We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Worth watching?
Comments
-
I've been looking into self-build over the past few weeks.
From what I've seen, the property market (both for sale and rental) is being fundamentally undermined by the planning process. In addition, big companies are being allowed to stockpile undeveloped land. The availability of good plots for self-build or other smaller, community projects is very poor.
The only answer to this issue is the gradual release of land for immediate building - perhaps having a quota of planning-approved land that cannot be purchased by the big builders. Developers should have limits placed upon their ability to stock-pile, and planners should look at having greater flexibility in building technologies, methods of funding and types of tenure.
Other countries exist on a mix of housing types which includes, for example, timber houses of various styles (whether the US timber-clad style, or the Scandinavian timber-built style). These have benefits in cost and construction time, and are environmentally more sustainable than traditional UK building styles. However, for whatever reasons, these are not being built in anything other than tiny numbers in the UK.
What seems to be happening is that the few plots that are available come to market with the potential market value of a traditional brick-built house already priced in. This makes it difficult to justify not building such a property on them.
A financial-only fix is not going to resolve these fundamental problems, and financial tinkering with the market risks damaging the economy.0 -
Cornucopia wrote: »I've been looking into self-build over the past few weeks.
From what I've seen, the property market (both for sale and rental) is being fundamentally undermined by the planning process. In addition, big companies are being allowed to stockpile undeveloped land. The availability of good plots for self-build or other smaller, community projects is very poor.
The only answer to this issue is the gradual release of land for immediate building - perhaps having a quota of planning-approved land that cannot be purchased by the big builders. Developers should have limits placed upon their ability to stock-pile, and planners should look at having greater flexibility in building technologies, methods of funding and types of tenure.
Other countries exist on a mix of housing types which includes, for example, timber houses of various styles (whether the US timber-clad style, or the Scandinavian timber-built style). These have benefits in cost and construction time, and are environmentally more sustainable than traditional UK building styles. However, for whatever reasons, these are not being built in anything other than tiny numbers in the UK.
What seems to be happening is that the few plots that are available come to market with the potential market value of a traditional brick-built house already priced in. This makes it difficult to justify not building such a property on them.
A financial-only fix is not going to resolve these fundamental problems, and financial tinkering with the market risks damaging the economy.
are you saying that a timber built house will sell for less than a brick built house? (other things being the same)0 -
Cornucopia wrote: »
The only answer to this issue is the gradual release of land for immediate building - perhaps having a quota of planning-approved land that cannot be purchased by the big builders. Developers should have limits placed upon their ability to stock-pile, and planners should look at having greater flexibility in building technologies, methods of funding and types of tenure.
A financial-only fix is not going to resolve these fundamental problems, and financial tinkering with the market risks damaging the economy.
I have made asimilar point on another thread.
There needs to be closer cooperation organisation and planning between, residents, owners LA and the developers. Selecting the right areas for development, controlling land release (via some form of enhanced enhanced CPO) to meet demand in a sustainable way, building and coordinating infrastructure to support the plan. Sharing the cost between central pots and developers. Allocating key spine infrastructure costs into future tranches.
Obtaining buy in from all parties."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »I have made asimilar point on another thread.
There needs to be closer cooperation organisation and planning between, residents, owners LA and the developers. Selecting the right areas for development, controlling land release (via some form of enhanced enhanced CPO) to meet demand in a sustainable way, building and coordinating infrastructure to support the plan. Sharing the cost between central pots and developers. Allocating key spine infrastructure costs into future tranches.
Obtaining buy in from all parties.
by and large that's broadly what happens now which is why we have a process that doesn't work0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Supply and demand.
In 1961 a new Jaguar E type could be bought for around £1900. Adjusted for inflation that would be £35,000 today.
The actual price today would be around £70,000.
http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C234234
Because the demand for these cars far exceeds the available supply of them. So prices will rise until sufficient people are prevented form buying that demand and supply equalise.
Same thing with houses....
Not the very finest use of pixels I've ever seen. Is there an actual point you're trying to make?
Anyway, mitcham is an awful area, really awful, and no more expensive than a moderately smart suburb of a middling northern town.FACT.0 -
by and large that's broadly what happens now which is why we have a process that doesn't work
Why do you say that are you involved in the process?
It doesn't appear to the case IME.
Why do so many applications get so fiercely contested if they have been agreed in advance with full consideration of all needs and concerns?"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Why do you say that are you involved in the process?
It doesn't appear to the case IME.
Why do so many applications get so fiercely contested if they have been agreed in advance with full consideration of all needs and concerns?
No I'm not involved in the planning processes although I do receive lots of info from my local council about their development plans.
The LA should zone land for development and let the market do most of the the rest without all the endless bureaucracy which means only builders with big wallets can ever get planning permission.
You know exactly why new building is fiercely contested because it is in general IMPOSSIBLE to get agreement.0 -
No I'm not involved in the planning processes although I do receive lots of info from my local council about their development plans.
The LA should zone land for development and let the market do most of the the rest without all the endless bureaucracy which means only builders with big wallets can ever get planning permission.
You know exactly why new building is fiercely contested because it is in general IMPOSSIBLE to get agreement.
Yes if the LA zoned and defined that would indeed be a good start.
If we let the market do the rest we would end up with totally inappropriate developments that merely gave the best possible return for the developer.
The fact that agreement can't be reached probably has something to do with inappropriate, ill considered, ill thought out developments being proposed."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Yes if the LA zoned and defined that would indeed be a good start.
If we let the market do the rest we would end up with totally inappropriate developments that merely gave the best possible return for the developer.
The fact that agreement can't be reached probably has something to do with inappropriate, ill considered, ill thought out developments being proposed.
What is 'inappropriate'?
I'm happy that there should be general planning guidelines about general size and structure (no skyscapers in a small cotswold village) but against compulsory 'affordable housing' quotas or the state to decide whether lots of small flats should be build rather than 4 bed houses.
And I see no reason why a builder should not make the best profit possible.0 -
Nick Boles made an interesting point in the last day or so, saying that countryside should be available for redevelopment if it is "boring" and that it does more use to build houses than to leave it as fields. This was as part of an argument with a fellow tory. I have to say, providing infrastructure follows, that's hard to disagree with.
Unfortunately I can only find a reference from the Mail, though I saw this on the TV news:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2346391/Concrete-greenfield-land-boring-says-minister-row-countryside-development-fellow-Tory-MP.htmlPlease stay safe in the sun and learn the A-E of melanoma: A = asymmetry, B = irregular borders, C= different colours, D= diameter, larger than 6mm, E = evolving, is your mole changing? Most moles are not cancerous, any doubts, please check next time you visit your GP.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards