EU currently sending Russia more hard cash than they spend on their own defence.
Rory Stewart @RoryStewartUK Putin’s Russia continues to be paid a billion dollars every day by the EU, for oil and gas. For scale that daily amount is more than the entire defence expenditure of all the 27 EU member states combined. And five times what Putin spends on his military. #stoptheimports https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1502233587839602692
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
All of this is true - but it comes back to property shortages. If the number of properties matches or exceeds demand, prices will fall rapidly. Both rental and for purchase.
Currently, the market clears at what people can *afford to pay*. So every increase in wealth goes to feed The Beast.
Hence people spending £1 million pounds on a terraced house built by a Victorian brickworks as cheap company accommodation for the labourers at the brickworks....
These are not immovable beasts. Tax second homes more and landlords can afford to pay less relative to wannabee homeowners. That is a desirable outcome for society, just not the part of society that votes for the establishment party in power. It really is not rocket science.
Second homes are not the overall cause of the housing crisis - though they have profound effects in certain localities.
The reason why second homes, more brown field, unoccupied flats owned by Evul Furriners etc are such popular "solutions" is that they avoid dealing with the actual issue.
The reason why second home owners never address the point that taxing them more and workers less is a workable solution is......
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Exactly, we have enough BTL and we have enough large detached houses for the well off and those already on the property ladder.
If we are going to build new homes we should ensure they are almost all affordable 1 to 3 bed properties for first time buyers, especially in London and the Home counties. That is where the lack of supply is
That's not what's happening, of course. There's a village near me with a new development. Prices range £649,950 — £899,950. There is some shared housing available, screening the main development from the main railway line, to which it's adjacent. In the case of the shared homes, closely adjacent.
Suspect it would be much better known if the stones were re-erected.
I mentioned the nearby Nine Ladies earlier, which I have visited many times - and slept at.
However - and this seems slightly crazy to me - I've driven near to Arbor Low hundreds of times, and walked near to it on a fair few. But I've never been to see it. And I like henges. I'm always doing other things when I'm near it.
Arbor Low is in private ownership of a farmer, and operates on an honesty box system.
I'd say combine it with a second nearby visit. It is great, but won't keep you occupied for half a day unlike say Avebury. There's also a Burial Barrow nearby.
You could combine with a walk down Lathkill Dale, or walk or cycle around Carsington Water or Ladybower Res, or if you want another local ancient/modern tradition look up the Well Dressing calendar (https://www.visitpeakdistrict.com/whats-on/well-dressings) , or crawl a couple of local ancient churches.
Thanks. I used to spend most of my time in the Peak District, so I've 'done' Well Dressing, Carsington Water (my dad's company worked on a small part of that), Ladybower, and Lathkill, many times. It's why I'm surprised I've never done Arbor Low, considering how near it is to the Ashbourne-Buxton road...
I did Lathkill Dale end to end from school when 8 or 9.
The main negative thing I remember is the very long climb up into Monyash.
Have you done Ashbourne and Wirksworth churches? Both very worth it - Burnham-Jones glass in Wirksworth, and Carrara Marble sculpture at Ashbourne.
Then there are extant Maiden's Garlands at Ashford-in-the-Water and ...
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
All of this is true - but it comes back to property shortages. If the number of properties matches or exceeds demand, prices will fall rapidly. Both rental and for purchase.
Currently, the market clears at what people can *afford to pay*. So every increase in wealth goes to feed The Beast.
Hence people spending £1 million pounds on a terraced house built by a Victorian brickworks as cheap company accommodation for the labourers at the brickworks....
These are not immovable beasts. Tax second homes more and landlords can afford to pay less relative to wannabee homeowners. That is a desirable outcome for society, just not the part of society that votes for the establishment party in power. It really is not rocket science.
Second homes are not the overall cause of the housing crisis - though they have profound effects in certain localities.
The reason why second homes, more brown field, unoccupied flats owned by Evul Furriners etc are such popular "solutions" is that they avoid dealing with the actual issue.
I meant second homes as in people who own more than one home including landlords, rather than solely your seaside cottage types.
If you don't increase the number of properties, just shifting from rental to ownership won't do much for affordability.
As my mother put it - you are either paying your own mortgage or someone else's.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
If @OnlyLivingBoy bought his property in Wales he would face Drakeford's latest 300% council tax increase for second homes
I think that is not correct.
The home would have a family living in it, so it would not be eligible for the council tax surcharge.
Drakeford (at the prodding of Plaid Cymru) is trying to tackle the problem of second homes left largely empty all the year round.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
We don't need any more BTL properties built, only 1 to 3 bed affordable homes for first time buyers in London and the Home counties
What if a large family wants a 4 bed? Or a 5 bed?
Is your attitude just "oh well, sucks to be you, I've got mine".
Let people build whatever they want, wherever they want it, apart from zones marked as uninhabitable for anyone because they're reserved for other things like nature.
There are already plenty of 4 to 5 bed plus homes even in the home counties and we do not want to concrete all over our greenspaces.
We need new 1 to 3 bed homes for first time buyers in brownbelt land in London and the Home counties, that is it
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Exactly, we have enough BTL and we have enough large detached houses for the well off and those already on the property ladder.
If we are going to build new homes we should ensure they are almost all affirdable 1 to 3 bed properties for first time buyers, especially in London and the Home counties. That is where the lack of supply is
"we have enough for the well off and those already on the property ladder" . . . oh that's OK then. Screw everyone else.
We should have new homes built where people want them. Let people choose. Barring nature reserves etc anywhere they want to live, if there's no home there, let them build one. The supply will match the demand only then.
No because you need to build in areas appropriate for the town, which protect green spaces and have appropriate infrastructure
Mark green spaces as reserved and have constructions allowed anywhere else.
You don't need the "appropriate infrastructure" first, you can build the homes first and the infrastructure can be invested in afterwards if need be. Infrastructure evolves over time, it isn't fixed.
Wrong.
Take a leaf out of the book of the Victorians/Edwardians. They lad out suburbs. Built the roads, drains, railways. Flogged the plots of land for building the houses by the street (or side of the street). Which is why you get a street or one side of the street all looking similar, but the next street was down by a different property developer.
Yes I'm perfectly fine with that, if people want to do that. But if someone wants to build elsewhere that should be OK too.
And generally people are saying infrastructure they mean other stuff like schools/hospitals etc - that can evolve over time, it isn't needed per-house.
Unless you build it as part of the development - the public infrastructure is never built.
Prime example is round here and secondary schools where the new estate was built with a promise of a new secondary school - it was never built so anyone living on that estate has a choice of either turning Catholic or a school that has gone through 5 academy chains with 7 heads in the last 12 years...
The public infrastructure isn't needed per house though, its needed for the whole public area.
Schooling availability should be evolving based on needs of the region and that isn't fixed, even without construction. Some areas evolve into areas occupied by young families, others by retired elderly, while some remain mixed. The former and middle locations will have different stresses upon the importance of education, maternity or geriatric healthcare needs.
If the academy school is an issue that should be fixed for everyone, not just those living in a new estate.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Exactly, we have enough BTL and we have enough large detached houses for the well off and those already on the property ladder.
If we are going to build new homes we should ensure they are almost all affordable 1 to 3 bed properties for first time buyers, especially in London and the Home counties. That is where the lack of supply is
That's not what's happening, of course. There's a village near me with a new development. Prices range £649,950 — £899,950. There is some shared housing available, screening the main development from the main railway line, to which it's adjacent. In the case of the shared homes, closely adjacent.
If you ration housebuilding enough, the price of a tool shed will be £1 million.
Conversely, if you build enough, pries will go down.
I've just realised the Commonwealth Games are being held in Birmingham this summer.
That had totally passed me by.
Even though I often mentioned it in my list of feel good factors that might save Boris in the second half of the year? Emma at Wimbledon; Commonwealth Games in Birmingham; Rugby League World Cup up north; England wins the World Cup in November/December.
Platinum Jubilee is another one.
Scotland winning the World Cup leading to a lightweight Tory wave north of the border?
The decline of Scottish football is, if not a scandal, then certainly puzzling. Did they sell off all the school sports fields?
Pretty ridiculous front pages for the most part. Abramovic might or might not be a nice guy but why the British press have to personalise things to the extent that it reads like he's responsible for the slaughter in Ukraine I don't know. It just makes the country look stupid and hysterical
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
If @OnlyLivingBoy bought his property in Wales he would face Drakeford's latest 300% council tax increase for second homes
I think that is not correct.
The home would have a family living in it, so it would not be eligible for the council tax surcharge.
Drakeford (at the prodding of Plaid Cymru) is trying to tackle the problem of second homes left largely empty all the year round.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
All of this is true - but it comes back to property shortages. If the number of properties matches or exceeds demand, prices will fall rapidly. Both rental and for purchase.
Currently, the market clears at what people can *afford to pay*. So every increase in wealth goes to feed The Beast.
Hence people spending £1 million pounds on a terraced house built by a Victorian brickworks as cheap company accommodation for the labourers at the brickworks....
These are not immovable beasts. Tax second homes more and landlords can afford to pay less relative to wannabee homeowners. That is a desirable outcome for society, just not the part of society that votes for the establishment party in power. It really is not rocket science.
Second homes are not the overall cause of the housing crisis - though they have profound effects in certain localities.
The reason why second homes, more brown field, unoccupied flats owned by Evul Furriners etc are such popular "solutions" is that they avoid dealing with the actual issue.
I meant second homes as in people who own more than one home including landlords, rather than solely your seaside cottage types.
If you don't increase the number of properties, just shifting from rental to ownership won't do much for affordability.
As my mother put it - you are either paying your own mortgage or someone else's.
Where is the disconnect in the following:
Raise taxes on landlords, to lower landlords bids on properties. Properties clear for less and the mix is a higher proportion of owners to landlords. Affordability for owners has been improved.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
The value of the land (with planning permission) is used to finance the project, usually.
is the number of plots in the flow going up or down?
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
Its the exact same issue though.
If the developers aren't developing on a plot, then someone else should be able to build on a different plot and beat them to market and get sooner the sale of a house.
The value of land with consent is only high, because of the planning system, because it is rationed. End the rationing and developers would have no reason to buy land before they intend to build on it, so someone else could buy it and build on it instead.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
All of this is true - but it comes back to property shortages. If the number of properties matches or exceeds demand, prices will fall rapidly. Both rental and for purchase.
Currently, the market clears at what people can *afford to pay*. So every increase in wealth goes to feed The Beast.
Hence people spending £1 million pounds on a terraced house built by a Victorian brickworks as cheap company accommodation for the labourers at the brickworks....
These are not immovable beasts. Tax second homes more and landlords can afford to pay less relative to wannabee homeowners. That is a desirable outcome for society, just not the part of society that votes for the establishment party in power. It really is not rocket science.
Second homes are not the overall cause of the housing crisis - though they have profound effects in certain localities.
The reason why second homes, more brown field, unoccupied flats owned by Evul Furriners etc are such popular "solutions" is that they avoid dealing with the actual issue.
I meant second homes as in people who own more than one home including landlords, rather than solely your seaside cottage types.
If you don't increase the number of properties, just shifting from rental to ownership won't do much for affordability.
As my mother put it - you are either paying your own mortgage or someone else's.
If owning more than one residential was prohibited prices would likely fall and find a new lower equilibrium.
