More Social Cleansing from Dave

setmefree2

cells wrote: »

London does not need to go to 0 social homes, however currently some inner London boroughs are 40% social homes. That really should drop towards 15%

Zac Goldsmith: London social housing percentage unusually high

http://www.24dash.com/news/housing/2016-01-08-Zac-Goldsmith-London-social-housing-percentage-unusually-high

He particularly mentions Camden

Speaking to the Camden New Journal, he said housing stock in Camden needs to be “rejigged” in order to allow a greater number of young people to get a foothold on the housing ladder in the borough.
When asked about the potential loss of social housing, he said London’s percentage of social housing is unusually high, with the balance needing to be “rejigged” in order to increase the amount of homes available for “those in the middle.”
He said: “We have to find a way to cater to people across the whole income spectrum and I don’t think we are doing that. You have social housing and you have the open market stuff and there isn’t nearly enough in-between.”
It was announced that in the capital, as part of the new RTB policy, receipts from sales would be used to build two affordable homes elsewhere.
But during a visit to a housing project in Gospel Oak, Mr Goldsmith said it would be hard for the replacements for homes lost in Camden to be built in the borough.
He said: “It’s really difficult. When you’re looking at places like Kensington and Chelsea or Westminster it’s really difficult to do that – it’s a mathematical obstacle.”

The details of the deal are to emerge after talks with councils, although in Camden it is estimated that 40% of council homes could be sold off in order to pay for the extension of RTB to HAs.

CLAPTON

lisyloo wrote: »

They do build of course, but they keep supply low to keep prices high.
The government could change this by taxing land not built on after a certain period, perhaps on a sliding scale.
Some call this type of tax theft, but should they be able to do this?

There is no evidence that they build less than they can sell and can build.
In fact in the period 2008-12/13 when they build least, several had to be bailed out by the banks as they were insolvent.
Keeping sales volume low to keep prices high certainly works in an monopoly or a cartel. There are many competitors in the market and don't think there is any evidence for an highly illegal cartel.
I'm sure there are speculators that do hoard land and do not need cash flow : but these aren't the builders.

I'm all in favour of land value taxes but they would make a relatively small impact on the total build. Any 'successful' level of penalties may kill the building industry stone dead.

WE need more planning permission and not extra costs on the buyers plus of course as stablisation of demand by stopping immigration.
(you may wish to ponder the oil producers' 'cartel': it hasn't kept oil price high)

setmefree2

Demolishing and rebuilding London's council estates could create 360,000 extra homes and quadruple property values, according to research that has fed into David Cameron's plans for renewing social housing.

High-rise tower blocks often use land less efficiently than is widely thought because of the large areas of open ground around them. Replacing them with lower rise apartment buildings and terrace houses can deliver more homes in the same ground area

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/da3b4540-b83d-11e5-a7cc-280dfe875e28.html#axzz3wxNawiZu

setmefree2

Mr Corbyn accused the prime minister of failing to understand “the very serious concerns” that estates’ residents have “when they feel they are going to be forced away from the community where they live, where their children go to school and where their community is so strong”.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

If he thinks life on a sink estate is so great - why doesn't he live on one.

Potential options that the panel could consider to recompense homeowners include buying them out, offering them a new property in exchange for their old one, or giving them a financial stake in the development in the same manner as a professional property investor, Ms Barnes said.
“Even if you replace every leaseholder’s home with a newly built one, the increase in density would mean there would still be a large number of additional new homes built,” she said.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b6d3e028-b9f8-11e5-b151-8e15c9a029fb.html#axzz3xDojWMzK

CLAPTON

setmefree2 wrote: »

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/da3b4540-b83d-11e5-a7cc-280dfe875e28.html#axzz3wxNawiZu

indeed so
because of the mad council /planning policies

setmefree2

To the OP...

Apparently, the current policy is due to Report carried about by Lord Adonis a LABOUR PEER.

