Grenfell Tower

[John52]

colin - 2021-01-31 9:45 PM

I expect you are so glad they have been dragged down to this level.

Why would you think that?

I'm a home owner too.

Difference is I don't want to take money from people who can't afford a home.

 

[John52]

colin - 2021-01-31 9:45 PM

 

more tenants pushing up rental prices and making me more money.

 

and what if the affected block was owned by a £billionaire landlord

would you want money taxed from the poor given to him too?

 

(I can see that happening because iot would get the Tories off the hook)

[colin]

John52 - 2021-02-01 8:47 AM

 

colin - 2021-01-31 9:45 PM

 

more tenants pushing up rental prices and making me more money.

 

and what if the affected block was owned by a £billionaire landlord

would you want money taxed from the poor given to him too?

 

(I can see that happening because iot would get the Tories off the hook)

 

If the government are concerned over that then they could limit the payments made to either individuals or companies.

[colin]

John52 - 2021-02-01 7:38 AM

 

colin - 2021-01-31 9:45 PM

I expect you are so glad they have been dragged down to this level.

Why would you think that?

I'm a home owner too.

Difference is I don't want to take money from people who can't afford a home.

 

Many people who own these places have scraped and saved to get them, many of these where built as 'affordable' housing, those with large incomes will ride it out, those with lower incomes will suffer, something you are advocating. Rich property owners will be looking to snap up these homes at rock bottom prices and then rent them out at top dollar.

[Brian Kirby]

John52 - 2021-01-31 9:20 PM

Brian Kirby - 2020-12-13 6:08 PM

it is Government that should step in to fund the necessary remedial work.

The Government is at fault but hasn't got any money

They can only take it from innocent taxpayers, most of whom can't afford their own home, and give it to people who can

Effectively taking money from the innocent poor, and giving it to the (comparatively) rich.

True, John, but way too simple, IMO. :-) Grenfell has exposed a staggeringly widespread failure of necessary government regulation.

 

Parliament has legislated on building safety standards since at least the 19C, initially via specific acts (for example the London Building Acts), then under the more general Public Health Acts, and finally under the 1984 Building Act.

 

Even under the London Building Acts, (Section 20 (1939) - under which Grenfell Tower would have been designed, approved, and built) what was installed at Grenfell in 2012-16 would have been illegal. It is certainly illegal under the 2010 Building Regulations. The actual regulation reads: "B4(1) The external walls of the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another, having regard to the height, use and position of the building." Hardly ambiguous! They didn't achieve that standard, did they?

 

That clear requirement has not changed, but its clarity has been obscured by successive re-definitions as to how it may be achieved, but always with the final determinant being to conduct full scale tests on proposals that fall outside the prescribed "deemed to satisfy" provisions. At various points in time, various ministers have permitted private companies to assume responsibility for granting approval under the Regulations ("Approved Inspectors"), have issued new or revised definitions of materials that are sufficiently incombustible to be acceptable, and finally sanctioned the use of "desk studies" in lieu of full scale tests. In effect, the clarity of the regulations has become fogged, while approval has become a price sensitive market commodity.

 

Establishing which of this string of changes holds the clue to why so many buildings came to be clad in wholly unsatisfactory materials will eventually be revealed by the Grenfell Enquiry though, cynic that I am, the way this is being conducted gives me the impression that the underlying intention is to place as much time as possible between the event and the identification of those responsible.

 

The issue is purely technical, and requires only an examination of the manner in which the non-compliant materials were approved, by whom, and whether their approval was legally proper, erroneous, or negligent. Two weeks should suffice for that. The only issue then remaining would be how, if the approval must be considered legally proper, that chain of amendments to the deemed compliant materials could have allowed non-compliant materials to be used. That would take rather longer, but the audit trails will exist, so speculatively, one month?

 

Who should pay? However you choose to view the politics, those responsible should pay. That means, where regulations have failed and the sums required to make restitution are so great, it has to be the government, and through them the tax-payer, because no-one else is remotely likely to be able to foot the bill, and because pursuing endless "men of straw" through the courts merely condemns those affected to further years of hardship, loss, and bankruptcies.