Pretty ridiculous front pages for the most part. Abramovic might or might not be a nice guy but why the British press have to personalise things to the extent that it reads like he's responsible for the slaughter in Ukraine I don't know. It just makes the country look stupid and hysterical
Supplying the steel for the tanks killing Ukrainians right now and you want to excuse him
I know who is looking 'stupid and hysterical' and it is not HMG
I've just realised the Commonwealth Games are being held in Birmingham this summer.
That had totally passed me by.
Even though I often mentioned it in my list of feel good factors that might save Boris in the second half of the year? Emma at Wimbledon; Commonwealth Games in Birmingham; Rugby League World Cup up north; England wins the World Cup in November/December.
Platinum Jubilee is another one.
Scotland winning the World Cup leading to a lightweight Tory wave north of the border?
The decline of Scottish football is, if not a scandal, then certainly puzzling. Did they sell off all the school sports fields?
They don't have the weather for it, or the tv money to fund indoor facilities so have ended up miles behind as the sport has become more professional.
Moronic Governments of all flavours still insist exercise = weight loss. Rubbish.
The secret to losing weight is very simple, eat fewer calories. Yet we seem to gloss over this.
If you ate a Big Mac every day for a lifetime you'd never get fat, not enough calories. You would have all sorts of issues but it's not what people eat, it is the quantity.
I’m not sure about that.
Mathematically you are correct, but calories from protein seem to be less fattening than calories from carbs and sugar.
Fasting seems to speeds up overall calorie burn.
And frequent exercise is highly correlated with weight loss.
Thirty minutes of exercise a day is not going to put you into a caloric deficit on average. Not when the average person is something like 500+ calories over their caloric maintenance.
Halving one meal a day would go much further to cutting weight than exercise.
I am fully in support of exercise - but it is not a weight loss strategy on its own.
If people are on average 500+ calories above maintenance level then shouldn't they keep getting fatter and fatter until they explode?
The more weight you gain, the more calories you need to maintain it, so at some point the two line up. But people that keep eating do keep getting larger and larger and larger, so yes.
Obviously, the heavier you are, the more energy it takes to drag yourself around, and therefore the maintenance calorie level rises.
But you wrote "the average person is something like 500+ calories over their caloric maintenance".
And I stand by that, the average person is something like 500 calories over. Every year obesity gets worse which would support that statement.
Calories in/calories out. Eating absolutely loads while doing mad exercise is one of life's great pleasures.
Otherwise, sleep enough so you don't crave sugar rush to bear tiredness. Drink water to keep stomach full, and carb up before you do your weekly shop (makes crisps look much less appetising).
Well said.
I've been bulking for the last year or so - just finished - and have put on about 15KG of muscle. It's been a pleasurable experience being able to eat lots.
15kg of MUSCLE...are you sure? How many PEDs have you been taking....your pee must be like the colour of a rusty pipe.
About 0.25kg a week, you can gain about 0.5kg in early training (which I am in).
Yes I am pretty sure. We can round it down to 10kg if you'd like but I am still as lean as I was because I've bulked so slowly.
The Johnson approach. Great if you have the discipline.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
If @OnlyLivingBoy bought his property in Wales he would face Drakeford's latest 300% council tax increase for second homes
I think that is not correct.
The home would have a family living in it, so it would not be eligible for the council tax surcharge.
Drakeford (at the prodding of Plaid Cymru) is trying to tackle the problem of second homes left largely empty all the year round.
The problem with Drakeford's policy is more with the implementation -- what is the actual legal definition of a second-home?
Anyhow, Drakeford is going soon. I guess we will miss the bumbling academic once he is gone.
I've wondered about that definition. In-laws own a 'lodge' on Ynys Mon, a sort of double caravan, which is one of about 20 on a field with fine views over the coast. They probably spend about 35% of their time there, although I suspect that might have to reduce soon, but say that often they are the only people on site, Would they, the site owner, or neither have to pay extra under the new regs?
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
^^^ This is a real problem. We recently gave outline planning permission for a site with over 4,000 new homes. The developer informed us they'd be building out over 20 years. Due to "market forces."
That is, if they built out faster, they wouldn't be able to charge as much as prices would fall.
The problem about the supply and demand equation is that the developers know about it too and they aren't dumb.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
The value of the land (with planning permission) is used to finance the project, usually.
is the number of plots in the flow going up or down?
The number of plots with planning permission which are not being developed is increasing. A lot of smaller developers have been complaining for a long time that the big companies are acquiring more land without increasing building rates accordingly and are shutting smaller developers out of the market. Their position is that it is no point the councils giving more planning permissions when it is only going to add to the big company land banks rather than being developed in a timely manner.
Morning all! Another day of our disgrace as we continue to turn away women and children fleeing death.
Who have we actually turned away ? Who have we actually put at risk of death.
I agree it is a shambles for sure and something that is, quite frankly, an embarrassment. A bureaucratic mess and we need to solve it. However how are we putting people at risk of death if they are in mainland Europe ?
Who have we turned away? Swathes of examples. Many posted on here by Scott.
Are they are risk of death by Russians in France? No. Does that mean we are right to have an absolute blockade on Urkainian refugees? No. Everyone else in Europe has opened their doors. We put in a bullshit visa scheme and they deny people the ability access it (again, swathes of examples posted online where you can't get appointments or even where the place to get appointments is a figment of Patel's deranged smirk).
We used to be a decent country. What happened to us?
Uncontrolled immigration from Eastern Europe after Polish etc accession to the EU. We could have limited access to benefits (for instance, as many other EU countries did/do). We did not. I think most who came worked (in both the legal sphere and black economy, but the perception was of instant access to housing and benefits ahead of UK citizens (for housing). The British are generally welcoming, tolerant people, but the dramatic influx of people in some places had huge impacts, and it upset people.
So that led to the rise of Ukip. And everything else, including the home office now being the way it is.
Plus there are an awful lot of people around the world who would love to come to the UK, but aren't strictly able to claim asylum. The country is not able to take them all.
The current situation with Ukraine should be totally different. This should be akin to putting people up when their home has been flooded. Look after them when they need it and they will go home when they can. That the home office, or Patel, or both is so tone death to see that is the scandal.
There is justifiable criticism of Patel who should be out of office but it is interesting that Gove is seeking Ukraine refugee sponsorship and I would ask how many of HMG critics will offer their home as part of this scheme
Unfortunately at our age we could not but hope many will thereby making a tangible difference
We are planning to buy a flat to house a refugee family (most likely not Syrian or Afghan rather than Ukrainian under the auspices of the existing community sponsorship scheme).
Morning all! Another day of our disgrace as we continue to turn away women and children fleeing death.
Who have we actually turned away ? Who have we actually put at risk of death.
I agree it is a shambles for sure and something that is, quite frankly, an embarrassment. A bureaucratic mess and we need to solve it. However how are we putting people at risk of death if they are in mainland Europe ?
Who have we turned away? Swathes of examples. Many posted on here by Scott.
Are they are risk of death by Russians in France? No. Does that mean we are right to have an absolute blockade on Urkainian refugees? No. Everyone else in Europe has opened their doors. We put in a bullshit visa scheme and they deny people the ability access it (again, swathes of examples posted online where you can't get appointments or even where the place to get appointments is a figment of Patel's deranged smirk).
We used to be a decent country. What happened to us?
Uncontrolled immigration from Eastern Europe after Polish etc accession to the EU. We could have limited access to benefits (for instance, as many other EU countries did/do). We did not. I think most who came worked (in both the legal sphere and black economy, but the perception was of instant access to housing and benefits ahead of UK citizens (for housing). The British are generally welcoming, tolerant people, but the dramatic influx of people in some places had huge impacts, and it upset people.
So that led to the rise of Ukip. And everything else, including the home office now being the way it is.
Plus there are an awful lot of people around the world who would love to come to the UK, but aren't strictly able to claim asylum. The country is not able to take them all.
The current situation with Ukraine should be totally different. This should be akin to putting people up when their home has been flooded. Look after them when they need it and they will go home when they can. That the home office, or Patel, or both is so tone death to see that is the scandal.
There is justifiable criticism of Patel who should be out of office but it is interesting that Gove is seeking Ukraine refugee sponsorship and I would ask how many of HMG critics will offer their home as part of this scheme
Unfortunately at our age we could not but hope many will thereby making a tangible difference
We are planning to buy a flat to house a refugee family (most likely not Syrian or Afghan rather than Ukrainian under the auspices of the existing community sponsorship scheme).
Well done and hopefully the sponsorship scheme will be a great success
I salute the good intentions - but if @OnlyLivingBoy is buying a flat in London for the purpose of housing refugees they will be competing with first time buyers and driving up house prices, and rents as well because it reduces supply.
One of the issues with bringing refugees in to the UK is that it has its own housing crisis due to lack of supply and high prices. There are large parts of Europe which has a surplus of high quality housing which is far more suitable for refugees. For instance, there are large complexes of 1980's public housing in Scandinavian countries that have been mothballed due to depopulation. Syrian refugees have been successfully housed in Icelandic fishing villages and have successfully found work there.
Indeed, there are no easy choices in any of this.
I would suggest Birmingham for your project. Multicultural. Relatively low house prices. Easy to get to from London. Strong economy and lots of jobs. Purpose built, low maintainece, flats can be bought for the purpose you envisage for £100-200k. Just watch out for the leasehold situation.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
There's far less scope for landlord subsidy than there used to be - I used to run a practice of 3-years-no-increases from year 1 to 3 to give stability on a low-end of valuation rent to let tenants get ahead of themselves, however regulatory costs can be huge. That has been choked off by taxes targeted at the PRS.
I have a couple of student houses in a Midlands City, where I have paid nearly £10k in meaningless Council paperwork (license etc) costs in the last few years. The same Council took a vexatious (imo) Court action against a charitable landlord over a tiny (A4 piece of paper size iirc) difference in room size to the Appeal Court level, and lost.
I can pretty much do a kitchen / bathroom / decorate / carpets renovation on a normal house for that, but the money has gone elsewhere.
ATB, LG. You will need it run by a good professional manager, and may need a tax adviser if you are subsidising any rent.
Lodgers would be another good angle, as the tax arrangements are far simpler.
Pretty ridiculous front pages for the most part. Abramovic might or might not be a nice guy but why the British press have to personalise things to the extent that it reads like he's responsible for the slaughter in Ukraine I don't know. It just makes the country look stupid and hysterical
I suppose that Abrahamovich is the Russian oligarch that we have all heard of, hence the public face of Russian kleptocracy.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
We live in a 4-bedroom house in Warwickshire which is full of 'stuff'. A previous generation might have down-sized to a bungalow in Abergele but we don't need to do that so we're staying put. I fully recognise that we're part of the problem, but I don't relish becoming part of the solution.
The solution to the housing crisis is simple: build more houses.
You don't even need that many more houses built, you just need to make it easier to do so as the rationing currently artificially inflates prices every step of the way.
The hysterical people who talk about "concreting over England" are just silly - if that happened then all you'd have is empty houses everywhere. People are rational, they won't build a house if they can't realistically sell it, so no the land won't be concreted over.
Currently the value of a plot of land with planning permission is extremely expensive before even the first bit of work is done on that land, that feeds every step of the way through the process. Remove that and the prices would plummet, even with the same work being done and relatively similar amounts of houses getting built.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
All of this is true - but it comes back to property shortages. If the number of properties matches or exceeds demand, prices will fall rapidly. Both rental and for purchase.
Currently, the market clears at what people can *afford to pay*. So every increase in wealth goes to feed The Beast.
