The findings were welcomed by the National Trust, which opposes the Coalition’s strategy.
And lining up alongside the NT we find the CPRE, who have spotted where the next housing boom will occur, if the DCLG gets its way.Ingrid Samuel, its historic environment director, said: “The poll suggests that half the population doesn’t want the countryside destroyed for the sake of economic growth. At a time when everyone is worried about jobs and the economy, that’s an extraordinary statement of love for the countryside. What’s important is that we have a planning system that gets houses built where communities need them, not just where it’s convenient or cheap.”
Neil Sinden, director of policy and campaigns at the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), said: “Is the planning system an obstacle to providing more homes? And is another housing-fuelled economic boom a long-term solution? For CPRE the answer to both is a resounding ‘no’. There are planning consents for hundreds of thousands of new homes which are not profitable for housebuilders to build due to the economic climate.”
So, just to be clear, a
poll run by ComRes which interviewed 1,001 adults by telephone
between 26 and 28 April should serve to dictate national housing policy,
because it produced "the right result" according to the National
Trust and the Campaign to Protect Rural England.
Nick Boles, a
Planning minister, who wants to see the amount of developed land
increased by up to a third, said: “Our reforms will help build the homes and
jobs this country needs in a way that safeguards the countryside and maintains
protections for green belt and other natural areas.”
By up to a third? Now you have to say that is
a scary sounding target, so I am not surprised that the NT and the CPRE are up in arms at the prospect. If only someone knew how much of the green and
pleasant land is already blighted by having been developed, then we would know
what that "by up to a third" actually implied. Concreting over
all our remaining countryside I would guess, judging by the position of the
National Trust and the CPRE.
19 comments:
No doubt another big chunk of Green Belt will be needed when Turkey joins the EU.
Interesting observation - I've heard various arguments advanced for not admitting Turkey into membership of the EU, but I am pretty sure that in none of them was the potential impact on the UK's Green Belt of Turkey becoming a member even mentioned.
Poor old Nick Boles. He never said "we should increase it by a third".
He was trying to illustrate the numbers and explained that IF we increased it by a third, then that would be space for twenty million people and would use up 2% of farmland or something.
Sadly, though, the NT and CPRE are right, but for the wrong reasons. Increasing the number of planning permissions isn't going to do anything for house prices, because all we will get is more overpriced houses, nor will it do anything for "growth" as if the owners of all the land currently with planning can't be persuaded to build on it, what use will more of the same be? Nor will “Our reforms will help build the homes and jobs this country needs..." because the only need is for "affordable" houses for people to buy and, whilst you can build "affordable" houses, you can't buy "affordable" land. In any case, there is nothing to stop any new homes being snapped up by BTLers.
Bayard, you've ground me down on that point.
If you take the longer view and bigger picture, increasing the number of homes must push up total rental values in the medium term and thus push up house prices in the longer term.
So they are sort of right but for the wrong reasons. They're still bastards though - we'd still be collectively better off with more and bigger and nicer houses, even if a disproportionate share goes to landowners and bankers.
"At a time when many younger people struggle to get on the housing ladder, a majority of people between the ages of 18 and 34 support more housebuilding in the countryside, but the idea is opposed by a majority of those in all older age groups"
Shock horror - people with houses don't want any more built, and people with no hope of ever having adequate housing under the current planning and tax regime want more built.
If I was an arsehole I'd lobby the government to reduce engineering and computer science places at universities so that the value of my earnings potential would go up.
mombers,
The stupid thing is that many of those people have kids. They then pass money onto their kids (or even release equity) so their kids can afford a house.
The only people that gain from this are the people handling the transactions and lending more money - the banks.
"increasing the number of homes must push up total rental values "
Nonsense. Supply demand price. You heard of them?!?
SB, you keep making that point and I keep pointing out to you that in London there are enough buildings for eight million people plus corresponding number of businesses, schools etc.
In Aberdeenshire (excl. Aberdeen) there are about three thousand houses and a couple of pubs.
How do you explain why the rental value of land is a thousand times higher in London than in Aberdeenshire?
