Right to buy: Housing Associations

Jason74

Prince of pounds,

thanks for the considered reply. The economic benefits of Social v private renting based on current laws are indeed facts. Where I've used assumptions, I've deliberately used numbers that are likely to be less "favourable" to social housing than the likely reality precisely to ensure than the numbers are sound. Figures like grant levels, build costs, and proportion of residents receiving HB are are all easily enough checked to confirm that they're accurate (which they are). I was also very specific that i was comparing to the "AST private rent model", as that is the main alternative to social housing that current exists.

In terms of planning being the other part of the equation I would agree with you. Relaxing planning laws (note relaxing rather than abolishing) would certainly have a role to play for the exact reasons you suggest.

But I don't believe for a minute that the Housing issue in this country will ever be solved without large scale public sector building. But there is little prospect of that happening any time soon, so about that at least you should be happy.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As for the 106 taxes. There was a trial not long back somewhere where they were removed. It made absolutely no difference to the price of the homes. All it made a difference to was the profit margin....and of course, the area suffered as there was no play area or buses serving the place.

Devon & Wotsthat builders are skilled in building houses. Are we really expected to lay on bus services as well?

Have you got a link to the trial you don't know much about, haven't read but know very clearly the conclusions? The housing minister told parliament the saving was equivalent to £15k per dwelling - it would be a scandal if you could prove the £15k went straight onto builders margins on a like for like basis.

ukcarper

wotsthat wrote: »

Devon & Wotsthat builders are skilled in building houses. Are we really expected to lay on bus services as well?

Have you got a link to the trial you don't know much about, haven't read but know very clearly the conclusions? The housing minister told parliament the saving was equivalent to £15k per dwelling - it would be a scandal if you could prove the £15k went straight onto builders margins on a like for like basis.

I think if it's a isolated green field site it is perfectly reasonable for builders to contribute to improving infrastructure associated with it especially as granting planning permission will increase the value of the land considerably.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

I think if it's a isolated green field site it is perfectly reasonable for builders to contribute to improving infrastructure associated with it especially as granting planning permission will increase the value of the land considerably.

builders don't pay anything to improve the infrastructure : the buyers of the properties (often FTB and struggling) pay twice ;
once in the price of their property and then via council tax for the next 40 years.

princeofpounds

All they stated was the cost benefit of each unit of social stock. That holds true whether you build 100 or 100,000.

That particular cost-benefit is analysis is just one possible construct of many. And the costs and benefits are directly affected by other government policies which the poster does not even bring into the analysis.


I think you miss my point, which is not that the analysis itself is especially wrong. I haven't actually gone through it that forensically, given it is no surprise that any kind of development is cheaper than paying market rental or price rates to house people. We all know that market housing is expensive because supply is artificially restricted.


But it totally fails to demonstrate that increased social housing is the right solution, or even a particularly good solution.


It's the logical equivalent of claiming that because someone is starving, we should feed them jelly babies. Yes, it has a calorific value that will help sustain life. But that doesn't mean it's a remotely optimal solution.

As for the 106 taxes. There was a trial not long back somewhere where they were removed. It made absolutely no difference to the price of the homes.

Just read that sentence back again, and think for a moment.


Of course it doesn't change the selling price of the homes. You would have to be the worst developer in the world to market homes like this. If you have the only property that can be built cheaply, why would you give the profit away?


Goods, including houses, generally sell at marginal cost (I simplify, but it's true enough for this case).


Removing indirect taxation only helps to lower overall selling prices if it is lowered for everyone, or at least a large enough proportion of participants for marginal cost to be affected.


If everyone has a property that can be built cheaply, everyone has to lower their prices to sell.


This is an utterly basic economic concept. If you don't get it, you need to get on the google machine and educate yourself.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

builders don't pay anything to improve the infrastructure : the buyers of the properties (often FTB and struggling) pay twice ;
once in the price of their property and then via council tax for the next 40 years.