London council estates should be demolished in order to build swaths of new houses for sale, according to Lord Adonis, one of the Labour party’s most senior figures.
Knocking down existing council housing would give the opportunity to build “mixed communities” that would function as “city villages”, the Labour peer said in a report.

Lord Adonis will argue that demolishing existing neighbourhoods and rebuilding at higher densities — including homes for sale at open market prices — can create a net increase in housing without needing any funding from the state.

“The scale of council-owned land is vast and greatly under-appreciated,” Lord Adonis said. “There are particularly large concentrations of council-owned land in inner London, and this is some of the highest-priced land in the world.”
London councils own on average 25 to 30 per cent of the land in their boroughs, the report said. Southwark Council, for example, owns 43 per cent of the land it governs, while Islington owns about a third.

Low housing densities on many estates mean that the population of inner London is still 1.7m below its pre-second world war high — despite the fact that the city as a whole has this year topped that level due to population growth in outer areas.

Of the 3,500 council estates that Lord Adonis estimated lie within London’s boundaries, only about 50 have so far been redeveloped to add homes of other tenures. These saw the number of homes on the sites double on average

The report, to be published on Tuesday by think-tank the Institute for Public Policy Research, cited the example of Woodberry Down in Hackney, where 1,981 council flats in tenement blocks are being replaced by 5,550 homes for rent and sale.

Council estates in Britain house 2m people but “occupy land that could, theoretically, supply homes for many more people”

London’s council estates “represent valuable reservoirs of increasingly scarce land in a global city”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4129abaa-cf16-11e4-893d-00144feab7de.html#axzz3xDojWMzK

lisyloo

CLAPTON wrote: »

There is no evidence that they build less than they can sell and can build.
In fact in the period 2008-12/13 when they build least, several had to be bailed out by the banks as they were insolvent.
Keeping sales volume low to keep prices high certainly works in an monopoly or a cartel. There are many competitors in the market and don't think there is any evidence for an highly illegal cartel.
I'm sure there are speculators that do hoard land and do not need cash flow : but these aren't the builders.

I'm all in favour of land value taxes but they would make a relatively small impact on the total build. Any 'successful' level of penalties may kill the building industry stone dead.

WE need more planning permission and not extra costs on the buyers plus of course as stablisation of demand by stopping immigration.
(you may wish to ponder the oil producers' 'cartel': it hasn't kept oil price high)

I thought there was quite a lot of land that had planning permission but wasn't actively being built in (honestly can't remember from which forum/board).
If that's the case and then what is it that's holding up the building. Is it the logistics? e.g. Materials, workforce etc.

cells

lisyloo wrote: »

I thought there was quite a lot of land that had planning permission but wasn't actively being built in (honestly can't remember from which forum/board).
If that's the case and then what is it that's holding up the building. Is it the logistics? e.g. Materials, workforce etc.

in a lot of cases it would simply be the necessity to hold land so you have a future business.

imagine lisyloo home builders ltd. You have 100 plots and that is enough to see you through this year. Do you think it might be a good idea to make sure you have planning permission for land for next year and the year after? or are you happy just to wait to the end of this year and cross your fingers that the council will aprove another 100 plots in december to see you through in 2017? and if they dont you need to fire your 100 staff and close the business?

it should be seen as working stock.
now if there was 20 years of supply then thats a different story, but 2 - 4 years is just survival

stator

setmefree2 wrote: »

To the OP...

Apparently, the current policy is due to Report carried about by Lord Adonis a LABOUR PEER.

















http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4129abaa-cf16-11e4-893d-00144feab7de.html#axzz3xDojWMzK

Still not sure why you think I care about what Labour think.
Three decades of Thatcherite housing policy has failed the UK, and half of those years were under Labour.

CLAPTON

stator wrote: »

Still not sure why you think I care about what Labour think.
Three decades of Thatcherite housing policy has failed the UK, and half of those years were under Labour.

Blaming a dead lady is a fine substitute for actual thoughtful policies