According to your logic, in London it should be cheaper, but it quite patently isn't.
So I've answered your question to the best of my ability (by looking at hard facts first) and now I'd like you to answer mine.
"Supply demand price"
I have always assumed that the way that works in London and other cities is governed by the I would say now established fact that no matter how ridiculously high the price and how far beyond my reach a "London home" is, there will always be people willing to pay what is demanded, and more people willing to pay it than available properties, and I'd point to measures such as the 5% SDLT on £1 million homes, and the 7%/15% dependent on nature of buyer SDLT on £2 million plus homes appearing to have only had a (very) temporary effect in terms of slowing down that demand. And the "ripple effect" of that "London proper" demand means that the number of properties in my "fringes of London" neck of the Woods - said to be 25 minutes from Charing X, London Bridge, Victoria - that have price tags at or around the £1 million or above tag is on the increase too. I would imagine their equivalents in terms of size and space in "proper London" would I guess be expected to attract vastly more than a measly £1 million, and I doubt there would be a dearth of willing buyers.
Demand in London because wages are vastly higher.
Price Supply DEMAND it's 3. Building more housing will reduce prices.
SB,
Wrong on both counts. Prices are higher in London because wages are higher. What drives prices is what people are prepared to pay, not demand. In most things, what drives what people are prepared to pay is demand, so demand drives prices, but land is so expensive that buyers run out of ability to pay long before they run out of demand. If you look at places like Ireland and Spain a few years ago, or this country in the 70's you will see huge rises in land prices, despite record numbers of houses being built and despite record numbers of houses standing empty.
SB: "Demand in London because wages are vastly higher."
Yes. But why are wages higher?
The reason is because there are more people there in the first place, so people can specialise more and trade and exchange more easily with others. And if somebody is launching a new product or doing a couple of UK concerts, then they'll do the largest towns first (often London to the exclusion of all others). So it's the cool place to be.
So there are more people attracted by the higher wages, which pushes up rents, which leads (or would lead, in a free market) to even more construction, which allows more people in, which pushes wages yet higher, and so on more or less ad infinitum.
Trying to keep rents and house prices down by building more where there is most demand is like trying to cool down a fire by throwing more twigs on it. It cools it down in the short term, but then the fire is even hotter than before.
So unless you have a better explanation - and can back it up with real life facts and figures - I'll stick with my own assumptions thank you very much.
Mark,
It's all posturing. The only thing that's going to help first time buyers in the foreseeable future is for interest rates to go up. Land prices will fall, more property will come on the market as BTLing becomes a less attractive proposition, homeys will get stuffed, government will get kicked out, what's not to like?
B: "what's not to like?"
There's nothing on that list which doesn't sound bloody splendid to me :-)
B & MW
There's nothing on that list which doesn't sound bloody splendid to me :-)
Well, there might be a sting in the tail aspect to that "government will get kicked out" entry - another one will come in.
BE. Well, if present trends continue, it will be a Con-UKIP coalition and won't that be fun to watch.
MW,
The reason is because there are more people there in the first place, so people can specialise more and trade and exchange more easily with others. And if somebody is launching a new product or doing a couple of UK concerts, then they'll do the largest towns first (often London to the exclusion of all others). So it's the cool place to be.
All true, but it's also the case that the natural effects of that are not being countered due to interference by government.
If you're a hip guy opening a hip shop, you might hire a cleaner for that shop, who is getting a lot of housing benefit to help them pay the rent, part of £10bn in housing benefit. His cleaner also gains from £3bn given to London to subsidise the transport system each year. Then there's all the projects that spend money improving London's infrastructure, all of which will employ people, maybe her boyfriend or husband.
TS, yes, London in general is heavily subsidised*, but that is a secondary issue, it is the fact that there are so many people there that is the main driver which pushes up rental values.
So build more houses = even more people = even higher rental values. Strange but true.
* And some Londoners moan that they pay more tax than anywhere in the country, so they say they are subsidising the rest of the country, the jury is out on that one.
Post a Comment