Planning permission not the hold up to building houses

mwpt

cells wrote: »

builders need a stock of a couple of years of permission to have a viable business they can not complete one project and then fire everyone until the next permission is gained. Also a lot of the larger projects receive planning permission but its takes a long time to get a final yes it might be due to revisions or various conditions (eg environmental searches that might take months)

Also some planning permission is worthless whereby the build costs is more than the final worth of the house.

There is however a clear and easy way to prove that planning permission is a huge factor in build rates. You look at the data on a council basis not on a national one. So look up all the councils look up how many permissions they have given over the last 10 years and how many homes were built over the last 10 years. You will find a very strong correlation (I did it for 5 councils and its pretty clear councils that issue more stamps see more building). How can it be anything else? The builders cant build more than the issued stamps its beedin obvious

When you did this did you have any figures on requested vs denied vs approved?

cells

mwpt wrote: »

Aren't you contradicting yourself? If mortgage availability is the problem, then why with the same availability are prices falling in one area but rising in another? Could you point out where I said anything about supply and demand? Could you explain how you believe that mortgages are being rationed too strictly at the moment, with specifics on what isn't available?

Can you elaborate on build completions since the 90s and the availability of mortgages since that period? You seem to be focussing on data that suits your view since 2008ish.

the uk has gone too far in restricting and making lower deposits more expensive resulting in less transactions and a fall in ownership and new builds

there should be competitively priced 90% mortgages (so the regulators need to reduce the risk factor and capital banks need to hold for 90% mortgages)

There should be a return of interest only mortgages for those that want them. Its stupid that a borrower can remortgage every 2 years and take out the capital and the mortgage is for all intents an IO mortgage. So IO availability for those that want it maybe restricting it to repayment for borrowers in the 55-65 age group.

Mortgages should be ok to write upto age 70 not 65

And perhaps most controversially a borrower should have the option to use either their income for the loan or the rental value for the property (with 20% down in that instance).

Self cert (in that just ticking the box 'I am confident I can make the payments' rather than producing fake payslips) should return for anyone who can put 20% down.


all of the above would result in ownership going up and build rates improving a little. It would of course also push prices up somewhat but its either that or a falling ownership sector

cells

mwpt wrote: »

When you did this did you have any figures on requested vs denied vs approved?

No I only looked for how many were approved (from the local plan) and how many were built (from the ONS data set) and it was extremely clear that the councils that issued more stamps build more homes. Surprisingly there was no correlation to price (my sample set was small). What that means is that a council like in Telford where prices are very cheap did see a lot of building even though prices were cheap. Councils like Waltham forest where prices are much higher saw much less building. The difference in all cases was the stamps issued.

Mortgages are the same banks are the same building materials and designs are the same (or similar) and wages are similar.


It takes a huge amount of time to go through each councils local plans to see how many have been approved.

The councils should be forced to submit to a central government database the number of approvals each month and the number of completed builds each month. If that was done it would be easy for the government to monitor the councils and their performances and kick them up the bum when not performing well

princeofpounds

Also a lot of the larger projects receive planning permission but its takes a long time to get a final yes it might be due to revisions or various conditions (eg environmental searches that might take months)

I forgot to mention this. Yes, you mustn't forget the newt resettlement projects (only possible for a few months in summer) and similar conditions.

When you did this did you have any figures on requested vs denied vs approved?

Actually the biggest problem is not in the approval rate (which on the face of it is not terrible) - developers have some sense of what is likely to get through (planning staff aren't generally deceptive, although councillors can often be).


It's in all the applications that are never made, because of the arbitrary criteria.


It costs time and money to apply!


The system doesn't work like there is a set of standards and anything that meets them is passed. Councils have Stalinist plans predicting the amount of housing demand in their areas (you get ridiculous things like 'in 2027, we will need 23 four bed houses in this ward')... as if they ever know.


So, if the government quotas and council plan quotas are met for a year, you might as well not bother applying until the following year if your development is remotely contested (favoured small developments might get through, such things are described as 'windfall' housing).


That's not the only issue, just an example that the throttling effect applies not just to what you can see in the numbers, but also what you can't.

princeofpounds

The councils should be forced to submit to a central government database the number of approvals each month and the number of completed builds each month. If that was done it would be easy for the government to monitor the councils and their performances and kick them up the bum when not performing well

Actually they do indeed do that. The situation got a bit better a couple of years back when the central government started linking funding to meeting a minimum quota. But those quotas still get treated as targets rather than minimum thresholds.

mwpt

cells wrote: »

the uk has gone too far in restricting and making lower deposits more expensive resulting in less transactions and a fall in ownership and new builds

there should be competitively priced 90% mortgages (so the regulators need to reduce the risk factor and capital banks need to hold for 90% mortgages)

Disagree. There are 95% and 90% product available that are the cheapest they've ever been. Prices are just too high for these to be affordable on wages.

