Number of new builds per year/style of construction.-a query

Cornucopia

CLAPTON wrote: »

we have a major problem with our planning processes, the timescales and the costs : down to government

...

there is no shortage of money : its just that building isn't that profitable and the bureaucracy enormous.

...

we need to free up the planning processes, abolish requirement for affordable housing etc and make the process profitable to encourage more entrants into the market.

That's a view. Personally, I think that the big builders have had a relatively free run at this for some years, and been found wanting. It's time to do something different, and I agree that relaxing some of the bureaucracy might be a part of that, but I am also interested in the State taking more of a proactive role in order to expedite things.

CLAPTON

Cornucopia wrote: »

That's a view. Personally, I think that the big builders have had a relatively free run at this for some years, and been found wanting. It's time to do something different, and I agree that relaxing some of the bureaucracy might be a part of that, but I am also interested in the State taking more of a proactive role in order to expedite things.

Ok I understand what you are saying: I see the state as the problem ; you see it as a solution.

martinsurrey

Cornucopia wrote: »

Presumably that varies dramatically between say, Inner London, and Rural Scotland, due to the massive difference in the price of land.

To be clear, I am talking mainly about those parts of the country where there is presently significant demand for housing that is placing continued pressure on prices.

so they build faster on the sites that have planning now, where do they build next year? and the year after that? if they build out current planning faster they'll need the council to allow more sites to get planning, but if the council are willing to do that, why dont they do it now, and have 10 developers building out 10 sites at the current rate?

Cornucopia wrote: »

I'm sure that's all true (within the scope of the averages you are using). However, I've already said that I am not talking about delivering 500 houses all at once. Clearly there will still be a phased delivery schedule, I just want it to be faster than the present painfully slow contribution in high-demand areas that the major builders are making.

Sure. Maybe they could adopt the corporate structure of the film industry, which has similar issues. They (sometimes) set up a specific limited liability company to deliver a particular project, so as to allow a degree of ringfencing of risk.

its nothing like the film industry, for one, the build industry numbers are just massive in comparison if that JV goes pop (or hits a hurdle that slows development, the developer will still need to finance the WIP, In general large developers have an asset turn of about 1 per year (so they have turnover of £1,000m and have £1,000m WIP), a putting a large amount of eggs in one basket could would be insane.

Cornucopia wrote: »

I don't accept the premise, though, that a business that is there to build should (for whatever reason) not build as quickly as the market demands, and if this is a problem for them then I suspect Government will resolve things for them in the end.

The person who makes the most money in the development cycle ISNT the developer, its the land owner. The Government could fix this tomorrow, by removing all planning restrictions and remove 80% of the building regulations, I guarantee we'll be up to building 500k houses per year within a few years

Cornucopia wrote: »

Ah, okay, so they are defraying some of their investment risk on to a supplier. I'm not sure I approve of that. Either way, that puts an entirely different slant on the WIP funding analysis you detailed above.

Not risk, they are contractually obliged to pay the remainder, they just deffer the cash.

Cornucopia wrote: »

2-3 weeks? It already is, certainly at the lightest end of what is buildable.

can you link me a house built to completion in 2-43 weeks please NOT water tight, Build complete and signed off.

Cornucopia wrote: »

Except that their landbank (according to your post) is 476,000. I think you're still crossing the streams, which is never good.

and you are showing your lack of understanding of the market and terminology.

they have 200k plots in thier land bank with planning permission (inc only outline), this is their short term land bank.

they also hold options over land that doesn't even have outlying planning for a further 270k plots, this is hopeful land, that may or may not ever get planning permission, so cant be used in looking at what the developer is currently building
, I have seen a brown field site of 1,300 homes (once owned by DERA) sit in the strategic portfolio of a developer for 20 YEARS, and is still there, while the council um and ah on giving it planning.

Cornucopia wrote: »

I think we're in danger of applying old world characteristics to my new world suggestion. There will not be, for example, concrete trucks rolling over already installed sewage pipes because (a) many eco-build technologies don't use vast quantities of concrete, and (b) the roads will already be paved to site standard (i.e. ready for traffic but without the final surfacing).

I'm imagining the local authority delivering something akin to a caravan park layout, without the caravans. That enables an eco-build company to come in and drop a house onto a concrete pad or set of pads, and to connect up to plumbing and electrics already in the ground.

