Another bung for private housebuilders

Graham_Devon

Separately, up to £1bn will be made available to unlock private developments that have "stalled".

He says that will eventually mean 250,000 more privately built homes.
The £1bn for private builders would be used for situations such as where a developer says a project has ground to a halt because of a specific reason, for example, lack of a local road.

A loan might then be arranged to pay for the problem to be fixed.
The money will be spread across six years.

Looking at the local road issue, is it really the taxpayers problem?!

The private builder bought the land and applied for planning permission knowing there wasn't a local road afterall.

I'm not sure why we should be offering up loans to these companies on top of everything else they have already had? I can understand the "they won't build" argument, but surely it's high time private builders started getting taxed on their landbanks they won't build on rather than yet more government help? Of course, builders shares spiked up.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25244048

theEnd

Not sure. If someone privately builds a load of houses, we all pay for the extra schools, medical centres, buses etc, why not roads too? Where do we draw the line.

It's the person who's sold the land at a premium knowing the tax payer will add the value that walks away with all the cash.

Another case for LVT.

Rinoa

A scheme that will help provide 250,000 more private homes ~ and the boy Devon still moans.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Looking at the local road issue, is it really the taxpayers problem?!

The private builder bought the land and applied for planning permission knowing there wasn't a local road afterall.

Why don't you make a list of stuff that should be added to the cost of a new home and then have a good moan about how expensive new homes are?

cells

The system is so stupid

Just charge VAT on new build homes and no other irrational stupid surcharge or mandate like social housing

Then give out an unlimited number of permits to build and let them build where theu can sell

grizzly1911

wotsthat wrote: »

Why don't you make a list of stuff that should be added to the cost of a new home and then have a good moan about how expensive new homes are?

I guess it why homes close to things are generally cheaper than remote homes. People pay a premium to be near things.

If people want to live capital cheap in the middle of a field with no infrastructure that is their choice.Running expenses will escalate though.

Developers know the cost it should be reflected in the price they pay for the land.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Why don't you make a list of stuff that should be added to the cost of a new home and then have a good moan about how expensive new homes are?

I think you miss the first point.

The developer will know there is no road when they buy the land. They should take that into consideration before buying. Surely?

I mean, that's just absolute basic stuff for a developer isn't it? Make sure the land they are buying is suitable for what they want to build?

Graham_Devon

Rinoa wrote: »

A scheme that will help provide 250,000 more private homes ~ and the boy Devon still moans.

Where do you stop?

What next? Taxpayer to fund the labour costs of the housebuilder employees? I'm sure that will get more houses built too, after think of the extra profits if builders don't have to lay out for staff either.

See, I'd question whether any other company, such as Sainsburys would get such preferential treatment if they bought some land and then cried "look, theres no road to this field we've just bought on our own free will".

CLAPTON

Good to have a real life example rather than simply surmise.

Rinoa

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Where do you stop?

Not sure about every country, but in Germany roads, sewers, gas, electric etc are provided by local authority or government.

They don't have a housing shortage.

I just found it strange, when the govt. comes up with money (loans by the way, not for free), you chose to find the negative, rather than welcoming the increased supply of homes.

chewmylegoff

I do think there is a discussion to be had around this issue. I don't oppose the government's plan - it is an attempt to get more houses built and I would rather have public money spent on this objective than many other things the government spends money on (all of which ends up in private hands).

However, the government's approach is all carrot and no stick. There is a housing crisis developing and the only way to head it off is to build many more houses. Perhaps the government should be thinking about using the stick as well e.g. Taxing land banks.

Personally I doubt that taxing land banks would achieve much and may just result in house builders delaying planning applications - also it may result in increased costs simply being passed on to the consumer (either lower build quality, smaller plots or higher prices). Perhaps instead of using either the carrot or the stick the government should just deregulate by changing the planning rules