Much to simplistic an argument and the infrastructure is required now not in the next 40 years. If you believe that if planning permission is granted on a green field that the price of properties built on that site would we reflect the price of that green field site I think you are living in a fantasy world, the increase in value would either go to owner or builder and the properties would sell for as much as the builder could get for them probably at a premium of properties being built in urban areas.

princeofpounds

We also funded ‘The Big LEAP’, a £100,000 Bronze Age themed playground.

You have to really love stuff like this. You couldn't parody it.

thanks for the considered reply. .....I was also very specific that i was comparing to the "AST private rent model", as that is the main alternative to social housing that current exists.

Jason, I should be thanking you for that considered reply. It was very nice in tone when I was being a bit waspish in style.


On reflection, if you were just comparing the two models, I have much less issue with the post. But I still think it's a crucial point that there are other models available, glad you realise that and I apologise for missing the nuance of your stance.

But I don't believe for a minute that the Housing issue in this country will ever be solved without large scale public sector building. But there is little prospect of that happening any time soon, so about that at least you should be happy.

I do hope for a solution that requires only minimal public build. I have to say I do think there is a case for a small amount of socially-built housing.


I am just eternally frustrated that the government stops people who can afford land and afford bricks from putting the two together and housing themselves with their own resources, then decides it needs to come along and solve the problem it created itself.


I know there are many disagreements about the role of government, but I would imagine we all mostly agree that it should facilitate the ability for people to provide for themselves the basic needs of life (food, water, warmth and shelter etc.).


I have always thought there was something borderline immoral about heavily restricting the ability of citizens to provide their own shelter.


(and no, that doesn't mean we can all build shanty-towns. I don't object to government oversight of planning, and especially building regulations, but I do think it should not be so restrictive)

wotsthat

ukcarper wrote: »

I think if it's a isolated green field site it is perfectly reasonable for builders to contribute to improving infrastructure associated with it especially as granting planning permission will increase the value of the land considerably.

The buyers pay not the builders.

Politicians don't have an issue with spending other people's money and, being good socialists, have even less of a problem spending the money of big business.

As they're not very far sighted they think extracting as much money from builders is a good thing. The reality is the opposite because the house buyers pay and there's even less accountability for the spending.

If infrastructure is going to be used for the next 100 years I don't quite see the argument why the first users of it should pay all of that cost upfront. That aside there's really no excuse for demanding that new inhabitants on an estate pay for things like a new sports centre which are for use of the entire community and unrelated to the direct infrastructure associated with their new house.

wotsthat

princeofpounds wrote: »

You have to really love stuff like this. You couldn't parody it.

It stops being funny after a while on this page..

https://www.taylorwimpey.co.uk/about-us/what-we-do/case-studies/community

we are contributing £50,000 to Test Valley Borough Council to fund a community travel plan co-ordinator.

Over £150,000 is being put towards the improvement of local cycleway / footpath connections to key destinations and we are providing new residents with £50 vouchers to go towards buying a bicycle or cycling equipment.

An art competition at St Matthew’s Primary School
Donation of construction toys to St Matthew’s Primary School

we will be giving Wychavon District Council £365,000 to go towards improving local public transport, cycle routes, education, recycling services and public open space.

It's a mystery to me why new houses are so expensive

ukcarper

wotsthat wrote: »

The buyers pay not the builders.

Politicians don't have an issue with spending other people's money and, being good socialists, have even less of a problem spending the money of big business.

As they're not very far sighted they think extracting as much money from builders is a good thing. The reality is the opposite because the house buyers pay and there's even less accountability for the spending.

If infrastructure is going to be used for the next 100 years I don't quite see the argument why the first users of it should pay all of that cost upfront. That aside there's really no excuse for demanding that new inhabitants on an estate pay for things like a new sports centre which are for use of the entire community and unrelated to the direct infrastructure associated with their new house.

Never said that extracting as much money from builders was a good thing, the increase of value from giving planning permission on green field sites is substantial I don't see why all of that should go into builders pockets which is what will happen if you think otherwise I believe you are mistaken.