So the prep work goes to pad stage, where the road and utilities network is designed and installed in the ground, and the house types, positions and sizes are known.

FWIW, I think we're beginning to get a sense of what isn't possible under the present regime, and why. Some of it is about practicality, some about conservatism amongst builders, government and the Public, and some about the finances.

We need more homes in various parts of the UK. In some areas, the demand is urgent. Therefore trickling properties on to the market to ensure a healthy profit really doesn't serve the public interest.

The biggest hurdle in everything, is planning, something controlled by the government and council already there isnt enough land earmarked for building, the land that is isn't where its needed (thanks to greenbelts).

would you be happy if the councils of the South East released 100,000 - 200,000 plots of land on the greenbelt every year? because that's what they need to do.

CLAPTON

I see that the London Major is thinking about reducing the requirement that 'affordable' should be reduced from 50% to 35%.
'affordable housing' means housing subsidised by the people that actual pay for their housing: so everyone buying a new housing in London is paying for 1.35 houses : such is the mad planning system

Cornucopia

martinsurrey wrote: »

so they build faster on the sites that have planning now, where do they build next year? and the year after that? if they build out current planning faster they'll need the council to allow more sites to get planning, but if the council are willing to do that, why dont they do it now, and have 10 developers building out 10 sites at the current rate?

Since the big companies have 10 years of available land, it won't be a problem for a while. I previously provided a reference that included a planning officer complaining about builders not building. Any rise in planning applications that flows from that is his problem, not mine.

The person who makes the most money in the development cycle ISNT the developer, its the land owner. The Government could fix this tomorrow, by removing all planning restrictions and remove 80% of the building regulations, I guarantee we'll be up to building 500k houses per year within a few years

I agree that the limitations on building should be relaxed. I suggest that they should start by introducing a new class of eco development that would have less stringent planning criteria than traditional builds.

I genuinely don't know whether development on existing farmland, woodland or brownfield under the "caravan" rules is an option (in England) or not. I'm guessing not.

Not risk, they are contractually obliged to pay the remainder, they just deffer the cash.

There is pricing of risk, surely?

can you link me a house built to completion in 2-43 weeks please NOT water tight, Build complete and signed off.

You mean 2-3 weeks? I never claimed it would be finished, I stated water-tight. Simply have a look at Grand Designs, Amazing Spaces, Tiny Homes, etc. etc.

they have 200k plots in thier land bank with planning permission (inc only outline), this is their short term land bank.

they also hold options over land that doesn't even have outlying planning for a further 270k plots, this is hopeful land, that may or may not ever get planning permission, so cant be used in looking at what the developer is currently building

Clearly they own the land either to build or to prevent someone else building. (The latter would be bad, BTW).

I have seen a brown field site of 1,300 homes (once owned by DERA) sit in the strategic portfolio of a developer for 20 YEARS, and is still there, while the council um and ah on giving it planning.

Yes, it is a multi-facted problem.

would you be happy if the councils of the South East released 100,000 - 200,000 plots of land on the greenbelt every year? because that's what they need to do.

I'd sooner it was part of a sensible strategic plan. The most obvious thing to do, right now, is to move Government functions to Northern Cities where there is (generally) plentiful, affordable housing.

Beyond that, what's required, I think, in the South East is strategic development around existing unexploited transport options. For example, in Kent a new town could be built on open land around the A229/HS1 intersection close to the M2 and M20. A new Medway Hub station would also encourage other development around the existing towns nearby. With 2 rail lines and 2 motorways, transport connections would be excellent.

It's disappointing that there has been only sparse new development around the existing HS1 station at Ebbsfleet, partly as a consequence of high rail fares, making this route unattractive compared to other options. There is a major new development underway, now, but it has taken many years to start.

martinsurrey

Cornucopia wrote: »

Since the big companies have 10 years of available land, it won't be a problem for a while. I previously provided a reference that included a planning officer complaining about builders not building. Any rise in planning applications that flows from that is his problem, not mine.

5 years, I cant keep saying the same point, and large sites take 3 years to go from outlying planning permission to detailed planning to selling the first houses.

There are only 450k planning permissions in the UK as it stands, that is one years supply if we build 400k houses a year. We need to have a bank of about 1,000,000 applications to enable 400,000 to be competed, which means councils will need to release 600,000 plots. Developers would have them in tomorrow if they could build what they want on the greenbelt

Cornucopia wrote: »

I genuinely don't know whether development on existing farmland, woodland or brownfield under the "caravan" rules is an option (in England) or not. I'm guessing not.

not.

