The stich up keepiing homes unaffordable

antrobus

ILW wrote: »

Not enough to force a holder to either develop or sell though.

I hold some land. It has a house on it. Why would anyone want to force me to develop or sell it?

martinsurrey

ILW wrote: »

The current problem is short term.

the short term problem is caused by the long term broken system.

how can an industry react to short term events if it takes 3 years to get a site from identified to outlying planning, to detailed planning to build regs and utility spec to technical release...

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Then we are doomed and theres absolutely nothing that can be done. Ever. Market is what it is.....

....Unless they want taxpayer guarantees, then we can find solutions to everything.

Relying on government/local authorities is never going to happen I personally wish it would.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Relying on government/local authorities is never going to happen I personally wish it would.

Why? 350 local authorities are wanting to get building.

It seems every repsonse you are giving is just an excuse for the system to carry on. You are making out nothing can ever be done on the supply side.

That's nonsense. it just takes willing. Thankfully pressure is piling up.

350 LA's clubbing together to state we want to get on and build is a pretty good measurement of whether they will build or not. They must be finding things frustrating while the government applies constraints on the supply side.

ukcarper

I have a query would the builders have had to borrow to buy the land if so aren't they paying interest on it.

antrobus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Why?....

Because they haven't got the money?

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Why? 350 local authorities are wanting to get building.

I'm not sure that is exactly what they are saying and if so where is the money coming from.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

They need land to build. If they don't have land they can't build houses and they fold.

At the moment builders are profiting from land banking. Without that profit, they would have to build to make a profit.

Are you against building clapton? You appear to have issues with anything which encourages building? I always assumed you were pro building?

I am 100% in favour of building more homes.


Over the last few years buildings has been at a low level, not because builders have been deliberately choosing not to build, but because there was a shortage of effective demand from their customers.

At the moment builders are starting to make a profit because there is a surge in demand due, in large part, to government funding initiatives.

So I don't see the current problem as one with builders deliberately with-holding land and rejecting potential buyers but one where they are building more properties to meet that growing effective demand.

Obviously it will take time to rackets up the building rate.

The ongoing problem is still the low overall building rate due to the lack of long term demand (due mainly to the high price of new builds).

To resolve the long term problems we need to reduce the costs of new builds and/or to directly provide taxpayer money.

OffGridLiving

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Why? 350 local authorities are wanting to get building.

It seems every repsonse you are giving is just an excuse for the system to carry on. You are making out nothing can ever be done on the supply side.

That's nonsense. it just takes willing. Thankfully pressure is piling up.

350 LA's clubbing together to state we want to get on and build is a pretty good measurement of whether they will build or not. They must be finding things frustrating while the government applies constraints on the supply side.

Are you doing that thing again where you edit your post, subject to the comment that were posted after it? The date stamp on your edit compared with the date stamp on ukcarper's subsequent posts, seem to bear this out. Will you also deny all knowledge of reading ukcarper's posts before you edited?

If you recall, I pulled you up for doing this with my "We're never going to agree, so let's call it a day" post, where you edited your previous post after reading mine and added "No doubt you won't be able to answer my question and will make your excuse and leave". Luckily the edit time/date stamps are there for all to see.

You're cringingly pathetic Graham. Cringingly. :eek:

ILW

antrobus wrote: »

I hold some land. It has a house on it. Why would anyone want to force me to develop or sell it?

I would assume you are paying a tax on it already.