Some Christmas cheer from the Guardian

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

there will be no increase in price if there is sufficient supply of land with planning permission

we need a steady stream of finance for people with reasonable income and not unlimited funding.

What about the land already with planning permission?

Theres enough for 400,000 houses currently, so why not start using that?

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What about the land already with planning permission?

Theres enough for 400,000 houses currently, so why not start using that?

obviously building is taking place on some of that land as we speak.

but what is your point: that there is plenty of cheap land available in places where there is major housing need?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What about the land already with planning permission?

Theres enough for 400,000 houses currently, so why not start using that?

About 4 years worth at current build rates. Given planning is still a major logjam in house building it seems prudent to be prepared for an upswing in demand.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/259891/House_Building_Release_-_Sept_Qtr_2013.pdf

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

obviously building is taking place on some of that land as we speak.

but what is your point: that there is plenty of cheap land available in places where there is major housing need?

My point is, you appear to be making out it's all planning permission that's the problem. But there is land with planning permission for 400,000 houses curently.

Wotsthat has tried to make out that's the entire landbank. But the entire landbank is estimated to be able to supply 1.5 million houses. And they are still buying land up.

Infact, theres a brilliant piece in the FT today regarding this, and suggesting house builders no longer house build as their primary function, rather their primary function is land dealership.
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2014/01/02/1730982/30-years-of-unsupplied-demand/

The land to build houses on, and planning permission really doesn't seem to be one of the big issues at play here. They could build houses on it. it's just more profitable in many cases to deal in that land, rather than actually pay people to build stuff on it. And the numbers speak for themselves.

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Wotsthat has tried to make out that's the entire landbank. But the entire landbank is estimated to be able to supply 1.5 million houses. And they are still buying land up.

The vast majority of that 1,500,000 is an estimate of land where there is no planning permission where it is assumed/guessed that house builders have an option to buy.

It's a bit weird to include that as hoarded land. Houses couldn't be built on it legally and it is still being used productively as farm land.

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

The vast majority of that 1,500,000 is an estimate of land where there is no planning permission where it is assumed/guessed that house builders have an option to buy.

It's a bit weird to include that as hoarded land. Houses couldn't be built on it legally and it is still being used productively as farm land.

That's why I stated "estimated".....because, as you say, it's an estimate.

They are not including it as hoarded land and that's your description. However, the builders are spending time and money on this land, and one would assume they are doing this for a reason.

The "shadow" land bank is tied up with confidential option deals by the builders. It's more than just a "guess".

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That's why I stated "estimated".....because, as you say, it's an estimate.

They are not including it as hoarded land and that's your description. However, the builders are spending time and money on this land, and one would assume they are doing this for a reason.

The "shadow" land bank is tied up with confidential option deals by the builders. It's more than just a "guess".

lets just say that the estimate of 1.5 million bit of land owned (or with options) were true

how would this help additional housing as they don't have planning permission


are you suggesting that it wrong for xyz company to own land without planning permission if they are builders but not if there were a non-building company?


surely if you had any sense and were a builder you would buy land that might get PP soon or was adjacent to a plot you already owned.

just common sense

and of course all this should show fantastic profits for the shareholders of building companies over the last 5-10 years shouldn't it?

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

lets just say that the estimate of 1.5 million bit of land owned (or with options) were true

how would this help additional housing as they don't have planning permission

I never said it would. What I was stating is how much land already HAS planning permission and how much extra land there is estimated that has a good possibility of gaining planning permission.

It is of course, in the interests of the companies to sit on land as it appriciates. With or without permission, the land appriciates in value, so in some cases, it's probably not worth approaching the costs of planning permission at all if their (as it's stated) intension is simply land investment.

We shouldn't get confused here. What the article is suggesting is that that housing developers now see land development as their primary focus. Not house building. So some of this land, which they could build house on, and could gain planning permission for, may never see houses built on them.

Was it Persimmon who pulled out of the Welsh market recently? Whoeever it was, they are still buying land in Wales. They just won't build any houses on it (until the welsh assembly bends over at least). Surely that demonstrates that planning isn't the biggest issue?

That's not to say houses couldn't be built on them. And therein lies the issue. Before blaming planning permission, you need to consider whether the housing companies are even interested in gaining it on some of their plots. The case put forward suggests they may not be, so that "problem" needs tacking with something other than making planning easier.

And it's called, land tax.

It's the easiest solution to all the issues. Housebuilders will no longer sit on land for investment purposes. They will provide houses on the land they do have or face paying the taxes and the treasury benefits. Or they sell the land and land prices fall. In turn making houses cheaper.

And the last 5 words in the above paragraph is why it simply won't be done....

Planning permission isn't the big evil. Even councils are willing to provide details of the planning permission they give which never gets used. However, they didn't get invited to the big round table at the HTB initial stages. Only the government, banks and housebuilders were invited....and it just so happens house builders shares and profits have risen quite rapidly since. You keep blaming planning permission, but don't seem to take into account the fact that often, planning permission isn't even requested by the housebuilders.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

We shouldn't get confused here. What the article is suggesting is that that housing developers now see land development as their primary focus. Not house building. So some of this land, which they could build house on, and could gain planning permission for, may never see houses built on them.

The big builders make the vast majority of profits by selling houses.

They've always traded land because it allows them to fully utilise their skills and adds an element of diversification.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I never said it would. What I was stating is how much land already HAS planning permission and how much extra land there is estimated that has a good possibility of gaining planning permission.

It is of course, in the interests of the companies to sit on land as it appriciates. With or without permission, the land appriciates in value, so in some cases, it's probably not worth approaching the costs of planning permission at all if their (as it's stated) intension is simply land investment.

We shouldn't get confused here. What the article is suggesting is that that housing developers now see land development as their primary focus. Not house building. So some of this land, which they could build house on, and could gain planning permission for, may never see houses built on them.

Was it Persimmon who pulled out of the Welsh market recently? Whoeever it was, they are still buying land in Wales. They just won't build any houses on it (until the welsh assembly bends over at least). Surely that demonstrates that planning isn't the biggest issue?

That's not to say houses couldn't be built on them. And therein lies the issue. Before blaming planning permission, you need to consider whether the housing companies are even interested in gaining it on some of their plots. The case put forward suggests they may not be, so that "problem" needs tacking with something other than making planning easier.

And it's called, land tax.

It's the easiest solution to all the issues. Housebuilders will no longer sit on land for investment purposes. They will provide houses on the land they do have or face paying the taxes and the treasury benefits. Or they sell the land and land prices fall. In turn making houses cheaper.

And the last 5 words in the above paragraph is why it simply won't be done....

Planning permission isn't the big evil. Even councils are willing to provide details of the planning permission they give which never gets used. However, they didn't get invited to the big round table at the HTB initial stages. Only the government, banks and housebuilders were invited....and it just so happens house builders shares and profits have risen quite rapidly since. You keep blaming planning permission, but don't seem to take into account the fact that often, planning permission isn't even requested by the housebuilders.

all land in the UK is owned by somebody or some organisation


are you saying that of all the companies and people in the UK, firms that also build houses should be specifically banned from buying land while is OK for all others to own it?

profits of building firms were hammered from 2008 until this last year :
now according to the 'it's better to hoard than build theory' they ought to have had huge profits during those years as they build few houses.

Now they they are building more properties, I assume you will predict their profits will fall?

utter madness.


I have long advocated a land value tax so land with planning permission was taxed at a higher rate than land without but we need more land zoned for building.

Whilst I don't rule out that Building Companies are acting in concert and form an illegal cartel to hoard land, the barriers to entry for new entrants are low except for the government control of land for building and all those government controlled levies and costs.