Hence people spending £1 million pounds on a terraced house built by a Victorian brickworks as cheap company accommodation for the labourers at the brickworks....
These are not immovable beasts. Tax second homes more and landlords can afford to pay less relative to wannabee homeowners. That is a desirable outcome for society, just not the part of society that votes for the establishment party in power. It really is not rocket science.
Second homes are not the overall cause of the housing crisis - though they have profound effects in certain localities.
The reason why second homes, more brown field, unoccupied flats owned by Evul Furriners etc are such popular "solutions" is that they avoid dealing with the actual issue.
I meant second homes as in people who own more than one home including landlords, rather than solely your seaside cottage types.
If you don't increase the number of properties, just shifting from rental to ownership won't do much for affordability.
As my mother put it - you are either paying your own mortgage or someone else's.
If owning more than one residential was prohibited prices would likely fall and find a new lower equilibrium.
That would only work if the people previously renting didn't enter the home ownership market - which they will have to, if there are less properties for rental.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
We don't need any more BTL properties built, only 1 to 3 bed affordable homes for first time buyers in London and the Home counties
Our economy has been open to these young first time buyers:
Lavrov gave numerous speeches about the evil anglo-saxon world and the awful liberal western countries who want to destroy Russia and Ukraine. So why on Earth does his step-daughter live in the centre of London? Why not in Crimea or Donbass, why doesn’t she move there? https://t.co/YPuCAB5hhV
I doubt there are many £4million properties in Crimea or Donbas......
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
Its the exact same issue though.
If the developers aren't developing on a plot, then someone else should be able to build on a different plot and beat them to market and get sooner the sale of a house.
The value of land with consent is only high, because of the planning system, because it is rationed. End the rationing and developers would have no reason to buy land before they intend to build on it, so someone else could buy it and build on it instead.
Rubbish. If the almost 1 million plots that have already been given planning permission or are part of local plans was developed in a timely manner then the property values would drop - which of course is exactly what the big developers don't want to happen.
This is the complaint from one of the smaller developers - just one amongst many
I have come to the conclusion that the best policy in Ukraine is to make things as difficult as possible for the Russians on every possible level. Militarily, economically, politically. The aim should be the ruin of this dictatorship.
While condemnation of Russia around Europe, North America (outside the alt right) and other developed counties is high, that is not universal. China and India are leaning pro-Russia, and much of Africa too. This poll in the Economist of Africa is sobering.
Has the west ceded it's influence in the rest of the world? I wondered this when Trump was talking about pulling out of European and particularly German bases because they were expensive and the Europeans ungrateful. I just wondered how an American president could be so stupid to surrender such strategic influence.
The West's power has always been in the strength of its relationships, with their societies acting as a model for prosperity. Now what are we an example of? Quick dodgy money and hypocrisy? 'We' should be out there, building the world. If we don't, we leave it others. China is ensuring all roads lead to Beijing and the countries they pass through will increasingly look to authoritarian state Capitalism as the model for Government.
I'm on a theme now, but the West needs renewal. We need to get out of this mindset that we are rich and powerful, we have always been rich and powerful, and we always will be rich and powerful. It needs to be demonstrated, again, that the rule of law, equity, justice and democracy lead to self confident, rich and happy societies. The development of Russia shows that this is not self evident. It seems that the West thought, following the fall of the Soviet Union, having tried it their way, would fall by default into a pluralistic liberal society. How could they not? What was the alternative at the end of history? Well, we know now.
Certain sections of society bitch and moan about foreign aid, the expense of engaging with the world, the BBC, that too many foreigners come here looking for a better life. All these things are our strengths in the world, and if used properly, can influence the world towards one more of our liking.
Telling one section of our society to shut up about their concerns (however misguided you feel they may be) so that we can demonstrate how wonderful our way of doing things is to others, is a funny way to go about it.
Well, were I seeking office, I might spend more time in persuasion on that point. But those points can be addressed by building for today and for tomorrow. By strengthening our state institutions, providing housing and services fit for purpose, a lot of resource issues around immigration can be dealt with. This can grow the economy by creating happy, healthy and prosperous people who spend money, start businesses and innovate in new existing sectors. By being open to others coming, either permanently or to study, those that come temporarily will forge ties of friendship and when they go back they will contribute to the prosperity of their own country, binding us closer. The problem of immigration is not the immigrants, imo, but the paltry state of services and housing and the lack of opportunity within our own society.
The BBC is a global brand, incredibly well trusted. If we give it more, it can do more. Sure, I might not like Dancing with the Stars, I might not have children and don't watch Peppa Pig but the BBC puts out some cracking documentaries. When something happens in the world, I can choose a broad range of opinion to learn about it, but for facts - especially contentious ones in a developing situation, for me it hasn't happened unless the BBC have it.
It's not about telling a section of society to shut up. People can bitch and moan, and no one will ever persuade everyone to their way of looking at things (pluralism provides self correction and should be fostered), but I believe we are stronger, more influential and prosperous if we are open, tolerant and fair. I believe that we need to build this world, first because it is not self evident that democracy, freedom and the rule of law are the best systems of Governance, and secondly if these values are not promoted then others might promote authoritarianism and the arbitrary use of state violence and military power at home and abroad. And we will not be immune to such thinking in such a world.
At the root of it all, I suppose, my view is that an awesome marriage of capitalism and strong state institutions that work for people have created the richest and most prosperous societies yet known. My feeling, and it is mostly a feeling, is that we have tilted slightly to a view where people work for the benefit of Capitalism. That the making of money is the goal of capitalism makes it an engine of the economy but that shouldn't mean that wealth is the end goal of society. Money is a tool, with which society can improve itself, only if it is organised to do so. Capitalism instead needs to be made to work for people. If the proceeds of capital are made to work for society, I think an open, tolerant society can be built. It can exported and promote itself. We can make the End of History, but we have to make it, it won't just happen.
So how much extra do you personally give to the BBC ?
Is this todays meme?
We should do more for refugees. - How many have you taken in? We should improve the BBC - How much extra have you paid? We should improve the NHS - Did you bother to train as a doctor?
When someone says we should 'give' more to the BBC I'm curious as to where they think this extra money is coming from.
The "we" gives it away.
Does it ?
Then why doesn't he say "I think we should pay more tax to fund the BBC" ?
Then perhaps we could discuss why the number of politicians advocating such a policy appears to be minimal.
My broader point was more about growing the pie, as it were, through investment (borrowing or increased tax). Within that, public services certainly play a role. There is an economic benefit to society if people don't have to fund their own healthcare costs directly, for example. That leaves people money to spend on other things, which collectively makes everyone richer. If the tax base is larger, or generally richer, then tax intake increases and the Government has more to play with.
Growing the economy through investment sounds nice but is a lot easier said than done.
It also then leads to disagreements as to how and where and what with this investment led growth is to happen.
That's without the 'investment' turning into general voter bribing, consumption funding and pet project funding.
Agreed on the easier said than done. Even more broadly, I just think the West (the use of the collective here has problems) needs a vision for the future that the world can buy into, or it will find the core values of democracy and personal freedom eroded. If such systems of society can't demonstrate that they are capable of working for people then they won't endure. If the west can't promise and deliver people a better future, and make them believe in that better future, others will. The world looks increasingly to China as the model of the future, and maybe it just is the future, but I think the West, or Liberal Democracy, or whatever you want to call it can offer a different and better way by which people can be governed.
Or perhaps I've been doom scrolling a bit too much of late.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
^^^ This is a real problem. We recently gave outline planning permission for a site with over 4,000 new homes. The developer informed us they'd be building out over 20 years. Due to "market forces."
That is, if they built out faster, they wouldn't be able to charge as much as prices would fall.
The problem about the supply and demand equation is that the developers know about it too and they aren't dumb.
The problem is you're dealing with a developer.
If planning permission existed automatically for anyone who wanted to build, the developer would get left in the dust by other people going to build before them instead.
If you only give permission to one company, instead of their potential competitors, don't act horrified that the company operates in its own self-interest instead of the interests of the competitors that you're blocking from entering the market.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
^^^ This is a real problem. We recently gave outline planning permission for a site with over 4,000 new homes. The developer informed us they'd be building out over 20 years. Due to "market forces."
That is, if they built out faster, they wouldn't be able to charge as much as prices would fall.
The problem about the supply and demand equation is that the developers know about it too and they aren't dumb.
Time limited planning permission? Planning permission = tax on the plot until built? Give planning permission for 4K houses - but give it to multiple developers?
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
Absolutely. I know tons of undeveloped permissions just around here.
A large part of the problem is the very low cost of holding property in terms of taxation. Charging a significant premium for unoccupied property by itself could make people think twice about whether they need to hold spare homes.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
The value of the land (with planning permission) is used to finance the project, usually.
is the number of plots in the flow going up or down?
One big part of the issue is that planning is an all or nothing thing.
Say you've got that estate of 4,000 homes, once the building has started there is currently no incentive to finish off the estate as the planning remains valid.
If you want to ensure houses are built you need to find a means of saying build within 2 years or the plot returns to the market to be sold and built on by someone else .
Going back to the estate I talked about earlier - all 2 and 3 bedroom properties have been built and sold. What is left to be built is the 4/5 bedroom homes that will be built as people buy the existing ones.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
We live in a 4-bedroom house in Warwickshire which is full of 'stuff'. A previous generation might have down-sized to a bungalow in Abergele but we don't need to do that so we're staying put. I fully recognise that we're part of the problem, but I don't relish becoming part of the solution.
Similarly, Mrs Foxy and I share a 4 bed detached property, but are in no hurry to downsize. We like it and have rather got used to lots of space. There isn't a lot of incentive to downsize.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
Whilst I agree with you in part, these things take time. A new development is being built next to us: Cambourne West. The first ?couple of dozen? houses have been built of the 2,350 total planned. None have been moved into yet, despite the works having been ongoing for two years. It's taken that long to get all the services in: roads, water, drainage etc. It's not as if they've been going slow: they were only off-site for a few weeks during the pandemic.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
^^^ This is a real problem. We recently gave outline planning permission for a site with over 4,000 new homes. The developer informed us they'd be building out over 20 years. Due to "market forces."
That is, if they built out faster, they wouldn't be able to charge as much as prices would fall.
The problem about the supply and demand equation is that the developers know about it too and they aren't dumb.
The problem is you're dealing with a developer.
If planning permission existed automatically for anyone who wanted to build, the developer would get left in the dust by other people going to build before them instead.
If you only give permission to one company, instead of their potential competitors, don't act horrified that the company operates in its own self-interest instead of the interests of the competitors that you're blocking from entering the market.
This is like blaming the African famine victims because the Warlords are taking all the food. Sending more food doesn't stop that. It just gives more food to the warlords.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
Its the exact same issue though.
If the developers aren't developing on a plot, then someone else should be able to build on a different plot and beat them to market and get sooner the sale of a house.
The value of land with consent is only high, because of the planning system, because it is rationed. End the rationing and developers would have no reason to buy land before they intend to build on it, so someone else could buy it and build on it instead.
Rubbish. If the almost 1 million plots that have already been given planning permission or are part of local plans was developed in a timely manner then the property values would drop - which of course is exactly what the big developers don't want to happen.
This is the complaint from one of the smaller developers - just one amongst many
But companies are rational and act in their own interests.
You ration new potential plots to 1 million in this country, then don't be shocked that the owners of the rights to those million choose to act in their own self-interests.