 

But, the true responsibility lies with the electorate for electing inadequates as MPs, who are then selected by Prime Ministers as Ministers of State, who then make decisions on matters of which they have insufficient understanding, frequently encouraged by external interest groups who see Building Regulations as mere "red tape" that impedes their right to deliver profits for their shareholders. If we elect fools, we end up with fools in charge. So, as the electors pay the taxes, they merely reap what they sow. Where is the injustice in that? It is, after all, our own, collective, bloody stupid, faults!

[colin]

The deregulation of inspectors happened under the last Labour government ,while we where building a house, and I doubt the present Tory government are likely to reverse it. I thought at the time it was a stupid thing to do, and I've not changed my mind.

As an example, our (council) inspector, came for one of the inspections and was obviously 'disturbed', he seemed happy to spend some time on the inspection and 'calm down', we later found out he had been in a argument with a developer over the standard of blockwork put up by inexperienced Polish 'brickie's', turns out they had been employed without checks on their qualifications, and the work was of such poor quality he had said it needed taking down! Now imagine a privately employed inspector saying that, some might, but others will be looking at future employment, and before anyone thinks I'm wrong, we have had a whole estate locally which turned out to be uninhabitable it was built so badly, the new homeowners had to be moved out for the remedial work to be done.

[CurtainRaiser]

colin - 2021-02-01 1:51 PM

 

The deregulation of inspectors happened under the last Labour government ,while we where building a house, and I doubt the present Tory government are likely to reverse it. I thought at the time it was a stupid thing to do, and I've not changed my mind.

As an example, our (council) inspector, came for one of the inspections and was obviously 'disturbed', he seemed happy to spend some time on the inspection and 'calm down', we later found out he had been in a argument with a developer over the standard of blockwork put up by inexperienced Polish 'brickie's', turns out they had been employed without checks on their qualifications, and the work was of such poor quality he had said it needed taking down! Now imagine a privately employed inspector saying that, some might, but others will be looking at future employment, and before anyone thinks I'm wrong, we have had a whole estate locally which turned out to be uninhabitable it was built so badly, the new homeowners had to be moved out for the remedial work to be done.

 

Nope.

 

"Since the mid-1980s, English building regulations have been based on what is known as a ‘performance-based’ system. This means that rather than setting out prescriptive rules or lists of banned materials, the regulations outline broad outcomes which buildings must achieve. It is then, theoretically, up to the industry to decide how to meet these standards.

 

This change, introduced by Margaret Thatcher's government in 1985, swept away 306 pages of building regulations and replaced them with just 24."

 

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/the-paper-trail-the-failure-of-building-regulations-55445

 

Remember Eric Pickles and his "bonfire of red tape"?

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/8379/2076689.pdf

 

Yes the red tories of Blairs years had made some changes but if you want some clear guidance the FBU can help

 

https://www.fbu.org.uk/blog/deregulation-and-grenfell-tower-fire

[John52]

colin - 2021-02-01 12:29 PM

 

John52 - 2021-02-01 8:47 AM

 

colin - 2021-01-31 9:45 PM

 

more tenants pushing up rental prices and making me more money.

 

and what if the affected block was owned by a £billionaire landlord

would you want money taxed from the poor given to him too?

 

(I can see that happening because iot would get the Tories off the hook)

 

If the government are concerned over that then they could limit the payments made to either individuals or companies.

 

and how would the Tories do that *-)

[John52]

colin - 2021-02-01 12:35 PM

those with lower incomes will suffer, something you are advocating

 

Nope

Thats something you are advocating

Money taken from poor innocent taxpayers who can't afford their own homes, given to those who can.

 

 

[John52]

Brian Kirby - 2021-02-01 1:02 PM

 

John52 - 2021-01-31 9:20 PM

Brian Kirby - 2020-12-13 6:08 PM

it is Government that should step in to fund the necessary remedial work.

The Government is at fault but hasn't got any money

They can only take it from innocent taxpayers, most of whom can't afford their own home, and give it to people who can

Effectively taking money from the innocent poor, and giving it to the (comparatively) rich.

True, John, but way too simple, IMO. :-) Grenfell has exposed a staggeringly widespread failure of necessary government regulation.

