1,500 Square miles of land

Wookster

Is needed for development in order to meet housing demand according to Nick Boles.

Interestingly he also said

Mr Boles suggests that people who oppose more development are being selfish for denying adequate space for their children and grandchildren.

Full article here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9707455/Government-minister-warns-We-must-develop-a-third-more-land-to-meet-housing-demand.html

MacMickster

In an interview with BBC Two’s Newsnight tonight, Mr Boles says nine per cent of England has been built on so far – and this should be increased to 12 per cent to meet demand.

For once, a government minister is quite right.

We have a massive shortage of housing in areas of this country which can't be resolved by building on brownfield sites alone.

Increasing the proportion of developed land in the UK from 9% to 12% hardly constitutes concreting over Britain, but will undoubtedly be referred to as such by those who already have their ideal home.

Substantially increasing the amount of land available for development and the housing stock, will have the added advantage of driving down house prices and rents. This will benefit both our children and the economy in general, as people will either pay less of their income for housing leaving them with more disposable income to spend on on other goods and services, or (preferably) allow wage rates to fall, increasing the competetiveness ofBritish business in the world economy.

Win - win (except for those who have placed all of their investment eggs in the BTL basket).

Turnbull2000

The most popular comments on the BBC are fiercely opposed. Nothing will come of this, of that I’m confident. It would too unpopular not only amongst key voters, but lobbyists, landowners and lenders who benefit from scarcity of planning. All will be forgotten in a week.

Back to the comments, many call for instead bringing all our 700,000 empty properties back into use. The reality is that empty property in the UK as a proportion of stock is very low by international standards, and many of these are likely second homes or temporarily empty. So let’s be generous and say 350,000 properties could be brought back into use. In just three years time, we can expect a further 750,000 immigrants in the UK and those extra properties occupied. Our devastating property shortage as it stands now will remain.

princeofpounds

I think it's great that he has done the analysis and spoken out about this.

I also think it's unlikely he will get anywhere in trying to fix the situation.

I'd vote for him though.

IveSeenTheLight

MacMickster wrote: »

Increasing the proportion of developed land in the UK from 9% to 12% hardly constitutes concreting over Britain,

Whilst 3% does not seem enough, that is increasing the housing stock by 33%.

I'm struggling to see where the finance is for this building requirement.

coastline

No doubt theres hundreds of thousands of empty homes but it'll be a surprise if the owners are forced into some kind of action..
Brownfield sites and local eyesores in towns and villages should be revitalised.
No mention of finance for schools and hospitals etc etc on these new developements...remember the government are against more PFI to fund things...or are they ??

Kennyboy66

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Whilst 3% does not seem enough, that is increasing the housing stock by 33%.

I'm struggling to see where the finance is for this building requirement.

Here's an idea - reduce tax breaks on existing buy to let and target that money towards building new rental properties.

No tax relief on interest payments, no CGT reliefs on properties built before 2013.

Makes sense in every way.

robmatic

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

Here's an idea - reduce tax breaks on existing buy to let and target that money towards building new rental properties.

No tax relief on interest payments, no CGT reliefs on properties built before 2013.

Makes sense in every way.

There is no 'tax relief' on BTL interest payments - it's an expense.

Wookster

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I'm struggling to see where the finance is for this building requirement.

I think that will be difficult while there is a stand off between buyers and sellers, and while banks are in forbearance of many thousands of mortgage holders in arrears which artificially holds up house and land prices.

Radiantsoul

1500 square miles for 750k houses implies about 5000 square meters per house. I am sure they will be infrastructure - roads, school, etc. But this still seem like quite a lot to me.

zagubov

Radiantsoul wrote: »

1500 square miles for 750k houses implies about 5000 square meters per house. I am sure they will be infrastructure - roads, school, etc. But this still seem like quite a lot to me.

Germany's about 12% built up but that includes more road surface than the UK has.

It'll have to be intermngled with enough green space (parks/gardens, recreational areas) to allow water to run through and not overflow.

It'll have to be spread around the countryside. The South East will be much more than 9% built-up. Scotland's only 2% built-up.

So the jobs need to be spread more evenly otherwise London will be Europe's Gridlock Central.