End the rationing and the first million to get built get sold and anyone who doesn't bother building ends up with land that is useless to them. Problem solved.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
All of this is true - but it comes back to property shortages. If the number of properties matches or exceeds demand, prices will fall rapidly. Both rental and for purchase.
Currently, the market clears at what people can *afford to pay*. So every increase in wealth goes to feed The Beast.
Hence people spending £1 million pounds on a terraced house built by a Victorian brickworks as cheap company accommodation for the labourers at the brickworks....
These are not immovable beasts. Tax second homes more and landlords can afford to pay less relative to wannabee homeowners. That is a desirable outcome for society, just not the part of society that votes for the establishment party in power. It really is not rocket science.
Second homes are not the overall cause of the housing crisis - though they have profound effects in certain localities.
The reason why second homes, more brown field, unoccupied flats owned by Evul Furriners etc are such popular "solutions" is that they avoid dealing with the actual issue.
I meant second homes as in people who own more than one home including landlords, rather than solely your seaside cottage types.
A trick like that will usually fall straight through into the rent, or force houses to withdraw from the market.
All the people who can afford their own house will go "oh good, no PRS", whilst the more marginal people eg people who cannot get mortgages, or have no option, or work flexibly, will be forced to have fewer housing options.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
We don't need any more BTL properties built, only 1 to 3 bed affordable homes for first time buyers in London and the Home counties
What if a large family wants a 4 bed? Or a 5 bed?
Is your attitude just "oh well, sucks to be you, I've got mine".
Let people build whatever they want, wherever they want it, apart from zones marked as uninhabitable for anyone because they're reserved for other things like nature.
There are already plenty of 4 to 5 bed plus homes even in the home counties and we do not want to concrete all over our greenspaces.
We need new 1 to 3 bed homes for first time buyers in brownbelt land in London and the Home counties, that is it
Quite right. The beautiful British countryside is one of the few treasures this nation has left. When I pull back the curtains of the east drawing room in the morning I don't want to be abused by the sight of some ghastly chav housing estate of egg boxes. Let them live in towns - in houses, flats or on the pavement. I don't care!
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
We live in a 4-bedroom house in Warwickshire which is full of 'stuff'. A previous generation might have down-sized to a bungalow in Abergele but we don't need to do that so we're staying put. I fully recognise that we're part of the problem, but I don't relish becoming part of the solution.
Smug b*st*rd posting. When our children left home and mrs C & I retired we sold our 4 bed home in a commuter area, and moved to an existing two bed place in a vibrant but much smaller, and 'real', community. One of the best things we ever did. Only downside now is that all our family is a long way away. Which it wasn't when we moved here.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
Whilst I agree with you in part, these things take time. A new development is being built next to us: Cambourne West. The first ?couple of dozen? houses have been built of the 2,350 total planned. None have been moved into yet, despite the works having been ongoing for two years. It's taken that long to get all the services in: roads, water, drainage etc. It's not as if they've been going slow: they were only off-site for a few weeks during the pandemic.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
^^^ This is a real problem. We recently gave outline planning permission for a site with over 4,000 new homes. The developer informed us they'd be building out over 20 years. Due to "market forces."
That is, if they built out faster, they wouldn't be able to charge as much as prices would fall.
The problem about the supply and demand equation is that the developers know about it too and they aren't dumb.
Time limited planning permission? Planning permission = tax on the plot until built? Give planning permission for 4K houses - but give it to multiple developers?
Yep all these are excellent ideas. But they have all been suggested for many years and nothing has been done about it.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
The value of the land (with planning permission) is used to finance the project, usually.
is the number of plots in the flow going up or down?
One big part of the issue is that planning is an all or nothing thing.
Say you've got that estate of 4,000 homes, once the building has started there is currently no incentive to finish off the estate as the planning remains valid.
If you want to ensure houses are built you need to find a means of saying build within 2 years or the plot returns to the market to be sold and built on by someone else .
You put in for planning in 2022. It gets knocked back. You revise and put it back in; it passes in 2023. In the meantime, you have put the men and resources into another development, that will take five years to complete. Planning can take a long time, and it can be slightly surprising when it finally gets considered by a council.
Also; you would have to transfer or renegotiate S106 and other matters.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
All of this is true - but it comes back to property shortages. If the number of properties matches or exceeds demand, prices will fall rapidly. Both rental and for purchase.
Currently, the market clears at what people can *afford to pay*. So every increase in wealth goes to feed The Beast.
Hence people spending £1 million pounds on a terraced house built by a Victorian brickworks as cheap company accommodation for the labourers at the brickworks....
These are not immovable beasts. Tax second homes more and landlords can afford to pay less relative to wannabee homeowners. That is a desirable outcome for society, just not the part of society that votes for the establishment party in power. It really is not rocket science.
Second homes are not the overall cause of the housing crisis - though they have profound effects in certain localities.
The reason why second homes, more brown field, unoccupied flats owned by Evul Furriners etc are such popular "solutions" is that they avoid dealing with the actual issue.
I meant second homes as in people who own more than one home including landlords, rather than solely your seaside cottage types.
If you don't increase the number of properties, just shifting from rental to ownership won't do much for affordability.
As my mother put it - you are either paying your own mortgage or someone else's.
It could improve affordability, because it would reduce the amount of money chasing properties in the housing market.
If you encourage people to put their pension and investment savings into other investments, and not into BTL or rental property investment trusts, then it reduces the aggregate amount of money that is being used to buy houses. And so prices will decline.
Pretty ridiculous front pages for the most part. Abramovic might or might not be a nice guy but why the British press have to personalise things to the extent that it reads like he's responsible for the slaughter in Ukraine I don't know. It just makes the country look stupid and hysterical
Perhaps the Hysteria Award can be given to the Cardiff Philharmonic
Pretty ridiculous front pages for the most part. Abramovic might or might not be a nice guy but why the British press have to personalise things to the extent that it reads like he's responsible for the slaughter in Ukraine I don't know. It just makes the country look stupid and hysterical
He's not directly responsible, but Putin and the oligarchs are collectively responsible. If Putin didn't favour them (protection for money) and they didn't support Putin (money for protection) there would be a different government in Russia, and hopefully a better one that hadn't gone completely mad and decided to rebuild the Russian Empire by slaughtering its neighbours.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
^^^ This is a real problem. We recently gave outline planning permission for a site with over 4,000 new homes. The developer informed us they'd be building out over 20 years. Due to "market forces."
That is, if they built out faster, they wouldn't be able to charge as much as prices would fall.
The problem about the supply and demand equation is that the developers know about it too and they aren't dumb.
The problem is you're dealing with a developer.
If planning permission existed automatically for anyone who wanted to build, the developer would get left in the dust by other people going to build before them instead.
If you only give permission to one company, instead of their potential competitors, don't act horrified that the company operates in its own self-interest instead of the interests of the competitors that you're blocking from entering the market.
This is like blaming the African famine victims because the Warlords are taking all the food. Sending more food doesn't stop that. It just gives more food to the warlords.
No that's what you're doing.
The limit in this country isn't land or labour, its permission. So plots with permission that are getting hoarded.
If you end the need for permission, then land with permission becomes utterly worthless other than any other land. Anyone can then enter the market as a developer to compete against those you're empowering by giving them monopoly control over the permission that they hoard.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
Whilst I agree with you in part, these things take time. A new development is being built next to us: Cambourne West. The first ?couple of dozen? houses have been built of the 2,350 total planned. None have been moved into yet, despite the works having been ongoing for two years. It's taken that long to get all the services in: roads, water, drainage etc. It's not as if they've been going slow: they were only off-site for a few weeks during the pandemic.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
Whilst I agree with you in part, these things take time. A new development is being built next to us: Cambourne West. The first ?couple of dozen? houses have been built of the 2,350 total planned. None have been moved into yet, despite the works having been ongoing for two years. It's taken that long to get all the services in: roads, water, drainage etc. It's not as if they've been going slow: they were only off-site for a few weeks during the pandemic.
Manpower and supplies are major issues in the industry. ISTR there was a problem getting bricks a few months back.
So yes, builders could be doing more: but doing more is not exactly easy.
And yet smaller developers are complaining because they can't get the land to build on.
Yep. I'm just stating another angle.
Another issue is land options, where builders have a 'deal' with the landowner, that they will sell to the builder when they want it. For this the landowner gets a hefty deposit up-front. AIUI the land does not appear on the builder's books, but it is not available for development to anyone else.
Allegedly, a lot of land in this area has been optioned in this manner.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
^^^ This is a real problem. We recently gave outline planning permission for a site with over 4,000 new homes. The developer informed us they'd be building out over 20 years. Due to "market forces."
That is, if they built out faster, they wouldn't be able to charge as much as prices would fall.
The problem about the supply and demand equation is that the developers know about it too and they aren't dumb.
The problem is you're dealing with a developer.
If planning permission existed automatically for anyone who wanted to build, the developer would get left in the dust by other people going to build before them instead.
If you only give permission to one company, instead of their potential competitors, don't act horrified that the company operates in its own self-interest instead of the interests of the competitors that you're blocking from entering the market.
Why would a developer sell the land for the development to another developer?
Pretty ridiculous front pages for the most part. Abramovic might or might not be a nice guy but why the British press have to personalise things to the extent that it reads like he's responsible for the slaughter in Ukraine I don't know. It just makes the country look stupid and hysterical
Perhaps the Hysteria Award can be given to the Cardiff Philharmonic
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
We don't need any more BTL properties built, only 1 to 3 bed affordable homes for first time buyers in London and the Home counties
Our economy has been open to these young first time buyers:
Lavrov gave numerous speeches about the evil anglo-saxon world and the awful liberal western countries who want to destroy Russia and Ukraine. So why on Earth does his step-daughter live in the centre of London? Why not in Crimea or Donbass, why doesn’t she move there? https://t.co/YPuCAB5hhV
I doubt there are many £4million properties in Crimea or Donbas......
Pretty ridiculous front pages for the most part. Abramovic might or might not be a nice guy but why the British press have to personalise things to the extent that it reads like he's responsible for the slaughter in Ukraine I don't know. It just makes the country look stupid and hysterical
Perhaps the Hysteria Award can be given to the Cardiff Philharmonic
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
^^^ This is a real problem. We recently gave outline planning permission for a site with over 4,000 new homes. The developer informed us they'd be building out over 20 years. Due to "market forces."
That is, if they built out faster, they wouldn't be able to charge as much as prices would fall.
The problem about the supply and demand equation is that the developers know about it too and they aren't dumb.
Time limited planning permission? Planning permission = tax on the plot until built? Give planning permission for 4K houses - but give it to multiple developers?
There are already limits on "making a meaningful start." It's a bit harsh to limit completion times, as unexpected delays would mean that they'd have half-finished houses that suddenly no longer had planning permission.
However, they're very good at sliding into the definitions of "meaningful start," and their lawyers are a damn sight better paid than our lawyers.
I'd prefer tax on plots until built (a Land Value Tax on land-plus-permissions to kick in the day after permissions are granted), but the Government resist that sort of thing strongly.
Multiple developers tend to clump together in consortia when the latter happens and do the same thing.
One way we're trying to get around it is the concept of assisted self-build - get a group of small developers, plus a bunch of pre-approved house designs, with plots provided with utilities and transport links (kind of like caravan parks writ large) and people call down exactly what they'd want and when. Unfortunately, the system is set up to support the large builders, and Local Authorities have very limited funding and extraordinarily limited powers.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
If @OnlyLivingBoy bought his property in Wales he would face Drakeford's latest 300% council tax increase for second homes
I think that is not correct.
