The silver bullet to fix the housing market

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

It is obviously true that no single figure can possibly give an accurate description of anything so variable and complex but the 3% is a counter to the 'concrete over the SE' set.


and talking of meaningless figures, 100% of the building in London is on brown field sites.

Not a very good counter argument it's very easy for people outside of south east to say it would not have an impact when people here know it would. I can identify places where building could take place without to much impact if the infrastructure was improved, but that doesn't mean the people that own the land would sell it or that is the land that developers would choose.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

Not a very good counter argument it's very easy for people outside of south east to say it would not have an impact when people here know it would. I can identify places where building could take place without to much impact if the infrastructure was improved, but that doesn't mean the people that own the land would sell it or that is the land that developers would choose.

what point are you making?

that the problem is land owners will turn down 2-10 million an acre?

that builders won't build even if there is a queue of customers waiting to buy?

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

what point are you making?

that the problem is land owners will turn down 2-10 million an acre?

that builders won't build even if there is a queue of customers waiting to buy?

Yes some people will turn down that amount. The land offered up for planning permission is not always the most suitable land.

antrobus

ukcarper wrote: »

Not a very good counter argument it's very easy for people outside of south east to say it would not have an impact when people here know it would. I can identify places where building could take place without to much impact if the infrastructure was improved, but that doesn't mean the people that own the land would sell it or that is the land that developers would choose.

I'd have though that the prime concern would be to identify places where both building could take place and people wanted to buy houses. Not much point building 'em if you can't flog 'em.

Willingness to sell isn't necessarily an obstacle, you can always get Parliament to grant the necessary powers for CPOs. If they don't already exist that is. And I can't see there being any shortage of builders wanting to build houses that can actually be sold. So long as they can get hold of the bricks and what not of course.:)

ukcarper

antrobus wrote: »

I'd have though that the prime concern would be to identify places where both building could take place and people wanted to buy houses. Not much point building 'em if you can't flog 'em.

Willingness to sell isn't necessarily an obstacle, you can always get Parliament to grant the necessary powers for CPOs. If they don't already exist that is. And I can't see there being any shortage of builders wanting to build houses that can actually be sold. So long as they can get hold of the bricks and what not of course.:)

Do you in visage a time when parliament will use CPOs to force building on green fields.

The problem as I see it is that in reality there is not real overall plane just a dictate from government as how how many properties each council should build.

antrobus

ukcarper wrote: »

Do you in visage a time when parliament will use CPOs to force building on green fields. ...

I don't know, are the "places" that you identified "where building could take place" green fields? Only you know that. But there is no reason in principle why Parliament can't do so.

ukcarper wrote: »

...The problem as I see it is that in reality there is not real overall plane just a dictate from government as how how many properties each council should build.

What kind of "overall plan" do you think that the government should adopt? Do you envisage a time when there is a Ministry for House Building employing thousands of civil servants busily surveying every nook and crany of the land and issuing decrees that six properties can be built there, and another hundred and six over there?

ukcarper

antrobus wrote: »

I don't know, are the "places" that you identified "where building could take place" green fields? Only you know that. But there is no reason in principle why Parliament can't do so.



What kind of "overall plan" do you think that the government should adopt? Do you envisage a time when there is a Ministry for House Building employing thousands of civil servants busily surveying every nook and crany of the land and issuing decrees that six properties can be built there, and another hundred and six over there?

They are green fields.

That's always the rebuff but the peace meal approach we have now with infrastructure an after thought is not working. I don't envisage a Ministry for house building but a more joined up approach would be of benefit. To be honest I don't think much will happen and the shortage of housing will continue.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

They are green fields.

That's always the rebuff but the peace meal approach we have now with infrastructure an after thought is not working. I don't envisage a Ministry for house building but a more joined up approach would be of benefit. To be honest I don't think much will happen and the shortage of housing will continue.

lack of infrastructure may well be a problem
but lack of housing is best resolved by building more houses

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

lack of infrastructure may well be a problem
but lack of housing is best resolved by building more houses

Agreed but I don't think enough will be built in London and the south east without major changes and I can't see those happening.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

Agreed but I don't think enough will be built in London and the south east without major changes and I can't see those happening.

what major changes do you want?

building more houses or grand strategic 20 year plan for the whole of the UK?