Two thirds of private rental landlords will leave sector if Labour win

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Theres some truth in this.

But similarly, there are quite a few sites with planning permission that have not been built on. This is exactly why (I think it was Labour?) was looking into revoking the permission after 2 years if a certain percentage of the land has not been built upon.

Theres one near me, with 6 phases of development. Trouble is, only the first 2 phases were ever completed. The rest is simply on hold and has been or a good 2-3 years now.

So the land is there, but they don't want to flood the place with supply.

When you place profits into the equation, your suggestion isn't quite as simple as it may seem.

Obviously you will refuse to give me sufficient details to check out the full facts

but let's say the council rezones another 60 equivalent phases of land and allows other builders to develop

when you place profit in the equation there will be plenty of takers and lots of cheaper, better houses will be produced

it really is that simple.

stator

The Green Belt is a large problem, I agree, it should be scrapped and replaced with something more sensible.

But giving councils the power to build would solve the problem on all levels, land, planning, infrastructure. The councils are the only ones who can act in the true best interests of the city in question and use joined up thinking.

And your statistics about council houses might be a little misleading considering mose council housing departments have been converted into Housing Associations. But Tony Blair and Gordon Brown did not reintroduce council lead construction, they stuck with Maggie's model, so it's largely irrelevant anyway

CLAPTON

stator wrote: »

The Green Belt is a large problem, I agree, it should be scrapped and replaced with something more sensible.

But giving councils the power to build would solve the problem on all levels, land, planning, infrastructure. The councils are the only ones who can act in the true best interests of the city in question and use joined up thinking.

And your statistics about council houses might be a little misleading considering mose council housing departments have been converted into Housing Associations. But Tony Blair and Gordon Brown did not reintroduce council lead construction, they stuck with Maggie's model, so it's largely irrelevant anyway

presumably your model of the council acting in the true best interests of the city in question is demonstrated by the old Soviet Union or maybe Rotherham?

we need the council to give planning permission so that various builders can produce houses that suit peoples individual preferences.

chucknorris

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Theres some truth in this.

But similarly, there are quite a few sites with planning permission that have not been built on. This is exactly why (I think it was Labour?) was looking into revoking the permission after 2 years if a certain percentage of the land has not been built upon.

Theres one near me, with 6 phases of development. Trouble is, only the first 2 phases were ever completed. The rest is simply on hold and has been or a good 2-3 years now.

So the land is there, but they don't want to flood the place with supply.

When you place profits into the equation, your suggestion isn't quite as simple as it may seem.

I would love to build our own house, throughout the years I have looked into it, but getting that building plot is always the stumbling block. Now that I am married and comprise on location/other factors is proving to be another hurdle, so that dream seems a bit further away, last year I found what I thought was a great plot, but my wife didn't like it because she thought that it was too near a main road. Then I realised my dream had just got a little further away from me.

But I have often wondered if getting planning permission is far easier if you accept that the local planners will probably reject you, then move on to appeal the decision (probably cost a bit to do this), where non local planners decide (and are not accountable to local residents).

Another strategy I am considering is take my wife's opinion out of the equation, by this I mean don't build our own home, build a house to sell. The advantage of this would be that I advance up the learning curve before eventually (if ever) finding that elusive building plot for us. It might also be something good and useful to do in my probable forthcoming retirement.

antrobus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

...But similarly, there are quite a few sites with planning permission that have not been built on. ....

That does not appear to be the case according to all the research into the issue. Such as the LGA's 'An analysis of unimplemented planning permissions for residential dwellings 2013
http://www.local.gov.uk/documents/10180/11831/Unimplemented+planning+permissions+analysis/efb571d3-c869-4199-aaec-234f71eef76d

In any event, planning permission expires after three years.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

....This is exactly why (I think it was Labour?) was looking into revoking the permission after 2 years if a certain percentage of the land has not been built upon....

No, that's just Ed Miliband getting desperate after blowing a 15% lead in the polls.:)

Graham_Devon wrote: »

.... Theres one near me, with 6 phases of development. Trouble is, only the first 2 phases were ever completed. The rest is simply on hold and has been or a good 2-3 years now. ....

Anecdotally that is bound to be the case. There are lots of reasons why projects fail. If you can identify the site concerned, it is possible that Google will supply the answer.

antrobus

stator wrote: »

...And your statistics about council houses might be a little misleading considering mose council housing departments have been converted into Housing Associations....

So you want HA data included as well?:)

Thatcher (1980-1989) built 540,810 council and HA houses. Blair (1998-2007) built 228,800 ccouncil and HA houses. So taking into account the relative demographics; UK population growth of 800k under Thatcher, compared to more like 2.4 million under Blair, Thatcher completed seven times what Blair managed.

stator wrote: »

.... But Tony Blair and Gordon Brown did not reintroduce council lead construction, they stuck with Maggie's model, so it's largely irrelevant anyway

That's right everything that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown did was really Thatcher's fault. :rotfl:

stator

antrobus wrote: »

So you want HA data included as well?:)

Thatcher (1980-1989) built 540,810 council and HA houses. Blair (1998-2007) built 228,800 ccouncil and HA houses. So taking into account the relative demographics; UK population growth of 800k under Thatcher, compared to more like 2.4 million under Blair, Thatcher completed seven times what Blair managed.



That's right everything that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown did was really Thatcher's fault. :rotfl:

I don't know why you keep deliberately misunderstanding what I said.
I blaim Thatcher, Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron equally for failing to build enough houses. It just so happens that Thatcher was the one who came up with the idea and pushed it through for ill thought out idealogical reasons

CLAPTON

stator wrote: »

I don't know why you keep deliberately misunderstanding what I said.
I blaim Thatcher, Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron equally for failing to build enough houses. It just so happens that Thatcher was the one who came up with the idea and pushed it through for ill thought out idealogical reasons

Strange that you have such confidence in the state's ability to act in the best interest of all the people and yet you blame Thatcher, Blair, Brown, Cameron equally.

stator

Not in the interests of all the people, in the best interests of the city. We need more houses, the private sector isn't building enough and has never been able to build enough. Building houses is something councils can do and have done successfully in the past. The solution is obvious.

antrobus

stator wrote: »

I don't know why you keep deliberately misunderstanding what I said.....

So when you posted;

stator wrote: »

....Maggies experiment of leaving the free market alone has failed to produce the number of houses needed,...

We were all supposed to guess that by 'Maggie' you didn't mean Thatcher, you meant every PM since 1979?:)

stator wrote: »

...I blaim Thatcher, Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron equally for failing to build enough houses. ....

But yet the statistics I have quoted show that the failure to "build enough houses" was far more acute under Blair than Thatcher.

And it's not really that fair to blame Brown. At least when he got to Number 10 he recognised there was a problem, and promised to build 3m additional homes by 2020. Now granted, that was still below the level that Thatcher managed, and granted he never actually managed to get anything done after his much-vaunted British Economic Miracle blew up in his face. But at least he had the right intentions.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/jul/11/gordonbrown.labour1

stator wrote: »

....It just so happens that Thatcher was the one who came up with the idea and pushed it through for ill thought out idealogical reasons

Thatcher had the idea of not building houses? Who knew?