The home would have a family living in it, so it would not be eligible for the council tax surcharge.
Drakeford (at the prodding of Plaid Cymru) is trying to tackle the problem of second homes left largely empty all the year round.
The problem with Drakeford's policy is more with the implementation -- what is the actual legal definition of a second-home?
Anyhow, Drakeford is going soon. I guess we will miss the bumbling academic once he is gone.
I've wondered about that definition. In-laws own a 'lodge' on Ynys Mon, a sort of double caravan, which is one of about 20 on a field with fine views over the coast. They probably spend about 35% of their time there, although I suspect that might have to reduce soon, but say that often they are the only people on site, Would they, the site owner, or neither have to pay extra under the new regs?
It is a good question. I really don't know.
It shows how difficult implementation of the tax is going to be.
Sky reporting Chelsea fans continued chanting Abramovich name at the match last night
Astonishing deaf ears
Some are still out to lynch Bryant too. Fortunately they don't know where to find the Rhonnda.
Did Chris Bryant know where to find the Rhondda before he became the MP?
Private school in Cheltenham, Oxbridge, Oxford University Conservative Association .... I dislike people being parachuted into constituencies with which they have little or zero connection.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
^^^ This is a real problem. We recently gave outline planning permission for a site with over 4,000 new homes. The developer informed us they'd be building out over 20 years. Due to "market forces."
That is, if they built out faster, they wouldn't be able to charge as much as prices would fall.
The problem about the supply and demand equation is that the developers know about it too and they aren't dumb.
The problem is you're dealing with a developer.
If planning permission existed automatically for anyone who wanted to build, the developer would get left in the dust by other people going to build before them instead.
If you only give permission to one company, instead of their potential competitors, don't act horrified that the company operates in its own self-interest instead of the interests of the competitors that you're blocking from entering the market.
Why would a developer sell the land for the development to another developer?
Developers don't own all land in this country, far from it. Developers are buying land marked for development which then blocks off other developers from operating as that gives them a valuable asset which remains valuable even if they don't bother to lay a single brick.
If you let people develop wherever they want instead, then developers land hoarding would be pure cost and no gain, so it would stop overnight because its irrational and uneconomic.
The overall quantity of housing wouldn't change that much, but the cost of doing so would no longer be artificially inflated every step of the way.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
^^^ This is a real problem. We recently gave outline planning permission for a site with over 4,000 new homes. The developer informed us they'd be building out over 20 years. Due to "market forces."
That is, if they built out faster, they wouldn't be able to charge as much as prices would fall.
The problem about the supply and demand equation is that the developers know about it too and they aren't dumb.
The problem is you're dealing with a developer.
If planning permission existed automatically for anyone who wanted to build, the developer would get left in the dust by other people going to build before them instead.
If you only give permission to one company, instead of their potential competitors, don't act horrified that the company operates in its own self-interest instead of the interests of the competitors that you're blocking from entering the market.
This is like blaming the African famine victims because the Warlords are taking all the food. Sending more food doesn't stop that. It just gives more food to the warlords.
No that's what you're doing.
The limit in this country isn't land or labour, its permission. So plots with permission that are getting hoarded.
If you end the need for permission, then land with permission becomes utterly worthless other than any other land. Anyone can then enter the market as a developer to compete against those you're empowering by giving them monopoly control over the permission that they hoard.
Rubbish there has been a massive increase in planning permissions for developments over the last 2 decades and there has been no corresponding increase in house building rates. And planning permission exists for very good reasons. Even Mrs Thatcher understood this which is why she reformed it to make it far more effective and responsive. Sadly successive Governments since her have stripped away the various protections in the guise of freeing up more land for development and the result is private developers are actually building fewer house not more.
Pretty ridiculous front pages for the most part. Abramovic might or might not be a nice guy but why the British press have to personalise things to the extent that it reads like he's responsible for the slaughter in Ukraine I don't know. It just makes the country look stupid and hysterical
Perhaps the Hysteria Award can be given to the Cardiff Philharmonic
Pretty ridiculous front pages for the most part. Abramovic might or might not be a nice guy but why the British press have to personalise things to the extent that it reads like he's responsible for the slaughter in Ukraine I don't know. It just makes the country look stupid and hysterical
Perhaps the Hysteria Award can be given to the Cardiff Philharmonic
(Although honourable menshuns for some posters on pb.com).
You think playing a cretinously nasty bit of catchpenny triumphalism actually scored for Russian artillery, at a time when children are being murdered by Russian artillery, is a good look?
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
Whilst I agree with you in part, these things take time. A new development is being built next to us: Cambourne West. The first ?couple of dozen? houses have been built of the 2,350 total planned. None have been moved into yet, despite the works having been ongoing for two years. It's taken that long to get all the services in: roads, water, drainage etc. It's not as if they've been going slow: they were only off-site for a few weeks during the pandemic.
Manpower and supplies are major issues in the industry. ISTR there was a problem getting bricks a few months back.
So yes, builders could be doing more: but doing more is not exactly easy.
And yet smaller developers are complaining because they can't get the land to build on.
They could get land, what they can't get is the land with permission.
Permission is what is rationed, so permission is what becomes valuable instead of the actual job of doing the work.
There is no shortage of land with permission, as above.
And let's not lose sight of the bigger picture - a lot of people have gone into property for lack of returns from more conventional investments, and that ties back to years of QE and near zero interest rates, which is the engine that has slowly but inexorably pushed us (and much of the West) toward greater inequality of wealth. And in the UK our openness to foreign investment, no questions asked - which has finally made the news at least in respect of Russians - has made the problem worse, particularly in London where even the relatively wealthy have been pushed out into areas away from their traditional west London (where some streets seem almost devoid of 'regular' residents nowadays) with knock-on effects across the capital and beyond.
I have come to the conclusion that the best policy in Ukraine is to make things as difficult as possible for the Russians on every possible level. Militarily, economically, politically. The aim should be the ruin of this dictatorship.
While condemnation of Russia around Europe, North America (outside the alt right) and other developed counties is high, that is not universal. China and India are leaning pro-Russia, and much of Africa too. This poll in the Economist of Africa is sobering.
Has the west ceded it's influence in the rest of the world? I wondered this when Trump was talking about pulling out of European and particularly German bases because they were expensive and the Europeans ungrateful. I just wondered how an American president could be so stupid to surrender such strategic influence.
The West's power has always been in the strength of its relationships, with their societies acting as a model for prosperity. Now what are we an example of? Quick dodgy money and hypocrisy? 'We' should be out there, building the world. If we don't, we leave it others. China is ensuring all roads lead to Beijing and the countries they pass through will increasingly look to authoritarian state Capitalism as the model for Government.
I'm on a theme now, but the West needs renewal. We need to get out of this mindset that we are rich and powerful, we have always been rich and powerful, and we always will be rich and powerful. It needs to be demonstrated, again, that the rule of law, equity, justice and democracy lead to self confident, rich and happy societies. The development of Russia shows that this is not self evident. It seems that the West thought, following the fall of the Soviet Union, having tried it their way, would fall by default into a pluralistic liberal society. How could they not? What was the alternative at the end of history? Well, we know now.
Certain sections of society bitch and moan about foreign aid, the expense of engaging with the world, the BBC, that too many foreigners come here looking for a better life. All these things are our strengths in the world, and if used properly, can influence the world towards one more of our liking.
Telling one section of our society to shut up about their concerns (however misguided you feel they may be) so that we can demonstrate how wonderful our way of doing things is to others, is a funny way to go about it.
Well, were I seeking office, I might spend more time in persuasion on that point. But those points can be addressed by building for today and for tomorrow. By strengthening our state institutions, providing housing and services fit for purpose, a lot of resource issues around immigration can be dealt with. This can grow the economy by creating happy, healthy and prosperous people who spend money, start businesses and innovate in new existing sectors. By being open to others coming, either permanently or to study, those that come temporarily will forge ties of friendship and when they go back they will contribute to the prosperity of their own country, binding us closer. The problem of immigration is not the immigrants, imo, but the paltry state of services and housing and the lack of opportunity within our own society.
The BBC is a global brand, incredibly well trusted. If we give it more, it can do more. Sure, I might not like Dancing with the Stars, I might not have children and don't watch Peppa Pig but the BBC puts out some cracking documentaries. When something happens in the world, I can choose a broad range of opinion to learn about it, but for facts - especially contentious ones in a developing situation, for me it hasn't happened unless the BBC have it.
It's not about telling a section of society to shut up. People can bitch and moan, and no one will ever persuade everyone to their way of looking at things (pluralism provides self correction and should be fostered), but I believe we are stronger, more influential and prosperous if we are open, tolerant and fair. I believe that we need to build this world, first because it is not self evident that democracy, freedom and the rule of law are the best systems of Governance, and secondly if these values are not promoted then others might promote authoritarianism and the arbitrary use of state violence and military power at home and abroad. And we will not be immune to such thinking in such a world.
At the root of it all, I suppose, my view is that an awesome marriage of capitalism and strong state institutions that work for people have created the richest and most prosperous societies yet known. My feeling, and it is mostly a feeling, is that we have tilted slightly to a view where people work for the benefit of Capitalism. That the making of money is the goal of capitalism makes it an engine of the economy but that shouldn't mean that wealth is the end goal of society. Money is a tool, with which society can improve itself, only if it is organised to do so. Capitalism instead needs to be made to work for people. If the proceeds of capital are made to work for society, I think an open, tolerant society can be built. It can exported and promote itself. We can make the End of History, but we have to make it, it won't just happen.
So how much extra do you personally give to the BBC ?
Is this todays meme?
We should do more for refugees. - How many have you taken in? We should improve the BBC - How much extra have you paid? We should improve the NHS - Did you bother to train as a doctor?
When someone says we should 'give' more to the BBC I'm curious as to where they think this extra money is coming from.
The "we" gives it away.
Does it ?
Then why doesn't he say "I think we should pay more tax to fund the BBC" ?
Then perhaps we could discuss why the number of politicians advocating such a policy appears to be minimal.
That is exactly what I believe, and would see any politician advocating that in a positive light. The BBC should be funded directly by government grant.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
^^^ This is a real problem. We recently gave outline planning permission for a site with over 4,000 new homes. The developer informed us they'd be building out over 20 years. Due to "market forces."
That is, if they built out faster, they wouldn't be able to charge as much as prices would fall.
The problem about the supply and demand equation is that the developers know about it too and they aren't dumb.
The problem is you're dealing with a developer.
If planning permission existed automatically for anyone who wanted to build, the developer would get left in the dust by other people going to build before them instead.
If you only give permission to one company, instead of their potential competitors, don't act horrified that the company operates in its own self-interest instead of the interests of the competitors that you're blocking from entering the market.
Why would a developer sell the land for the development to another developer?
I think they quite often do.
Henry Boot has a whole division that acquires development land, gets planning permission then sells it on to other developers.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
^^^ This is a real problem. We recently gave outline planning permission for a site with over 4,000 new homes. The developer informed us they'd be building out over 20 years. Due to "market forces."
That is, if they built out faster, they wouldn't be able to charge as much as prices would fall.
The problem about the supply and demand equation is that the developers know about it too and they aren't dumb.
The problem is you're dealing with a developer.