Cornucopia wrote: »

There is pricing of risk, surely?

Yes but concentrated risk is a bad idea.

Cornucopia wrote: »

You mean 2-3 weeks? I never claimed it would be finished, I stated water-tight. Simply have a look at Grand Designs, Amazing Spaces, Tiny Homes, etc. etc.

you said

Cornucopia wrote: »

The developers can then move in, and undertake the 2-3 week build per property that is needed,

Cornucopia wrote: »

Clearly they own the land either to build or to prevent someone else building. (The latter would be bad, BTW).

They generally hold options over the land, so the farmer still owns it, until planning is granted.

Cornucopia wrote: »

Yes, it is a multi-facted problem.


I'd sooner it was part of a sensible strategic plan. The most obvious thing to do, right now, is to move Government functions to Northern Cities where there is (generally) plentiful, affordable housing.

Beyond that, what's required, I think, in the South East is strategic development around existing unexploited transport options. For example, in Kent a new town could be built on open land around the A229/HS1 intersection close to the M2 and M20. A new Medway Hub station would also encourage other development around the existing towns nearby. With 2 rail lines and 2 motorways, transport connections would be excellent.

It's disappointing that there has been only sparse new development around the existing HS1 station at Ebbsfleet, partly as a consequence of high rail fares, making this route unattractive compared to other options. There is a major new development underway, now, but it has taken many years to start.

we need an additional 250k houses a year (on top of what we already build), thats 3 cities the size of Luton per year (77k households), it'll take a minimum of 10 years to get a new city off the ground by the time you've done public consultations, inevitable legal challenges, design statements, ecology reports, utility, employment, transport reports, started infrastructure, schools etc, so if we want to meed our requirements using new towns we need to be completing 3 per year, and have 30 on the go at once.

Suggesting one or two places just isnt enough.

Cornucopia

I note that you seem to have "gone big" again in your haste to disprove what I am saying. I never spoke about "a city" or 3. I am talking about towns of maybe 10-20k population.

I would start with one new town per county right across the South - maybe exclude Surrey for lack of space. Some will be received more warmly than others, and maybe some counties would suit 3-4 smaller developments than 1 medium-sized one. I think by making this everyone's problem, then possibly some of the adverse reaction can be avoided. I am also keen on sites that do not take in existing villages or other housing in any great quantity, and there are viable locations like that in most counties.

Either way, I cannot go with the theme of your responses which is that it is all too hard so we should not try. For me, it is the other way round: the situation is so dire that the country was persuaded to leave the EU in part to address it. We have to try, because to do otherwise is too great a problem.

I did, indeed, talk about 2-3 weeks to erect a house, which is what several of the technologies take. I did so in the context of a pipeline and an estimate of possible scale, in which finishing will be done by other trades (or possibly by self-builders themselves) and can be taken off the critical path of the project.

Bear in mind that some of the technologies come without the need for dry-wall or plastering, with pre-fabricated bathrooms or with wiring already in-situ within the pre-fabricated walls. So finishing might be a more old school 6 weeks, or it could be a fair bit less than that.

If we were working with chalet/static-mobile home type buildings, then everything arrives fully built on the back of a trailer, so even 2-3 weeks looks quite generous.

martinsurrey

Cornucopia wrote: »

I note that you seem to have "gone big" again in your haste to disprove what I am saying. I never spoke about "a city" or 3. I am talking about towns of maybe 10-20k population.

and you seem to have ignored the scale of the problem, suggesting solutions that are vastly under scale.

Cornucopia wrote: »

I would start with one new town per county right across the South - maybe exclude Surrey for lack of space. Some will be received more warmly than others, and maybe some counties would suit 3-4 smaller developments than 1 medium-sized one. I think by making this everyone's problem, then possibly some of the adverse reaction can be avoided. I am also keen on sites that do not take in existing villages or other housing in any great quantity, and there are viable locations like that in most counties.

so you suggest 10-20k people towns.

10-20k people at the UK average household size of 2.3 is about 5-10k homes, we need 250k homes extra per year (pretty much accepted across the board that we need 400k houses a year and currently build 150k), so that's 25-50 of your new small towns per year needed to need the requirement... that's each and every year, so between 3-7 for each of the 8 home counties every year.

