Another bung for private housebuilders

CLAPTON

chewmylegoff wrote: »

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

over the period 2008 to 2012 was there sufficient supply of mortgages and people with sufficient deposit to buy new properties or were the builders deliberately choosing not to build?

chewmylegoff

CLAPTON wrote: »

over the period 2008 to 2012 was there sufficient supply of mortgages and people with sufficient deposit to buy new properties or were the builders deliberately choosing not to build?

If the planning system wasn't so restrictive then building land would be cheaper so I expect that the amount of available credit would support greater housebuilding.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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?

The council shouldn't give planning if they're unwilling to fund appropriate infrastructure. Seems like absolute basic stuff for a council to do. Just another way to make houses unaffordable.

wotsthat

grizzly1911 wrote: »

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.

Don't nearly all new housing developments start in the middle of fields with no infrastructure?

My assumption is that, in reality, it's fairly normal for these costs to be passed to the homebuyers and then builders margins blamed for high house prices.

If a builder has miscalculated a costing for infrastructure and this is sufficient to stop a development then maybe it's easier to give them a sub to get going again. After all they don't need to sell - I'm told they can earn just as much money by sitting on the land.

Thrugelmir

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

Large scale development is normally on designated land. Which is part of a local authority plan.

Loughton_Monkey

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.

Another absolute scandal exposed!

Well done, Graham.

Mark my words, this will trigger another stiff one to my MP urging that not a penny of taxpayer's money should be spent on roads to housing estates.

OK, it's utterly 100% their job to do so but think about house prices. More houses would increase supply and thus reduce demand and price. I would like to see a complete moratorium on new road building. We can't afford it. In this way, we can sit in our cosy houses and watch their scarcity value go up, and up, and up to levels never seen before.

We voted in the Cameron boy to (a) staunch frivalous spending on benefits and roads to save money, and (b) do whatever necessary to ramp up house prices. Refusing to build roads saves hard working people's tax money, and drives up the value of their houses. Win-win I call it!

And here he is, spending our money to encourage 250,000 new homes. Calls himself a Conservative? I'm a banana.

I suspect Clegg is partly to blame.

antrobus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

Generally speaking, people regard the provision of infrastructure as one of the things that government is supposed to organise.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

Dear Gideon has decided that "£1bn will be made available to unlock private developments that have 'stalled'". For one thing, the 'lack of a local road' is only cited as a possible example of why a development might have stalled. And for another thing, there are lots of reasons why the road might not be there. Such as, the failure of the LA to put one in.

Since I know for a fact that LAs sometimes promise to build roads to attract development, it is no doubt possible for them to renege on their promises.

theEnd wrote: »

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? ....

Community Infrastructure Levy.

http://www.pas.gov.uk/web/pas-test-site/3-community-infrastructure-levy-cil