If planning permission existed automatically for anyone who wanted to build, the developer would get left in the dust by other people going to build before them instead.
If you only give permission to one company, instead of their potential competitors, don't act horrified that the company operates in its own self-interest instead of the interests of the competitors that you're blocking from entering the market.
This is like blaming the African famine victims because the Warlords are taking all the food. Sending more food doesn't stop that. It just gives more food to the warlords.
No that's what you're doing.
The limit in this country isn't land or labour, its permission. So plots with permission that are getting hoarded.
If you end the need for permission, then land with permission becomes utterly worthless other than any other land. Anyone can then enter the market as a developer to compete against those you're empowering by giving them monopoly control over the permission that they hoard.
Rubbish there has been a massive increase in planning permissions for developments over the last 2 decades and there has been no corresponding increase in house building rates. And planning permission exists for very good reasons. Even Mrs Thatcher understood this which is why she reformed it to make it far more effective and responsive. Sadly successive Governments since her have stripped away the various protections in the guise of freeing up more land for development and the result is private developers are actually building fewer house not more.
But permission is still rationed.
If the permission wasn't rationed then other private developers could step in and act, but if you're keeping the rationing but simply giving more rations to the same few people then nothing changes.
Abolish rationing and anyone can compete with the developers. The existing developers would be hammered as rivals could enter the market place and their assets of undeveloped land on the books they've got would no longer be valuable as they'd lose the consent premium.
Pretty ridiculous front pages for the most part. Abramovic might or might not be a nice guy but why the British press have to personalise things to the extent that it reads like he's responsible for the slaughter in Ukraine I don't know. It just makes the country look stupid and hysterical
Perhaps the Hysteria Award can be given to the Cardiff Philharmonic
(Although honourable menshuns for some posters on pb.com).
Yes, that's utterly ridiculous. What next? 'War and Peace' dropped from the 'A' Level syllabus?
No it isn't. "Where do you draw the line?" is always a much easier question than the people proposing it think it is. In this case, directly under the piece of inappropriate bombastic wankerdom which is the 1812.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
Its the exact same issue though.
If the developers aren't developing on a plot, then someone else should be able to build on a different plot and beat them to market and get sooner the sale of a house.
The value of land with consent is only high, because of the planning system, because it is rationed. End the rationing and developers would have no reason to buy land before they intend to build on it, so someone else could buy it and build on it instead.
Rubbish. If the almost 1 million plots that have already been given planning permission or are part of local plans was developed in a timely manner then the property values would drop - which of course is exactly what the big developers don't want to happen.
This is the complaint from one of the smaller developers - just one amongst many
But companies are rational and act in their own interests.
You ration new potential plots to 1 million in this country, then don't be shocked that the owners of the rights to those million choose to act in their own self-interests.
End the rationing and the first million to get built get sold and anyone who doesn't bother building ends up with land that is useless to them. Problem solved.
Yes companies act in their own self interest. And the job of Government in part is to make sure that self interest does not damage the country - which is what it is doing now.
Stop giving planning permission to the big developers and start giving it to smaller more responsive companies that actually get houses built. Do what they do very successfully in the Netherlands and Belgium which is to encourage self build and small developments rather than having our whole housing policy controlled and abused by a few big companies who have it in their own interests to limit the number of new houses being built. But scrapping planning permission will do none of that.
Putin also mentioned sending volunteers to fight against Ukraine, primarily from Assad’s Syria."
If true, then things could get very interesting. Arming people that hate you to fight in a war they want you to lose rarely works well. Only question is what the Belarussian troops who don't want to be there will do. Lay down their arms or jump sides?
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
^^^ This is a real problem. We recently gave outline planning permission for a site with over 4,000 new homes. The developer informed us they'd be building out over 20 years. Due to "market forces."
That is, if they built out faster, they wouldn't be able to charge as much as prices would fall.
The problem about the supply and demand equation is that the developers know about it too and they aren't dumb.
The problem is you're dealing with a developer.
If planning permission existed automatically for anyone who wanted to build, the developer would get left in the dust by other people going to build before them instead.
If you only give permission to one company, instead of their potential competitors, don't act horrified that the company operates in its own self-interest instead of the interests of the competitors that you're blocking from entering the market.
This is like blaming the African famine victims because the Warlords are taking all the food. Sending more food doesn't stop that. It just gives more food to the warlords.
No that's what you're doing.
The limit in this country isn't land or labour, its permission. So plots with permission that are getting hoarded.
If you end the need for permission, then land with permission becomes utterly worthless other than any other land. Anyone can then enter the market as a developer to compete against those you're empowering by giving them monopoly control over the permission that they hoard.
Land that's suitable for building upon and in a good location will still be limited. The richest developers will then be able to buy up swathes of land easily enough. If the price of land drops a hundred-fold, they can buy up a hundred times as much land. And once they own it, why sell it to someone who is going to build out rapidly and "leave them in the dust?"
The way around land-banking is to give Local Authorities a bunch of money to build affordable houses. If we could build out a few hundred thousand houses, and have no motive to boost the prices, then the supply-demand equation changes.
At this point, those landbanks will deteriorate in value over time. The game theory equation will change: those developers who cash theirs in (by building out rapidly) will, although reducing their total take by building out faster, will get the maximum value out of it. Those who are slower will take the worst hit.
The incentive changes direction. The (financial) devil takes the hindmost.
Pretty ridiculous front pages for the most part. Abramovic might or might not be a nice guy but why the British press have to personalise things to the extent that it reads like he's responsible for the slaughter in Ukraine I don't know. It just makes the country look stupid and hysterical
Perhaps the Hysteria Award can be given to the Cardiff Philharmonic
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
Whilst I agree with you in part, these things take time. A new development is being built next to us: Cambourne West. The first ?couple of dozen? houses have been built of the 2,350 total planned. None have been moved into yet, despite the works having been ongoing for two years. It's taken that long to get all the services in: roads, water, drainage etc. It's not as if they've been going slow: they were only off-site for a few weeks during the pandemic.
Manpower and supplies are major issues in the industry. ISTR there was a problem getting bricks a few months back.
So yes, builders could be doing more: but doing more is not exactly easy.
And yet smaller developers are complaining because they can't get the land to build on.
They could get land, what they can't get is the land with permission.
Permission is what is rationed, so permission is what becomes valuable instead of the actual job of doing the work.
There is no shortage of land with permission, as above.
And let's not lose sight of the bigger picture - a lot of people have gone into property for lack of returns from more conventional investments, and that ties back to years of QE and near zero interest rates, which is the engine that has slowly but inexorably pushed us (and much of the West) toward greater inequality of wealth. And in the UK our openness to foreign investment, no questions asked - which has finally made the news at least in respect of Russians - has made the problem worse, particularly in London where even the relatively wealthy have been pushed out into areas away from their traditional west London (where some streets seem almost devoid of 'regular' residents nowadays) with knock-on effects across the capital and beyond.
But there is a shortage, since there's a fixed stock, if all the land with permission is owned by the same people then there is a shortage of it as there's no supply for their competitors to buy.
What is needed is a market where any potential rival developer can easily buy land and develop it, if they can't easily do that, then there's a shortage even if other developers are sitting on a stockpile.
Endless sprawling suburbia is the British (and Australasian) way. People want houses, and a patch of garden, even if tiny. At least that is the case outside London.
Partly it is the poor construction and environment of many British flats, of which the cladding issue is just one of many.
Pretty ridiculous front pages for the most part. Abramovic might or might not be a nice guy but why the British press have to personalise things to the extent that it reads like he's responsible for the slaughter in Ukraine I don't know. It just makes the country look stupid and hysterical
Perhaps the Hysteria Award can be given to the Cardiff Philharmonic
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
We live in a 4-bedroom house in Warwickshire which is full of 'stuff'. A previous generation might have down-sized to a bungalow in Abergele but we don't need to do that so we're staying put. I fully recognise that we're part of the problem, but I don't relish becoming part of the solution.
Similarly, Mrs Foxy and I share a 4 bed detached property, but are in no hurry to downsize. We like it and have rather got used to lots of space. There isn't a lot of incentive to downsize.
Proportional property tax, which package includes the abolition of Stamp Duty
Pretty ridiculous front pages for the most part. Abramovic might or might not be a nice guy but why the British press have to personalise things to the extent that it reads like he's responsible for the slaughter in Ukraine I don't know. It just makes the country look stupid and hysterical
Perhaps the Hysteria Award can be given to the Cardiff Philharmonic
(Although honourable menshuns for some posters on pb.com).
Yes, that's utterly ridiculous. What next? 'War and Peace' dropped from the 'A' Level syllabus?
No it isn't. "Where do you draw the line?" is always a much easier question than the people proposing it think it is. In this case, directly under the piece of inappropriate bombastic wankerdom which is the 1812.
I'm not drawing any line. I simply don't think works of art should be censored because the government of the country the artist happened to be born in does deplorably things over a century after the artist's death.
Reservists and volunteers being mobilised in Dagestan. Pay of £1,000. Looks like the penny is finally dropping that Russia may not have nearly enough men in the invasion force.
Pretty ridiculous front pages for the most part. Abramovic might or might not be a nice guy but why the British press have to personalise things to the extent that it reads like he's responsible for the slaughter in Ukraine I don't know. It just makes the country look stupid and hysterical
Perhaps the Hysteria Award can be given to the Cardiff Philharmonic
(Although honourable menshuns for some posters on pb.com).
Yes, that's utterly ridiculous. What next? 'War and Peace' dropped from the 'A' Level syllabus?
No it isn't. "Where do you draw the line?" is always a much easier question than the people proposing it think it is. In this case, directly under the piece of inappropriate bombastic wankerdom which is the 1812.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
^^^ This is a real problem. We recently gave outline planning permission for a site with over 4,000 new homes. The developer informed us they'd be building out over 20 years. Due to "market forces."
Can you not apply time limits to the planning permission? 4,000 new homes within 8 years and after 8 years the permission lapses and they will not get it renewed?
With a sensible "unofficial" pact between Lib Dems and Labour in 2024, the Tories are going to have a load of problems. I think laying Tory majority seems a good bet
Only question is what the Belarussian troops who don't want to be there will do. Lay down their arms or jump sides?
Rape and looting spree to make the trip worthwhile. Whatever happens now Ukraine is finished as a viable state; possibly forever.
I am not so sure. It looks to me that Ukraine is developing an ever stronger national consciousness. There will be a lot of international support for rebuilding it, and liberating the rest.
Of course we ignore that Ukranian oligarchs are no angels either.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
Its the exact same issue though.
If the developers aren't developing on a plot, then someone else should be able to build on a different plot and beat them to market and get sooner the sale of a house.
The value of land with consent is only high, because of the planning system, because it is rationed. End the rationing and developers would have no reason to buy land before they intend to build on it, so someone else could buy it and build on it instead.
Rubbish. If the almost 1 million plots that have already been given planning permission or are part of local plans was developed in a timely manner then the property values would drop - which of course is exactly what the big developers don't want to happen.
This is the complaint from one of the smaller developers - just one amongst many
But companies are rational and act in their own interests.
You ration new potential plots to 1 million in this country, then don't be shocked that the owners of the rights to those million choose to act in their own self-interests.
End the rationing and the first million to get built get sold and anyone who doesn't bother building ends up with land that is useless to them. Problem solved.
Yes companies act in their own self interest. And the job of Government in part is to make sure that self interest does not damage the country - which is what it is doing now.
