Housing Shortage Worsening - Another million homes needed in just 10 years....

cells

missbiggles1 wrote: »

irectlyhy can't local directly employ the tradesprbuild houses? Why subcontact to the private sector making building costs higher and workers lower paid?

They can and sometimes they do open up limited companies owned by the council to try and provide a service themselves rather than go to the private sector.

And sometimes they are successful but often they are not because the council staff have no experience in the business that they are trying to do.

it might be better for them to buy a small builder and try to use that group to expand and do it themselves....... but then again do you want the council to do this knowing that if they fail (and most new business do) tjat your council tax will have to go up due to their failure and incompetence?


Also you can aoply your argument to 'why don't the council do it' to eber single lart of the economy. Why buy bricks why dint the council open a brick factory. Why buy bread why don't the council open up a bakery m why buy milk for schools why dont the council buy a herd of cows.....

CLAPTON

I add this as an anecdotal but true statement.

Chatting to a MD of a smallish midlands based construction firm, he told me they are constrained only by labour.

They had plenty of demand, plenty of land, materials were available (brick shortage much exaggerated), enough funding but skilled labour was the problem.

His view was that too many retired or found alternative work after 2007/8 and there were very few new entrants and no training.

May not apply elsewhere and I have no idea how widespread the problem is.

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Sorry, your muffling with your head so far up your own derriere.

As you know far better than everyone else. Could you tell me how axing plots (real world example) sits hand in hand with your theory that there isn't enough planning permission available?

You may well have contributed to the Lyons Review. But that doesn't nullify the findings of the collective contributors. What I quoted was one of the findings of said review. That doesn;t mean I know less than I think I do. It just means that's one of the conclusions of the review - like it or not.

You've ignored a gift from me to help you figure out the problems yourself

why/how is it that different councils have such a huge variation in build rates?

Its unlikely to be the private sector (aka the evil builders) because they follow the same (definitely evil) handbook to maximise profits

its not the construction methods or materials as the new builds in one council are often nit that different from another.

Its not the labor rates which are similar virtually everywhere in England

Its not the cost of regulation as you need to work to the same building regs


So what explains the huge range the difference in building? How are some councils able to build 5x more than others?

princeofpounds

Why can't local authorities directly employ the tradesman to build houses? Why subcontact to the private sector making building costs higher and workers lower paid?

Ah yes, because the economy is managed *so* much better by governments, and that is why command economies are so successful... sigh.

kabayiri

princeofpounds wrote: »

Ah yes, because the economy is managed *so* much better by governments, and that is why command economies are so successful... sigh.

Generally, I'd agree with this, but it seems Shropshire council have been making good use of Right to Build scheme.

http://www.self-build.co.uk/right-to-build

I think a cooperative approach can work at a local level.

The problem we have in areas of high land value is NIMBYism. This is essentially selfish behaviour. You see people complaining about the destruction of their picturesque village in affluent Kent, yet they are equally vocal about the lack of opportunities for their offspring! They don't see the links.

princeofpounds

Generally, I'd agree with this, but it seems Shropshire council have been making good use of Right to Build scheme.

I've not looked into this scheme.


I do quite like the idea that councils should be forced to take account of people who want to build their own home. As currently planning takes no notice of such needs.


I don't think it relates to my comment however - I was pointing out that a council owning a building company is a pretty dumb idea. I have no problem with them running schemes like the above (although I wish they were more a general principle than an ad-hoc scheme).

kabayiri

I agree that councils don't need to own building companies.

That said, there just isn't the same housing pressure where I live compared to say London. I will readily concede the idea of giving much more power to local authorities to make housing decisions in the best interest of that area.

princeofpounds

I will readily concede the idea of giving much more power to local authorities to make housing decisions in the best interest of that area.

I also have no problem with localism. Even 'very-localism'. Locals generally do know where it would be best to put new building (not just houses - you would be amazed at how centrally-planned even things like basic local shops and light industrial units are).


But it has to be something other than just 'not here please'.


I trust locals with the 'where', but not the 'how much'.

cells

Generali wrote: »

$58k if you want a single garage too.

That includes the cladding, kitchen, bathroom, plumbing, tiling, electrics and will be provided to local council specification (different councils have different rules about things like bush fires).

One of my councils charge £225 per square meter for a CIL tax

That is £56k for a CIL tax for your example 2500sqft house before you lay a brick. Add £1k for a DIY planning application and you are at £57k before you buy your first brick

Short term planning needs to be fixed so nationwide 600,000 plots are given a stamp per year (of which ~400,000 will be built and 200,000 wont). Longer term construction costs need to fall, that includes the ridiculous CIL taxes but also maybe things like needlessly excessive regulations (eg foundations have to be a good deal deeper and thicker than there were for homes that have been standing for 100 years adding to materials and labour costs)

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

A development around 10 miles from me has just had phase 2 and 3 axed. 90 plots in total. 32 were completed. The demand is huge. But they still axed phase 2 and 3 of the build.

They had the permission, they had the land. They had the sales. The demand is huge.

Point is, they had built what they wanted to. They had built what was most profitable on the prime land. The 4-5 bed detached places. They will now move off somewhere else leaving the somewhat obligatory roads to nowhere and do the very same thing.

If I'm a builder I've probably sourced the land with an option to buy which has a cost. I've spent thousands in costs and the obligatory bribes to the council to gain planning. At this point I've sunk a load of capital into buying the land and despite massive demand with plenty of willing buyers I've only built on 32 of the 90 plots and walked away with barrow loads of money.

It doesn't pass the sniff test. If you look at the builders accounts you'll see their profit per house. Just multiply it by 32 and you'll realise there simply has to be more to it.