Tories say they'll build lots of houses and sell them at a discount to FTB

chewmylegoff

padington wrote: »

One effect could be thousands of first time buyers slam the breaks on buying now and instead wait for this 'free 20%' to come their way ...

You'd have to be pretty dumb to do that given that it is a vague pledge which hasn't been properly explained yet and is contingent on a conservative victory in the next election and that it might well be years before the first 'discounted' house is actually built and no one knows where these houses will actually be, how big they will be, how much they will cost, etc etc.

daveyjp

CLAPTON wrote: »

in general nonsense although there are some issues with old industrial sites


if they weren't viable then they would never be developed




99.99% of all building in London is on brown fill sites without any government subsidy; in fact with extra costs / levies and affordable housing' requirements thrown in


the problem with building in this country is government restrictions on building and mortgage constraints

London is a completely different market. Construction costs may be higher than the rest of the Country, but sales prices are much higher. If you can build for £100 sq ft and sell for £500 sq ft it leaves £400 sq ft for all other costs. Apartment living is also much more common. 500 flats in a 10 storey block needs much less land than 500 houses, so lower clean up costs for the site.

In other areas you may build for £80, but sell for only £200 sq ft. £120 a foot doesn't leave much if you are trying to build on a 1970s tip with low level radioactive waste to clear.

CLAPTON

daveyjp wrote: »

London is a completely different market. Construction costs may be higher than the rest of the Country, but sales prices are much higher. If you can build for £100 sq ft and sell for £500 sq ft it leaves £400 sq ft for all other costs. Apartment living is also much more common. 500 flats in a 10 storey block needs much less land than 500 houses, so lower clean up costs for the site.

In other areas you may build for £80, but sell for only £200 sq ft. £120 a foot doesn't leave much if you are trying to build on a 1970s tip with low level radioactive waste to clear.

obviously, in areas where land is cheap, there would be no economic value in developing land which is expensive to clean up, so it is irrelevant to the discussion

padington

chewmylegoff wrote: »

You'd have to be pretty dumb to do that given that it is a vague pledge which hasn't been properly explained yet and is contingent on a conservative victory in the next election and that it might well be years before the first 'discounted' house is actually built and no one knows where these houses will actually be, how big they will be, how much they will cost, etc etc.

People are constantly fooled by foolish nonsense though and when you've got the prime minster banging on about knock down prices which will be available soon, it's going to have an effect.

I also think people may subconsciously think whatever give-away the Tories offer, Labour may match it and some.

[EDIT] Looks like the HPC crowd are already getting excited about waiting 'another couple of years' ....

daveyjp

CLAPTON wrote: »

obviously, in areas where land is cheap, there would be no economic value in developing land which is expensive to clean up, so it is irrelevant to the discussion

Except many towns and cities don't have lots of cheap greenfield land for housebuilding. If a house costs £100 sq ft to build and £150 sq ft when sold the plot isn't worth much, so landowners have no incentive to sell.

In order to encourage housebuilding in low value areas you either need to allocate greenfield land for housing to increase its value, or put a lot more than 20% of the house value into cleaning up brownfield sites.

debonair

Is this the new policy that only helps people under forty years of age? Gee thanks.............

CLAPTON

daveyjp wrote: »

Except many towns and cities don't have lots of cheap greenfield land for housebuilding. If a house costs £100 sq ft to build and £150 sq ft when sold the plot isn't worth much, so landowners have no incentive to sell.

In order to encourage housebuilding in low value areas you either need to allocate greenfield land for housing to increase its value, or put a lot more than 20% of the house value into cleaning up brownfield sites.

I've no idea what you are saying


if there is no 'cheap' land about then one can reasonably deduce that houses are expensive and so the high price of 'greenfield' sites or brownfield sites can be financed.

daveyjp

What I am saying is land has a value and it is owned by somebody.

If it is too cheap owners won't sell. So the concept of "cheap" land doesn't exist as it is directly related to the end value of the property.

Would you sell you current house for £5,000?

IronWolf

I dont own a house, and live in London, so guess this would benefit people like me.

But I don't like it, this is addressing the symptoms, like taking a paracetemol for a bacterial infection. What you need to do is address the disease, with antibiotics.

(in other words - build more houses)

TonyMMM

Another daft way of providing a subsidy to prop up house values .... none of the politicians really want to admit the truth that prices need to be allowed (or even encouraged) to fall especially in the run up to an election