catch 22.

I am sure land values are managed effectively over time in the same way as Banks don't get all the bad debt out in one go.

ILW

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

No what you'd expect is for the land to revert to agricultural use.

Because there is no funding to build the houses.

And the owners will seek to avoid paying tax on something that cannot be used.

So then house building will reduce further.

Simple solution, the tax is payable for say 10 years once PP is granted.

So either

1. The land is developed.
2. The land is sold to someone who is in a position to develop.
3. The treasury gets a nice little earner for doing nothing.

Cannot see the downside except a few land speculators may catch a cold.