Cornucopia wrote: »

Either way, I cannot go with the theme of your responses which is that it is all too hard so we should not try. For me, it is the other way round: the situation is so dire that the country was persuaded to leave the EU in part to address it. We have to try, because to do otherwise is too great a problem.

I agree, I'm not saying its too hard, I'm saying that you are focusing on the "lazy developers". I know a guaranteed way to do it, remove all planning restriction and cut out 80% of the building regulations, we'll be building 500,000 homes a year within a few years. I know that's a bit extreme, but the reality is somewhere in the middle.

To build and build a lot we need space to build, where people want to live, which is in the existing towns and cities, on the greenbelt.

Cornucopia wrote: »

I did, indeed, talk about 2-3 weeks to erect a house, which is what several of the technologies take. I did so in the context of a pipeline and an estimate of possible scale, in which finishing will be done by other trades (or possibly by self-builders themselves) and can be taken off the critical path of the project.

So we can speed things up by not doing half the job!

Cornucopia wrote: »

Bear in mind that some of the technologies come without the need for dry-wall or plastering, with pre-fabricated bathrooms or with wiring already in-situ within the pre-fabricated walls. So finishing might be a more old school 6 weeks, or it could be a fair bit less than that.

again, the work still needs doing, the house factory doesn't just magic houses out of thin air, all you are doing is taking the work off site, it will be a faster, but if you think they will deliver 500 finished houses in short order, you must be crazy, huf haus, one of the leading prefab builders has an 18month lead time.

Cornucopia wrote: »

If we were working with chalet/static-mobile home type buildings, then everything arrives fully built on the back of a trailer, so even 2-3 weeks looks quite generous.

so now you want to build trailer parks.

Cornucopia

martinsurrey wrote: »

and you seem to have ignored the scale of the problem, suggesting solutions that are vastly under scale.

So a solution that can build faster than the biggest builders in the country is under scale?

so you suggest 10-20k people towns.

Yes, but more of them to mitigate planning delays. 3 x 77k = 231k (as you suggested), 30 x 15k = 450k (as I suggested).

... so that's 25-50 of your new small towns per year needed to need the requirement... that's each and every year, so between 3-7 for each of the 8 home counties every year.

Sounds about right. Apart from the last bit. When I said "Southern England" I meant all of it - 30-40 counties south of Birmingham.

I agree, I'm not saying its too hard, I'm saying that you are focusing on the "lazy developers". I know a guaranteed way to do it, remove all planning restriction and cut out 80% of the building regulations, we'll be building 500,000 homes a year within a few years. I know that's a bit extreme, but the reality is somewhere in the middle.

I'm not accusing the developers of being "lazy" - where did you get that in posts? I'm saying that they have adopted a slow build process to suit themselves for a variety of reasons, including risk-aversion, risk-pricing and maximising profit.

You still haven't really explained why they only built 44k houses last year - what was the problem?

To build and build a lot we need space to build, where people want to live, which is in the existing towns and cities, on the greenbelt.

Which means small, fragmented developments that take proportionately more time. TBH, if I had my way I would place all the small sites solely with small developers and get as many underway as possible.

So we can speed things up by not doing half the job!

It's a question of understanding the critical path on the project plan. You're in danger of winning the prize for most misquotes of the week, BTW.

again, the work still needs doing, the house factory doesn't just magic houses out of thin air, all you are doing is taking the work off site, it will be a faster, but if you think they will deliver 500 finished houses in short order, you must be crazy, huf haus, one of the leading prefab builders has an 18month lead time.

Huf Haus is top-end, where customers will tolerate that for the sake of the logo above the door. If the market for pre-fabrication were consistently much larger, then the companies would respond and others would become established.

so now you want to build trailer parks.

We already have them. And people living in sheds. And people in bed & breakfast for months on end. And people being deported from London to northern cities to save public funds. These are the consequences of a shortage of housing.

Cornucopia

CLAPTON wrote: »

Ok I understand what you are saying: I see the state as the problem ; you see it as a solution.

Yes. More specifically, the big builders have had it mostly their own way and are spectacularly under-delivering, IMHO for their own selfish reasons.

Against that background, I think that only the State can intervene to get things working in the public interest.