Can you argue against the greens?

CLAPTON

princeofpounds wrote: »

But I have no object to, for example, councils specifying the quality of roads they will end up adopting to match those already in existence, perhaps ordering the installation of a bus shelter on a large development, etc.

It's an interesting point.

One wonders what would be the reaction if Tescos built a new supermarket and charged the customers of the new Tesco extra, over the price at older Tescos, to pay for its building cost.

Councils get extra revenue from new houses via council tax just like Tescos get new sales.

The difference is one is a state monopoly with control of planning and the other has to compete in the market place.


We need to encourage new building and not discourage it.

Cornucopia

This policy area shows the strain of a fundamental dichotomy for the Greens. On the one hand, they don't want development - not of houses or anything else. On the other, they have to respond as much as any other party to the realities regarding the demand for housing.

Add in their softer stance on immigration, and there is a contradictory combination of factors.

The problem that I have with the Greens, is not so much that I can find fault with any one policy, but that the overall effect is not well thought-out.

princeofpounds

One wonders what would be the reaction if Tescos built a new supermarket and charged the customers extra to pay for the building cost.

They do actually. It's called profits (or at least the portion of profits which are reinvested as capital expenditure).



It's one of the things that people never understand when they decry large corporate profits. They don't understand that this is where the money to invest actually comes from ultimately, retained profits over time.

Councils get extra revenue from new houses via council tax just like Tescos get new sales.

That's true. There are multiple ways to think about the 'burden' of new settlement adoption on local public services. The simplest may well be to regard it as an ongoing cost that just needs to be met out of general taxation.


I just mentioned this aspect because I don't want people to think I believe we should subsidise construction, any more than we should tax it above and beyond normal business taxation.

The difference is one is a state monopoly with control of planning and the other has to compete in the market place.


We need to encourage new building and not discourage it.

absolutely.

CLAPTON

princeofpounds wrote: »

They do actually. It's called profits (or at least the portion of profits which are reinvested as capital expenditure).



It's one of the things that people never understand when they decry large corporate profits. They don't understand that this is where the money to invest actually comes from ultimately, retained profits over time.




That's true. There are multiple ways to think about the 'burden' of new settlement adoption on local public services. The simplest may well be to regard it as an ongoing cost that just needs to be met out of general taxation.


I just mentioned this aspect because I don't want people to think I believe we should subsidise construction, any more than we should tax it above and beyond normal business taxation.




absolutely.

we are in agreement here I think

However my point was about the reaction if the 'new' Tesco charged higher prices than pre-existing Tescos to directly recover the cost of construction. I have amended by post to clarify that

the_flying_pig

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays wrote: »

...Back to the OP, as stated above, the solution is simple and cheap - relax planning restrictions...

"simple"? I doubt that. five PMs have had the chance to have a crack at the problem without even a sliver of success.


thatcher failed to get the private building sector to compensate for even a smidgen of the huge lost output [and to be fair she was the person who did the losing] of the state sector in her 2.5 terms.
major failed in his 1.5 terms.
blair failed in his 2.5 terms.
brown failed in his 0.5 terms.
cameron has failed in his 1 term.




do you see a pattern there? thirty years and more of uninterrupted failure.


UK planning rules might [I don't know] be unusual by international standards, but so is our pitiful lack of social housing output.

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

the_flying_pig wrote: »

"simple"? I doubt that. five PMs have had the chance to have a crack at the problem without even a sliver of success.


thatcher failed to get the private building sector to compensate for even a smidgen of the huge lost output [and to be fair she was the person who did the losing] of the state sector in her 2.5 terms.
major failed in his 1.5 terms.
blair failed in his 2.5 terms.
brown failed in his 0.5 terms.
cameron has failed in his 1 term.




do you see a pattern there? thirty years and more of uninterrupted failure.


UK planning rules might [I don't know] be unusual by international standards, but so is our pitiful lack of social housing output.

:rotfl:

You're assuming our recent rulers have had any interest in solving it! Most of them are up to their ears in BTL! - they are perfectly comfortable with the current land banking driven rampant house price inflation.

In any other industry the planning restrictions would be considered an unfair barrier to trade. Of course it would be simple to remove them - there just isn't the will to do so - most people have far too much to lose if HPI isn't maintained.

Cyberman60

No need to argue against them, just ignore them... :beer:

Jason74

the_flying_pig wrote: »

do you see a pattern there? thirty years and more of uninterrupted failure.


UK planning rules might [I don't know] be unusual by international standards, but so is our pitiful lack of social housing output.

To be fair, I think that people are suggesting that the "thirty years and more of uninterrupted failure" in housebuilding and our "unusual" planning system may be linked. Personally, I don't think its anything like the whole story, but it's hard to argue that it's not at least a factor.

Cornucopia

I'm sure planning is a factor, but I can't believe it's beyond the wit of a Government to legislate specifically that a particular ex-military base, or derelict factory site should be immediately subject to "open planning consent" for housing. Perhaps, they could have a framework piece of legislation, and slot sites into it on an on-going basis using a Statutory Instrument.

In fact, if it were me, I'd probably run it as an auction - sell it off, and get it built.

antrobus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

...At no point over the last 60 years have private builders built the amount of homes we have needed. We've incentivised them time and time again, but te amount they build, over the long term, is pretty much static. ...

That's because, as has been pointed out before, the last Labour government decided that we needed to build 200,000 homes a year, and used the planning system to ensure that number got built.

I don't see how you can blame 'private builders' for doing exactly what was asked of them by the government.

the_flying_pig wrote: »

....thatcher failed to get the private building sector to compensate for even a smidgen of the huge lost output [and to be fair she was the person who did the losing] of the state sector in her 2.5 terms.....

What are you on about?

Between 1981 and 1991 (roughly the time that Mrs T was about) the UK population grew by 1.09 million and we built 2.1 million houses. That's almost 2 new houses for each extra person. How is that not enough?