Right to buy: Housing Associations

ukcarper

wotsthat wrote: »

If someone profits enormously by the simple fact of granting planning that can be solved with less complexity and cost in the planning system.

Farmers don't have to pay for infrastructure to support any houses on land that the next owner may or may not build so easing planning isn't going to affect infrastructure spending either way. If you think not enough is spent on infrastructure that's a different problem requiring a different solution.





Supply and demand aren't independent of other factors like cost. If costs are lower and there's competition then assuming everything else is equal selling prices will fall. Obviously there's no chance of prices ever fall sufficiently to allow everybody to buy. Currently I'd say it's almost fantastical to hope for closer links between HPI and general inflation.

I can't see the private sector being let loose and I can't see the taxpayer ever being duped into building a ton of council houses again so it's moot anyway. We might need to get used to more of the same for a while before anything changes.

I don't think simplifying planning on its own would do much to solve the problem of large profit being made when planning is granted on green fields.

If you build 4000 houses next to a small village the infrastructure will have to be built and I see no reason why some of that shouldn't be built into cost of building estate.

As I said prices will fall but not enough (perhaps I should say not enough in the more expensive areas I could see it being effective in marginal cases)

I also think its mute as I cant see council housing being built in large numbers or the private builder being given a free hand and I'm not convinced if they were they would increase the amount they build drastically.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I can't even figure out what you just said.

think about it
the house provides a service to its residents throughout its live time (people-years ) irrespective if owned by the state or a single or succession of owner/renter

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

I don't think simplifying planning on its own would do much to solve the problem of large profit being made when planning is granted on green fields.

If you build 4000 houses next to a small village the infrastructure will have to be built and I see no reason why some of that shouldn't be built into cost of building estate.

As I said prices will fall but not enough (perhaps I should say not enough in the more expensive areas I could see it being effective in marginal cases)

I also think its mute as I cant see council housing being built in large numbers or the private builder being given a free hand and I'm not convinced if they were they would increase the amount they build drastically.

the profit made by landowners when planning permission is
granted should be directly taxed for the benefit of the local people (say a 50% level on the gain would be reasonable)

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

the profit made by landowners when planning permission is
granted should be directly taxed for the benefit of the local people (say a 50% level on the gain would be reasonable)

Got to say for once you've come up with something I can agree with. Provided that tax is given to local council and ringfenced for new infrastructure.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

Got to say for once you've come up with something I can agree with. Provided that tax is given to local council and ringfenced for new infrastructure.

there may be no pressing need for new infrastructure but maybe there are urgent needs to repair the local roads and school.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

there may be no pressing need for new infrastructure but maybe there are urgent needs to repair the local roads and school.

G
Fair enough infrastructure in general but the majority of large developments will need new or at least improved infrastructure.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

the profit made by landowners when planning permission is
granted should be directly taxed for the benefit of the local people (say a 50% level on the gain would be reasonable)

surely it is taxed at 28% CGT

more importantly, if the councils gave out a quota of 600,000 a year (which would result in ~400,000 a year built) that would mean there would not be much of a gain from agri to resi beyond the cost of the paperwork and time

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

Got to say for once you've come up with something I can agree with. Provided that tax is given to local council and ringfenced for new infrastructure.

the idea itself is a problem

it causes the want/need for there to be a massive planning gain

why would the council flood the system with a high quota and cause the gain to go towards zero and hence get no money to spend on their bonuses?

The quota needs to be high enough that there isnt much of a gain to be made. not for the quota to be low to cause gain so the local !!!!! council can take its cut

wotsthat

cells wrote: »

surely it is taxed at 28% CGT

more importantly, if the councils gave out a quota of 600,000 a year (which would result in ~400,000 a year built) that would mean there would not be much of a gain from agri to resi beyond the cost of the paperwork and time

If the gain is much reduced (which I would expect) and taxed anyway it might reduce the availability of land for sale. As the capital gain reduces it's more likely the land won't be sold in favour of the yield (from planting crops etc).

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

G
Fair enough infrastructure in general but the majority of large developments will need new or at least improved infrastructure.

there is no need to micro manage the situation : just a tax being paid to the local council to be used as the democratically elected council decides.