There should be a return of interest only mortgages for those that want them. Its stupid that a borrower can remortgage every 2 years and take out the capital and the mortgage is for all intents an IO mortgage. So IO availability for those that want it maybe restricting it to repayment for borrowers in the 55-65 age group.

Disagree. It will push prices up further, so they just become unaffordable again. Also increases financial risk. IO is stupid.

Mortgages should be ok to write upto age 70 not 65

Agree.

And perhaps most controversially a borrower should have the option to use either their income for the loan or the rental value for the property (with 20% down in that instance).

Disagree. It will inflate asset prices.

Self cert (in that just ticking the box 'I am confident I can make the payments' rather than producing fake payslips) should return for anyone who can put 20% down.

Disagree. Self cert encouraged liar loans, financial risk, and resulted in inflated asset prices.

all of the above would result in ownership going up and build rates improving a little. It would of course also push prices up somewhat but its either that or a falling ownership sector

All of your measures seem designed by someone who already owns a house, or lots of houses. We don't need more asset price inflation, we need sensible lending to restrict credit driven demand inflation, and more building.

stator

princeofpounds wrote: »

arghhh no!


Why on earth would you let a bureaucracy erect barriers to people building their own homes, and then fund even more bureaucracy to overcome those very same barriers?


The state has been consistently responsible for some of the worst housing ever imposed on this country (apart from the minimum room sizes and the playground provided for the addicts to smoke weed).


I do agree however that the question has to change from 'can you build' to 'where can you build'. But that is a question of zoning in the master development plans, not planning permission.

Council's built some excellent housing. Ignoring the steel frame housing, which was a unique post war solution to problems with skills and materials in the country; the councils built much better housing than what came before. I live in a tiny late victorian terrace, it has damp issues and is very cold due to the cheap way it was built. Most victorian terraces have virtually no gardens and are often built on stupidly steep hills.
Modern privately built houses have so little space it's disgusting and vitaully no gardens. It's amazing that we have some of the smallest houses in europe, but also the most expensive houses in europe.

Anyway I wasn't advocating councils actually building houses, but they certainly know how to design an estate better than private builders do. Modern estates are all dead end, in the tree root or branch layout, absolutely no through roads. Because of this design they can't have a bus service and even walking becomes arduos, so everyone ends up driving every where. There are no communities, just neighbours all squished in and getting in each other's way.

mwpt

princeofpounds wrote: »

So, if the government quotas and council plan quotas are met for a year, you might as well not bother applying until the following year if your development is remotely contested (favoured small developments might get through, such things are described as 'windfall' housing).

Again interesting. Do you know anything about finding "hidden" land that I may be able to obtain and build, inside London? Particularly land that may be held by the council on which I could obtain residential planning permission? I'm wondering, with the increased scrutiny on this you may be able to apply some leverage and coerce a sale?

The nearest empty plot to me, available for sale, is about the size of my current plot, but is selling for ~£600k, which is a lot more than what I could sell my house for.

CLAPTON

stator wrote: »

Anyway I wasn't advocating councils actually building houses, but they certainly know how to design an estate better than private builders do. Modern estates are all dead end, in the tree root or branch layout, absolutely no through roads. Because of this design they can't have a bus service and even walking becomes arduos, so everyone ends up driving every where. There are no communities, just neighbours all squished in and getting in each other's way.

why do lack of through roads lead to no communities ?
are you saying it communities would be better if all the roads were busy noisy through roads?

cells

mwpt wrote: »

Disagree. There are 95% and 90% product available that are the cheapest they've ever been. Prices are just too high for these to be affordable on wages.



Disagree. It will push prices up further, so they just become unaffordable again. Also increases financial risk. IO is stupid.



Agree.



Disagree. It will inflate asset prices.



Disagree. Self cert encouraged liar loans, financial risk, and resulted in inflated asset prices.



All of your measures seem designed by someone who already owns a house, or lots of houses. We don't need more asset price inflation, we need sensible lending to restrict credit driven demand inflation, and more building.

you have a choice,

restrict lending in which case ownership levels will fall and maybe prices will be marginally lower and also build rates will be marginally lower

Dont restrict lending and prices will be marginal higher and so will ownership

I think the difference in those two roads is going to be about 10% of the stock or nearly 3 million units. So your option is going to see 3 million more rental households than otherwise would be imo