BOE warns on house price correction

TickersPlaysPop

wotsthat wrote: »

That's the point - they won't.

There's a simple reason. Despite your perception that the public mood is changing and rising prices are now seen as bad no-one really gives a s**t.

Even you don't care beyond posting stuff about help to buy, bubbles and the like on a closed forum plus, no doubt, the odd chunter in the office.

You passionately believe house price are too high and, as far as I can see, you do absolutely nothing about it. If you can't be bothered why should anyone else?

A political party will eventually make fixing the broken housing system a manifesto pledge, I hope it doesn't become too broken before it is addressed.

TickersPlaysPop

Where has this thing about builders paying bribes to councils come from? This is absurd?! Is this some sort of !!!!! Italian job?

Can somebody please substantiate this urban myth?

It makes more sense to me that the house building slow down is the banks not able or willing to put money into housing, plus the system (gov) wanting to keep more people in their place and suppressed by renting for most of their lives.

There is money in local government pension funds that could be invested, why is not? Lets all support increasing house building and sell to owner occupiers only....

Houses for homes not profiteers

wotsthat

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Where has this thing about builders paying bribes to councils come from? This is absurd?! Is this some sort of !!!!! Italian job?

Can somebody please substantiate this urban myth?

It's not an urban myth. When big builders go through the planning process they'll be required to 'invest' in various local schemes depending upon the pet projects of the committee members.

http://www.cnplus.co.uk/tesco-wins-derbyshire-planning-approval-double/8619123.article#.U2iQTPldW2o

The link shows how it works - OK it's a Tesco but I've watched this rumble on for years. Tesco want to build a new store so submit planning and they get a very clear no - the council said there was absolutely no need for a new Tesco, it would be bad for the local community, etc etc.

A few years later these concerns have disappeared because Tesco agreed to upgrade a local outdoor market and pay £250k towards improving the local shopping area and roads. Total cost for people doing their food shopping - c£400k.

At a different site Tesco needed to 'invest' £750k before planning was granted to fund town centre developments, public transport, CCTV and even public art.

Here's a Taylor Wimpey release..

https://www.taylorwimpey.co.uk/media-centre/news/schools-and-community/investment-in-evesham-as-part-of-lavender-fields

The development includes 90 affordable homes for rent, shared ownership and low-cost housing, giving local residents and key workers the opportunity to enjoy life in a brand new property within their own community.

Our investment also includes financial contributions totalling over £1.9 million, with £880,000 towards leisure facilities, £565,000 towards highways, and £450,000 towards education, plus £22,000 for recycling and £11,000 for public transport.

Tesco and Taylor Wimpey don't invest in these things out of the goodness of their hearts - they're linked to the granting of planning permission. I'd call them bribes and evidence of council corruption. They also stifle competition in the house building market - there's a large overhead associated with gaining planning which will deter new entrants.

JencParker

wotsthat wrote: »

The builders will be lobbying hard but they end up paying bribes to councils because councils think there's no public support for new building so use them as a cash cow. Strong local support would help planning through and probably at a lower cost. You know the problem though - most people are supportive of more building as long as it's in someone else's backyard.

Whenever I've suggested that our resident pro homes crew should get involved locally they generally can't be bothered. They prefer to point out that others are imperfect moral specimens whilst living their lives in exactly the same way.

Are you suggesting that actual bribing takes place? If so, and you know about it, why don't you report it?

JencParker

wotsthat wrote: »

It's not an urban myth. When big builders go through the planning process they'll be required to 'invest' in various local schemes depending upon the pet projects of the committee members.

http://www.cnplus.co.uk/tesco-wins-derbyshire-planning-approval-double/8619123.article#.U2iQTPldW2o

The link shows how it works - OK it's a Tesco but I've watched this rumble on for years. Tesco want to build a new store so submit planning and they get a very clear no - the council said there was absolutely no need for a new Tesco, it would be bad for the local community, etc etc.

A few years later these concerns have disappeared because Tesco agreed to upgrade a local outdoor market and pay £250k towards improving the local shopping area and roads. Total cost for people doing their food shopping - c£400k.

At a different site Tesco needed to 'invest' £750k before planning was granted to fund town centre developments, public transport, CCTV and even public art.

Here's a Taylor Wimpey release..

https://www.taylorwimpey.co.uk/media-centre/news/schools-and-community/investment-in-evesham-as-part-of-lavender-fields



Tesco and Taylor Wimpey don't invest in these things out of the goodness of their hearts - they're linked to the granting of planning permission. I'd call them bribes and evidence of council corruption. They also stifle competition in the house building market - there's a large overhead associated with gaining planning which will deter new entrants.

Of course they don't, they are there to make a profit. The amount the build is bound to put increased pressure on the infrastructure of an area. Who should pay for this? The council (ie locals through their council tax and tax payers generally) while the company walks away with a nice profit? Of course the building companies should contribute to the increased costs if they wish to build to make profits. Why would you call that a bribe?

Seems to me that people think it's acceptable to make a profit while leaving the tax payer to pick up the tab.

wotsthat

JencParker wrote: »

Of course they don't, they are there to make a profit. The amount the build is bound to put increased pressure on the infrastructure of an area. Who should pay for this? The council (ie locals through their council tax and tax payers generally) while the company walks away with a nice profit? Of course the building companies should contribute to the increased costs if they wish to build to make profits. Why would you call that a bribe?

Why should new home buyers bear the brunt of funding infrastructure or, say, social housing? That's what taxation is for.

To an extent there's a logic in, say, Tesco's contributing towards traffic calming measures to combat the impact of their store but public art?, CCTV in a nearby town centre?

It doesn't really affect profit anyway. The bribes are costed in and the builders calculate they can both pass on the cost and make a profit - they'd walk away otherwise.

It's very naive to think that a) this isn't cost additive or b) a planning committee is best placed to decide what projects should be funded before planning is granted.

robmatic

JencParker wrote: »

Of course they don't, they are there to make a profit. The amount the build is bound to put increased pressure on the infrastructure of an area. Who should pay for this? The council (ie locals through their council tax and tax payers generally) while the company walks away with a nice profit? Of course the building companies should contribute to the increased costs if they wish to build to make profits. Why would you call that a bribe?

Seems to me that people think it's acceptable to make a profit while leaving the tax payer to pick up the tab.

New homes = new residents = additional council tax revenue.

Surely that should pay for additional infrastructure?

robmatic

wotsthat wrote: »

It doesn't really affect profit anyway. The bribes are costed in and the builders calculate they can both pass on the cost and make a profit - they'd walk away otherwise.

It's very naive to think that a) this isn't cost additive or b) a planning committee is best placed to decide what projects should be funded before planning is granted.

It's just a form of indirect taxation really, isn't it?

ukcarper

robmatic wrote: »

New homes = new residents = additional council tax revenue.

Surely that should pay for additional infrastructure?

Problem is council tax is at best a third of council income.

CLAPTON

JencParker wrote: »

Of course they don't, they are there to make a profit. The amount the build is bound to put increased pressure on the infrastructure of an area. Who should pay for this? The council (ie locals through their council tax and tax payers generally) while the company walks away with a nice profit? Of course the building companies should contribute to the increased costs if they wish to build to make profits. Why would you call that a bribe?

Seems to me that people think it's acceptable to make a profit while leaving the tax payer to pick up the tab.

are you saying there is any discernable relationship between the levies and actual costs on the councils either in law or in practice?