Stop giving planning permission to the big developers and start giving it to smaller more responsive companies that actually get houses built. Do what they do very successfully in the Netherlands and Belgium which is to encourage self build and small developments rather than having our whole housing policy controlled and abused by a few big companies who have it in their own interests to limit the number of new houses being built. But scrapping planning permission will do none of that.
Scrapping our planning system will do that, since the Netherlands quite rightly have a completely different planning system and not our one. You don't need to be as extremely free market as I am, the zoning system used by the Netherlands is an entirely different to our system, so that again confirms the fact that it is our planning system which is causing the problems.
Small developers can much more easily get permission in the Netherlands than they can in the UK. That's the real issue. The only reason that our few big companies are able to hoard permission, is because their potential rivals can't easily get it which they can in the Netherlands.
Pretty ridiculous front pages for the most part. Abramovic might or might not be a nice guy but why the British press have to personalise things to the extent that it reads like he's responsible for the slaughter in Ukraine I don't know. It just makes the country look stupid and hysterical
Perhaps the Hysteria Award can be given to the Cardiff Philharmonic
Pretty ridiculous front pages for the most part. Abramovic might or might not be a nice guy but why the British press have to personalise things to the extent that it reads like he's responsible for the slaughter in Ukraine I don't know. It just makes the country look stupid and hysterical
Perhaps the Hysteria Award can be given to the Cardiff Philharmonic
(Although honourable menshuns for some posters on pb.com).
Yes, that's utterly ridiculous. What next? 'War and Peace' dropped from the 'A' Level syllabus?
No it isn't. "Where do you draw the line?" is always a much easier question than the people proposing it think it is. In this case, directly under the piece of inappropriate bombastic wankerdom which is the 1812.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
We live in a 4-bedroom house in Warwickshire which is full of 'stuff'. A previous generation might have down-sized to a bungalow in Abergele but we don't need to do that so we're staying put. I fully recognise that we're part of the problem, but I don't relish becoming part of the solution.
Similarly, Mrs Foxy and I share a 4 bed detached property, but are in no hurry to downsize. We like it and have rather got used to lots of space. There isn't a lot of incentive to downsize.
Proportional property tax, which package includes the abolition of Stamp Duty
Yes, changing council tax to a wealth tax on property of say 1% and abolishing stamp duty would probably do it. Stamp duty is a tax on residential mobility, which goes against efficient markets in housing.
Pretty ridiculous front pages for the most part. Abramovic might or might not be a nice guy but why the British press have to personalise things to the extent that it reads like he's responsible for the slaughter in Ukraine I don't know. It just makes the country look stupid and hysterical
Perhaps the Hysteria Award can be given to the Cardiff Philharmonic
Pretty ridiculous front pages for the most part. Abramovic might or might not be a nice guy but why the British press have to personalise things to the extent that it reads like he's responsible for the slaughter in Ukraine I don't know. It just makes the country look stupid and hysterical
Perhaps the Hysteria Award can be given to the Cardiff Philharmonic
(Although honourable menshuns for some posters on pb.com).
Yes, that's utterly ridiculous. What next? 'War and Peace' dropped from the 'A' Level syllabus?
No it isn't. "Where do you draw the line?" is always a much easier question than the people proposing it think it is. In this case, directly under the piece of inappropriate bombastic wankerdom which is the 1812.
I'm not drawing any line. I simply don't think works of art should be censored because the government of the country the artist happened to be born in does deplorably things over a century after the artist's death.
use of the word "censorship" in this case seems a better candidate for any Hysteria Award.
the 1812 hasn't been outlawed.
what's more, even the Cardiff Philharmonic is performing pieces by other Russian composers so it obviously has nothing to do with where composers happened to be born.
Pretty ridiculous front pages for the most part. Abramovic might or might not be a nice guy but why the British press have to personalise things to the extent that it reads like he's responsible for the slaughter in Ukraine I don't know. It just makes the country look stupid and hysterical
Perhaps the Hysteria Award can be given to the Cardiff Philharmonic
(Although honourable menshuns for some posters on pb.com).
Yes, that's utterly ridiculous. What next? 'War and Peace' dropped from the 'A' Level syllabus?
No it isn't. "Where do you draw the line?" is always a much easier question than the people proposing it think it is. In this case, directly under the piece of inappropriate bombastic wankerdom which is the 1812.
I'm not drawing any line. I simply don't think works of art should be censored because the government of the country the artist happened to be born in does deplorably things over a century after the artist's death.
Not what has happened. "we have no plans to change our summer and autumn programmes which contain pieces by Rachmaninoff, Prokofiev and Rimsky-Korsakof." It's the specific meaning of the 1812 which glorifies Russian artillery.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
That is utter bollocks. There are still hundreds of thousands of plots with planning permission that the developers are not building on. The problem is not the planning system.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
^^^ This is a real problem. We recently gave outline planning permission for a site with over 4,000 new homes. The developer informed us they'd be building out over 20 years. Due to "market forces."
That is, if they built out faster, they wouldn't be able to charge as much as prices would fall.
The problem about the supply and demand equation is that the developers know about it too and they aren't dumb.
The problem is you're dealing with a developer.
If planning permission existed automatically for anyone who wanted to build, the developer would get left in the dust by other people going to build before them instead.
If you only give permission to one company, instead of their potential competitors, don't act horrified that the company operates in its own self-interest instead of the interests of the competitors that you're blocking from entering the market.
This is like blaming the African famine victims because the Warlords are taking all the food. Sending more food doesn't stop that. It just gives more food to the warlords.
No that's what you're doing.
The limit in this country isn't land or labour, its permission. So plots with permission that are getting hoarded.
If you end the need for permission, then land with permission becomes utterly worthless other than any other land. Anyone can then enter the market as a developer to compete against those you're empowering by giving them monopoly control over the permission that they hoard.
Land that's suitable for building upon and in a good location will still be limited. The richest developers will then be able to buy up swathes of land easily enough. If the price of land drops a hundred-fold, they can buy up a hundred times as much land. And once they own it, why sell it to someone who is going to build out rapidly and "leave them in the dust?"
The way around land-banking is to give Local Authorities a bunch of money to build affordable houses. If we could build out a few hundred thousand houses, and have no motive to boost the prices, then the supply-demand equation changes.
At this point, those landbanks will deteriorate in value over time. The game theory equation will change: those developers who cash theirs in (by building out rapidly) will, although reducing their total take by building out faster, will get the maximum value out of it. Those who are slower will take the worst hit.
The incentive changes direction. The (financial) devil takes the hindmost.
Suitable land isn't that limited and if you tax land and they owned 100x as much undeveloped land then they'd need to pay taxes on all that land and have no revenue from it, so that's not smart, so they wouldn't do that.
The issue is that rival especially small developers can't easily get consent. You don't need Local Authorities to be in the business of building houses, just let anyone do it (so long as standards are met) and competition will do the rest to drive prices down.
Stop preventing smaller businesses from competing. That's the real problem.
Pretty ridiculous front pages for the most part. Abramovic might or might not be a nice guy but why the British press have to personalise things to the extent that it reads like he's responsible for the slaughter in Ukraine I don't know. It just makes the country look stupid and hysterical
Perhaps the Hysteria Award can be given to the Cardiff Philharmonic
(Although honourable menshuns for some posters on pb.com).
That's a bit unfair when you read why the Philharmonic has chosen to change the music.
2 bits are military and a member of the orchestra has a connection with the Ukraine.
Heck the only politician talking about it seems to be a Mr Nigel Farage...
I read the justification & I don't really think it makes much sense.
I mean, the replacement is Elgar.
I could just as easily object to Elgar on the grounds of personification of the glories of Imperial England. Particularly inappropriate in Wales.
Imperial Great Britain actually, and are you seriously claiming colonial status for Wales?
Imperial England, actually. Elgar is quintessentially English. Here's Sibelius on Elgar : "the personification of the true English character in music ... a noble personality and a born aristocrat"
And, of course, Wales is a colony.
It is run for the benefit of the English. But you know that.
Endless sprawling suburbia is the British (and Australasian) way. People want houses, and a patch of garden, even if tiny. At least that is the case outside London.
Partly it is the poor construction and environment of many British flats, of which the cladding issue is just one of many.
Sorry - that's an absurd comparison. These are the local authorities they think are part of "Greater Nottingham": Gedling, Nottingham, Broxtowe, Erewash (!).
And they have left out the Southern end of Ashfield, which arguably *is* becoming part of Greater Nottingham.
They aren't even paying much attention to the coverage Nottingham's metropolitan area public transport system.
Why are they saying that Erewash in Derbyshire is part of Greater Nottingham?
Pretty ridiculous front pages for the most part. Abramovic might or might not be a nice guy but why the British press have to personalise things to the extent that it reads like he's responsible for the slaughter in Ukraine I don't know. It just makes the country look stupid and hysterical
Perhaps the Hysteria Award can be given to the Cardiff Philharmonic
“The truth is that every Russian will feel guilty for decades because of the terrible and bloody decision that none of us could influence and predict,” he said in a Facebook statement. He later commented on the cancellation environment caused by the conflict. “I still believe Russian culture and music specifically should not be tarnished by the ongoing tragedy.”
“People cannot be judged by their nationality,” he wrote.
The cultural boycotting is indeed based on nationality, however. The Canada Council for the Arts, for example, has announced it would support Ukraine by cutting off funding to any Canadian projects involving the participation of Russian or Belarusian artists or arts organizations as long as Russia keeps its military forces in Ukraine. The Canadian institutions dissociating themselves from Russia for the time being base their decisions on a number of issues, including the matter of performance fees paid to Russian nationals....
Comments
Rory Stewart
@RoryStewartUK
Putin’s Russia continues to be paid a billion dollars every day by the EU, for oil and gas. For scale that daily amount is more than the entire defence expenditure of all the 27 EU member states combined. And five times what Putin spends on his military. #stoptheimports
https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1502233587839602692
There is some shared housing available, screening the main development from the main railway line, to which it's adjacent. In the case of the shared homes, closely adjacent.
The main negative thing I remember is the very long climb up into Monyash.
Have you done Ashbourne and Wirksworth churches? Both very worth it - Burnham-Jones glass in Wirksworth, and Carrara Marble sculpture at Ashbourne.
Then there are extant Maiden's Garlands at Ashford-in-the-Water and ...
As my mother put it - you are either paying your own mortgage or someone else's.
The problem with Drakeford's policy is more with the implementation -- what is the actual legal definition of a second-home?
Anyhow, Drakeford is going soon. I guess we will miss the bumbling academic once he is gone.
We need new 1 to 3 bed homes for first time buyers in brownbelt land in London and the Home counties, that is it
Schooling availability should be evolving based on needs of the region and that isn't fixed, even without construction. Some areas evolve into areas occupied by young families, others by retired elderly, while some remain mixed. The former and middle locations will have different stresses upon the importance of education, maternity or geriatric healthcare needs.
If the academy school is an issue that should be fixed for everyone, not just those living in a new estate.
Conversely, if you build enough, pries will go down.
As of 2020 developers were sitting on 440,000 plots with planning permission and an additional 480,000 without specific permission but which are already designated in local plans so will get permission. They claim this is because they need to have a stock for future development - the normal range being 5-10 years worth of land. But if the houses are needed now then they should be developed now and if the current owners don't have the capacity or are unwilling to develop them then they should be forced to sell them to someone who will, not sit on them for a decade whilst the housing crisis gets worse.
