Newsnight... The shortage in housing

Mids_Costcutter

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I really don't believe that planning permission (or lack of it ) is the sole reason or dominant reason. Developer bottom line will also have an influencing factor amongst a raft of others.

Absolutely right! It's not the planning system that is the reason why new homes aren't being built, as this research from the Local Government Association (below) shows. There is a backlog of 400,000 new homes which have received planning permission but have not yet been completed, with building yet to start on more than half of approved plots.

http://www.local.gov.uk/web/guest/media-releases/-/journal_content/56/10171/3704026/NEWS-TEMPLATE

roswell

Housing shortage = people with out houses living on the streets.

I don't see any tent city's just lots of people wanting cheaper accommodation.

grizzly1911

Wookster wrote: »

So what's your point/ problem?

You understand the problem but you don't like the cure?

See post 2 which is what you picked me up on.

Wookster

grizzly1911 wrote: »

See post 2 which is what you picked me up on.

You haven't said why the proposals weren't thought through or why he was out of his depth.

IveSeenTheLight

cotleigh wrote: »

Selling off some council houses to their tenants did not in any way reduce the total number of actual houses in the nation. It just changed who owned some of them.

Given that each successful "right to buy" owner "took" one council house away from the council's stock, but also took themselves off the list of people needing council houses, I don't see that RTB changed much on its own.

You forget that when a person leaves a council home through death, the house would then be added to the council stock for the next generation.

My Grandmother in law was a council tenant for over 40 years and when she started to deteriorate, the council would not allow (even through private funding) to put in stair lift or special bath / shower, so my in-laws helped her to buy the property, rennovate as required and improve her standard of life at the time.

When she deteriorated further and needed care help, the property was sold and the funds used to fund the care home.

How does this help the next working generation get a house if the stock is reduced

coastline

ukcarper wrote: »

The amount of housing proposed is 2.5x the size of Greater London and a large percentage of that wiil be needed in the South East.

around half in London and the SE...this article fits in with what John Prescott said about 7 years earlier..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12732480

Mids_Costcutter

roswell wrote: »

Housing shortage = people with out houses living on the streets.

I don't see any tent city's just lots of people wanting cheaper accommodation.

Well of course everyone would like cheaper accommodation, but isn't it more affordable housing that we need?

The housing benefit bill doubled between 1997 and 2010 and now stands at £23bn a year. Bring the cost of housing down for all and the housing benefit bill can also be reduced.

chewmylegoff

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I really don't believe that planning permission (or lack of it ) is the sole reason or dominant reason. Developer bottom line will also have an influencing factor amongst a raft of others.

I know someone who is FC at a major national house builder listed on LSE. At the moment the single biggest issue for them is that they bought loads of land which has planning permission in place during the lead up to the financial crisis.

Because the land that you could get pp on was in short supply they overpaid for it at the time. Now it is worth less but is still sitting I their balance sheet at cost.

If they build on it and sell the houses they will realise an accounting loss as a result.

That means they will then have to impair all their other land bought at the same time. Big loss crystallised. No directors bonuses.

Furthermore their shareholders will flip out and the directors will get forced out.

Result = don't build on that land.

Wookster

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I know someone who is FC at a major national house builder listed on LSE. At the moment the single biggest issue for them is that they bought loads of land which has planning permission in place during the lead up to the financial crisis.

Because the land that you could get pp on was in short supply they overpaid for it at the time. Now it is worth less but is still sitting I their balance sheet at cost.

If they build on it and sell the houses they will realise an accounting loss as a result.

That means they will then have to impair all their other land bought at the same time. Big loss crystallised. No directors bonuses.

Furthermore their shareholders will flip out and the directors will get forced out.

Result = don't build on that land.

I've read about this sort of thing as well. This is where we actually need legislation that if developers are not developing land then they forfeit it to the council.

Out of curiosity, aren't they forced to mark to market the land banks they are sitting on and take the losses?

grizzly1911

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I know someone who is FC at a major national house builder listed on LSE. At the moment the single biggest issue for them is that they bought loads of land which has planning permission in place during the lead up to the financial crisis.

Because the land that you could get pp on was in short supply they overpaid for it at the time. Now it is worth less but is still sitting I their balance sheet at cost.

If they build on it and sell the houses they will realise an accounting loss as a result.

That means they will then have to impair all their other land bought at the same time. Big loss crystallised. No directors bonuses.

Furthermore their shareholders will flip out and the directors will get forced out.

Result = don't build on that land.

The fact they overpaid for land is surely a commercial decision they made. They have planning permission for it. Had we not had the fiancial crisis they would have built out on sold on and pocketed the profit.

I don't know the size of the sites or number. No doubt they would have banked some, and developed large sites over a phased period to ensure they made an even better return from the expected rise in values over time.

It has always been balancing act.

Releasing land for development will ease the problem and will have some effect on land values but I am sure the developers will make sure that the eventual selling prices differ little to what we are seeing now. If that price can't be paid then the position will not advance. Need and demand aren't the same.