Planning changes to encourage new builds

cells

michaels wrote: »

Doesn't the infrastructure arguement suggest it would be wise to choose a site on a railway line less than an hour from London and build a large town / small city and all the required infrastructure. The value of the 'planning gain' would no doubt be more than enough to pay for the required infrastructure.

New towns are needed (and a few of the existing 'new towns' like Telford could take lots more new homes)

The infrastructure argument is mostly misplaced anger at the state not providing its monopoly services sufficiently adequately. New development is never slated for not incorporating sufficient retail or commercial or warehousing floorspace as those are provided by the private sector.

Instead of asking developers to build a free school for the council, if its deemed a school is needed the council should pay the developer to build a school within the development

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

You are advocating building on green fields the planning permission for that would increase the value of that land considerably I see no reason why some of the increase cannot be used to improve infrastructure.

Lets pretend you live in a 100 year old house for a moment...

did your house contribute to airports? No
did your house contribute to the power stations. No
did your house contribute to the roads. No
did your house contribute to the railways. No
did your house contribute to the schools. No
Your house did not contribute to any infrastructure

Then what authority or moral or logical argument do you have for putting infrastructure costs onto new homes when your own home paid not any?

---

My argument is that if infrastructure is needed. All homes existing and new should pay for it equally. Aka infrastructure should (and it mostly does) come from general taxation.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

You are advocating building on green fields the planning permission for that would increase the value of that land considerably I see no reason why some of the increase cannot be used to improve infrastructure.

The planning gain is due to an insufficient number of stamps issued. If there was a sufficient number the planning gain would be far far more modest

you can actually see this in action. Look at the planning gain in Telford (which issues about 3x more planning stamps per capita than England). Its very modest. On the other hand look at Kensington which issues closer to zero and the planning gain per acre runs at over £100m/acre

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

Lets pretend you live in a 100 year old house for a moment...

did your house contribute to airports? No
did your house contribute to the power stations. No
did your house contribute to the roads. No
did your house contribute to the railways. No
did your house contribute to the schools. No
Your house did not contribute to any infrastructure

Then what authority or moral or logical argument do you have for putting infrastructure costs onto new homes when your own home paid not any?

---

My argument is that if infrastructure is needed. All homes existing and new should pay for it equally. Aka infrastructure should (and it mostly does) come from general taxation.

My house isn't 100 years old and there have been levies on new developments for some time. Who do you think should profit from the big increase in the the value of the land when planning permission is granted.

buglawton

cells wrote: »

House building being 120k a year instead of 430k a year in the UK costs us at least £75B in GDP directly and then some indirectly

Its the single most important and effective way we could boost GDP/Taxes/Jobs/Productivity

Electrify a fekin rail line saves us close to nothing. A little fuel saving in return for much higher capital costs. Akin to swapping your mid age ford for a new Tesla.

Heathrow should be moved to Boris island to effectively allow a new borough to be built in its place. Can house 200-250k people there

Hong Kong moved it's main airport from the city to a coastal spot and carried it off with aplomb. It was built in 6 years and is now the world's busiest cargo gateway and one of the world's busiest passenger airports. Designed by a British firm of architects and overseen by the BAA. Berlin similarly moved it's cramped airport to a better location.

Cameron bleats that by year X the UK will be the richest per capita country in the world etc. Ain't gonna happen anytime soon if the Tories can't grow a set of real planning policy balls. Boris for PM anyone?

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

My house isn't 100 years old and there have been levies on new developments for some time. Who do you think should profit from the big increase in the the value of the land when planning permission is granted.

It doesn't matter if your house is 1000 years old or 1 day old the point is there is no logical reason why infrastructure should be levied onto new builds especially since it wasn't onto most existing builds ( there has been some levies for a while now but they are often very modest (eg a fee hundred pounds a house) however things have got progressively worse and some councils now demand tens of thousands of pounds per house. Thats fine with me so long as every existing house is also charged the same say £20k (if an existing house has already paid £600 two decades ago they van be invoiced the difference.)

Actually lets do that. Invoice all existing and new homes £20k to be used for infrastructure. That would be fair. Hope you got a spare £20k


as for who should gain in planning uplift. There needs to be a modest gain for developers to take into account the cost and risk and time. But what needs to happen is that about 600,000 stamps need to be given out a year which will crush plannig gain to the £5-10k per house region rather than the £50k to £1+m region

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

It doesn't matter if your house is 1000 years old or 1 day old the point is there is no logical reason why infrastructure should be levied onto new builds especially since it wasn't onto most existing builds ( there has been some levies for a while now but they are often very modest (eg a fee hundred pounds a house) however things have got progressively worse and some councils now demand tens of thousands of pounds per house. Thats fine with me so long as every existing house is also charged the same say £20k (if an existing house has already paid £600 two decades ago they van be invoiced the difference.)

Actually lets do that. Invoice all existing and new homes £20k to be used for infrastructure. That would be fair. Hope you got a spare £20k


as for who should gain in planning uplift. There needs to be a modest gain for developers to take into account the cost and risk and time. But what needs to happen is that about 600,000 stamps need to be given out a year which will crush plannig gain to the £5-10k per house region rather than the £50k to £1+m region

You can give out 600,000 stamps a year but there is no way that they will all be built.

ukcarper

buglawton wrote: »

Hong Kong moved it's main airport from the city to a coastal spot and carried it off with aplomb. It was built in 6 years and is now the world's busiest cargo gateway and one of the world's busiest passenger airports. Designed by a British firm of architects and overseen by the BAA. Berlin similarly moved it's cramped airport to a better location.

Cameron bleats that by year X the UK will be the richest per capita country in the world etc. Ain't gonna happen anytime soon if the Tories can't grow a set of real planning policy balls. Boris for PM anyone?

I agree what is needed is a proper plan but damming the thames with a concrete block is a non starter.

Gavin234

Mallotum_X wrote: »

More

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33472405

It's got tone a good thing all round, the way planning keeps getting easier and easier, soon the gov will be giving incentives to build more homes

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

You can give out 600,000 stamps a year but there is no way that they w built.

It is normal that one third will not be built so 400,000 of the 600,000 will be built