Stop blaming planning permission for failures by the developers.
Just about an old man.
I have four grandchildren rising to 5 in September, and being priced out of the market by absentee holiday home owners is not acceptable
Raise taxes on landlords, to lower landlords bids on properties.
Properties clear for less and the mix is a higher proportion of owners to landlords.
Affordability for owners has been improved.
is the number of plots in the flow going up or down?
If the developers aren't developing on a plot, then someone else should be able to build on a different plot and beat them to market and get sooner the sale of a house.
The value of land with consent is only high, because of the planning system, because it is rationed. End the rationing and developers would have no reason to buy land before they intend to build on it, so someone else could buy it and build on it instead.
I know who is looking 'stupid and hysterical' and it is not HMG
Would they, the site owner, or neither have to pay extra under the new regs?
We recently gave outline planning permission for a site with over 4,000 new homes.
The developer informed us they'd be building out over 20 years. Due to "market forces."
That is, if they built out faster, they wouldn't be able to charge as much as prices would fall.
The problem about the supply and demand equation is that the developers know about it too and they aren't dumb.
I have a couple of student houses in a Midlands City, where I have paid nearly £10k in meaningless Council paperwork (license etc) costs in the last few years. The same Council took a vexatious (imo) Court action against a charitable landlord over a tiny (A4 piece of paper size iirc) difference in room size to the Appeal Court level, and lost.
I can pretty much do a kitchen / bathroom / decorate / carpets renovation on a normal house for that, but the money has gone elsewhere.
ATB, LG. You will need it run by a good professional manager, and may need a tax adviser if you are subsidising any rent.
Lodgers would be another good angle, as the tax arrangements are far simpler.
The hysterical people who talk about "concreting over England" are just silly - if that happened then all you'd have is empty houses everywhere. People are rational, they won't build a house if they can't realistically sell it, so no the land won't be concreted over.
Currently the value of a plot of land with planning permission is extremely expensive before even the first bit of work is done on that land, that feeds every step of the way through the process. Remove that and the prices would plummet, even with the same work being done and relatively similar amounts of houses getting built.
The equation is simple
Rental + Ownership > Supply
This is the complaint from one of the smaller developers - just one amongst many
https://www.stripehomes.co.uk/britains-hoarding-housebuilders-increase-land-banking-plots-during-the-pandemic/
Or perhaps I've been doom scrolling a bit too much of late.
If planning permission existed automatically for anyone who wanted to build, the developer would get left in the dust by other people going to build before them instead.
If you only give permission to one company, instead of their potential competitors, don't act horrified that the company operates in its own self-interest instead of the interests of the competitors that you're blocking from entering the market.
Planning permission = tax on the plot until built?
Give planning permission for 4K houses - but give it to multiple developers?
A large part of the problem is the very low cost of holding property in terms of taxation. Charging a significant premium for unoccupied property by itself could make people think twice about whether they need to hold spare homes.
Say you've got that estate of 4,000 homes, once the building has started there is currently no incentive to finish off the estate as the planning remains valid.
If you want to ensure houses are built you need to find a means of saying build within 2 years or the plot returns to the market to be sold and built on by someone else .
Going back to the estate I talked about earlier - all 2 and 3 bedroom properties have been built and sold. What is left to be built is the 4/5 bedroom homes that will be built as people buy the existing ones.
Taylor Wimpey alone completed 14,000 new homes in 2021. Nearly 50,000 new homes were built in the first quarter of 2021.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-building-stats-show-continued-increase-in-starts-and-completions-despite-pandemic
Manpower and supplies are major issues in the industry. ISTR there was a problem getting bricks a few months back.
So yes, builders could be doing more: but doing more is not exactly easy.
You ration new potential plots to 1 million in this country, then don't be shocked that the owners of the rights to those million choose to act in their own self-interests.
End the rationing and the first million to get built get sold and anyone who doesn't bother building ends up with land that is useless to them. Problem solved.
All the people who can afford their own house will go "oh good, no PRS", whilst the more marginal people eg people who cannot get mortgages, or have no option, or work flexibly, will be forced to have fewer housing options.
One of the best things we ever did.
Only downside now is that all our family is a long way away. Which it wasn't when we moved here.
Also; you would have to transfer or renegotiate S106 and other matters.
It's doable, but complex and perhaps unfair.
If you encourage people to put their pension and investment savings into other investments, and not into BTL or rental property investment trusts, then it reduces the aggregate amount of money that is being used to buy houses. And so prices will decline.
https://tinyurl.com/52uude2f
(Although honourable menshuns for some posters on pb.com).
The limit in this country isn't land or labour, its permission. So plots with permission that are getting hoarded.
If you end the need for permission, then land with permission becomes utterly worthless other than any other land. Anyone can then enter the market as a developer to compete against those you're empowering by giving them monopoly control over the permission that they hoard.
Permission is what is rationed, so permission is what becomes valuable instead of the actual job of doing the work.
Another issue is land options, where builders have a 'deal' with the landowner, that they will sell to the builder when they want it. For this the landowner gets a hefty deposit up-front. AIUI the land does not appear on the builder's books, but it is not available for development to anyone else.
Allegedly, a lot of land in this area has been optioned in this manner.
2 bits are military and a member of the orchestra has a connection with the Ukraine.
Heck the only politician talking about it seems to be a Mr Nigel Farage...
https://realting.com/russia/levyy-bereg/968715
However, they're very good at sliding into the definitions of "meaningful start," and their lawyers are a damn sight better paid than our lawyers.
I'd prefer tax on plots until built (a Land Value Tax on land-plus-permissions to kick in the day after permissions are granted), but the Government resist that sort of thing strongly.
Multiple developers tend to clump together in consortia when the latter happens and do the same thing.
One way we're trying to get around it is the concept of assisted self-build - get a group of small developers, plus a bunch of pre-approved house designs, with plots provided with utilities and transport links (kind of like caravan parks writ large) and people call down exactly what they'd want and when. Unfortunately, the system is set up to support the large builders, and Local Authorities have very limited funding and extraordinarily limited powers.
It shows how difficult implementation of the tax is going to be.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/mar/18/chris-bryant-gay-mp-civil-partnership
He's been MP for the constituency for two decades.
If you let people develop wherever they want instead, then developers land hoarding would be pure cost and no gain, so it would stop overnight because its irrational and uneconomic.
The overall quantity of housing wouldn't change that much, but the cost of doing so would no longer be artificially inflated every step of the way.
40% are "embarrassed" by the UK's response:
https://bit.ly/3MF1qwp
And let's not lose sight of the bigger picture - a lot of people have gone into property for lack of returns from more conventional investments, and that ties back to years of QE and near zero interest rates, which is the engine that has slowly but inexorably pushed us (and much of the West) toward greater inequality of wealth. And in the UK our openness to foreign investment, no questions asked - which has finally made the news at least in respect of Russians - has made the problem worse, particularly in London where even the relatively wealthy have been pushed out into areas away from their traditional west London (where some streets seem almost devoid of 'regular' residents nowadays) with knock-on effects across the capital and beyond.
The BBC should be funded directly by government grant.
Henry Boot has a whole division that acquires development land, gets planning permission then sells it on to other developers.
An unbuilt plot makes no money for the developer.
https://www.centreforcities.org/blog/should-the-government-embrace-the-contemporary-spanish-urban-model/
Spanish cities have higher population densities due to more flats. Consequently public transport and cycling etc are more efficient.
Compare Seville and greater Nottingham
https://www.centreforcities.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Fig2SpanishCitiesUpdated.png
If the permission wasn't rationed then other private developers could step in and act, but if you're keeping the rationing but simply giving more rations to the same few people then nothing changes.
Abolish rationing and anyone can compete with the developers. The existing developers would be hammered as rivals could enter the market place and their assets of undeveloped land on the books they've got would no longer be valuable as they'd lose the consent premium.
Stop giving planning permission to the big developers and start giving it to smaller more responsive companies that actually get houses built. Do what they do very successfully in the Netherlands and Belgium which is to encourage self build and small developments rather than having our whole housing policy controlled and abused by a few big companies who have it in their own interests to limit the number of new houses being built. But scrapping planning permission will do none of that.
"So it looks like Russia is forcing Lukashenko, who’s now in Moscow, to join the war.
Putin also mentioned sending volunteers to fight against Ukraine, primarily from Assad’s Syria."
If true, then things could get very interesting. Arming people that hate you to fight in a war they want you to lose rarely works well. Only question is what the Belarussian troops who don't want to be there will do. Lay down their arms or jump sides?
The way around land-banking is to give Local Authorities a bunch of money to build affordable houses. If we could build out a few hundred thousand houses, and have no motive to boost the prices, then the supply-demand equation changes.
At this point, those landbanks will deteriorate in value over time. The game theory equation will change: those developers who cash theirs in (by building out rapidly) will, although reducing their total take by building out faster, will get the maximum value out of it. Those who are slower will take the worst hit.
The incentive changes direction. The (financial) devil takes the hindmost.
I mean, the replacement is Elgar.
I could just as easily object to Elgar on the grounds of personification of the glories of Imperial England. Particularly inappropriate in Wales.
What is needed is a market where any potential rival developer can easily buy land and develop it, if they can't easily do that, then there's a shortage even if other developers are sitting on a stockpile.
Partly it is the poor construction and environment of many British flats, of which the cladding issue is just one of many.
Reservists and volunteers being mobilised in Dagestan. Pay of £1,000. Looks like the penny is finally dropping that Russia may not have nearly enough men in the invasion force.
Of course we ignore that Ukranian oligarchs are no angels either.
Small developers can much more easily get permission in the Netherlands than they can in the UK. That's the real issue. The only reason that our few big companies are able to hoard permission, is because their potential rivals can't easily get it which they can in the Netherlands.
Publicity for concert / orchestra with tickets to sell - check
Job definitely done.
the 1812 hasn't been outlawed.
what's more, even the Cardiff Philharmonic is performing pieces by other Russian composers so it obviously has nothing to do with where composers happened to be born.
The issue is that rival especially small developers can't easily get consent. You don't need Local Authorities to be in the business of building houses, just let anyone do it (so long as standards are met) and competition will do the rest to drive prices down.
Stop preventing smaller businesses from competing. That's the real problem.
And, of course, Wales is a colony.
It is run for the benefit of the English. But you know that.
And they have left out the Southern end of Ashfield, which arguably *is* becoming part of Greater Nottingham.
They aren't even paying much attention to the coverage Nottingham's metropolitan area public transport system.
Why are they saying that Erewash in Derbyshire is part of Greater Nottingham?
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/music/article-appearances-by-russian-pianists-cancelled-across-canada/
...Malofeev is not considered a Putin loyalist. He has spoken out against the war.
“The truth is that every Russian will feel guilty for decades because of the terrible and bloody decision that none of us could influence and predict,” he said in a Facebook statement. He later commented on the cancellation environment caused by the conflict. “I still believe Russian culture and music specifically should not be tarnished by the ongoing tragedy.”
“People cannot be judged by their nationality,” he wrote.
The cultural boycotting is indeed based on nationality, however. The Canada Council for the Arts, for example, has announced it would support Ukraine by cutting off funding to any Canadian projects involving the participation of Russian or Belarusian artists or arts organizations as long as Russia keeps its military forces in Ukraine. The Canadian institutions dissociating themselves from Russia for the time being base their decisions on a number of issues, including the matter of performance fees paid to Russian nationals....