 

Parliament has legislated on building safety standards since at least the 19C, initially via specific acts (for example the London Building Acts), then under the more general Public Health Acts, and finally under the 1984 Building Act.

 

Even under the London Building Acts, (Section 20 (1939) - under which Grenfell Tower would have been designed, approved, and built) what was installed at Grenfell in 2012-16 would have been illegal. It is certainly illegal under the 2010 Building Regulations. The actual regulation reads: "B4(1) The external walls of the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another, having regard to the height, use and position of the building." Hardly ambiguous! They didn't achieve that standard, did they?

 

That clear requirement has not changed, but its clarity has been obscured by successive re-definitions as to how it may be achieved, but always with the final determinant being to conduct full scale tests on proposals that fall outside the prescribed "deemed to satisfy" provisions. At various points in time, various ministers have permitted private companies to assume responsibility for granting approval under the Regulations ("Approved Inspectors"), have issued new or revised definitions of materials that are sufficiently incombustible to be acceptable, and finally sanctioned the use of "desk studies" in lieu of full scale tests. In effect, the clarity of the regulations has become fogged, while approval has become a price sensitive market commodity.

 

Establishing which of this string of changes holds the clue to why so many buildings came to be clad in wholly unsatisfactory materials will eventually be revealed by the Grenfell Enquiry though, cynic that I am, the way this is being conducted gives me the impression that the underlying intention is to place as much time as possible between the event and the identification of those responsible.

 

The issue is purely technical, and requires only an examination of the manner in which the non-compliant materials were approved, by whom, and whether their approval was legally proper, erroneous, or negligent. Two weeks should suffice for that. The only issue then remaining would be how, if the approval must be considered legally proper, that chain of amendments to the deemed compliant materials could have allowed non-compliant materials to be used. That would take rather longer, but the audit trails will exist, so speculatively, one month?

 

Who should pay? However you choose to view the politics, those responsible should pay. That means, where regulations have failed and the sums required to make restitution are so great, it has to be the government, and through them the tax-payer, because no-one else is remotely likely to be able to foot the bill, and because pursuing endless "men of straw" through the courts merely condemns those affected to further years of hardship, loss, and bankruptcies.

 

But, the true responsibility lies with the electorate for electing inadequates as MPs, who are then selected by Prime Ministers as Ministers of State, who then make decisions on matters of which they have insufficient understanding, frequently encouraged by external interest groups who see Building Regulations as mere "red tape" that impedes their right to deliver profits for their shareholders. If we elect fools, we end up with fools in charge. So, as the electors pay the taxes, they merely reap what they sow. Where is the injustice in that? It is, after all, our own, collective, bloody stupid, faults!

 

Yes well I'm not doubting the Government is at fault.

None more so than the Thatcher Government, and Royal Tory Borough 'responsible' for Grenfell Tower continuously since before it even got on the drawing board.

But Theresa May sent them £250 million of other people's money so they wouldn't have to pay for their mistakes.

And they spaffed it away so recklessly they gave it to people claiming to have lived in one of their flats that never even existed >:-)

 

You aren't going to put this right by taking more money from poor innocent taxpayers who had nothing to do with it (hardly likely to have voted Tory)

[Brian Kirby]

John52 - 2021-02-01 2:42 PM.............................Yes well I'm not doubting the Government is at fault.

None more so than the Thatcher Government, and Royal Tory Borough 'responsible' for Grenfell Tower continuously since before it even got on the drawing board.

But Theresa May sent them £250 million of other people's money so they wouldn't have to pay for their mistakes.

And they spaffed it away so recklessly they gave it to people claiming to have lived in one of their flats that never even existed >:-)

You aren't going to put this right by taking more money from poor innocent taxpayers who had nothing to do with it (hardly likely to have voted Tory)

OK, so what is your proposal for returning those who have bought their flats in good faith to the status quo ante? I can't see who else can do that.

[CurtainRaiser]

Brian Kirby - 2021-02-01 4:09 PM

 

John52 - 2021-02-01 2:42 PM.............................Yes well I'm not doubting the Government is at fault.

None more so than the Thatcher Government, and Royal Tory Borough 'responsible' for Grenfell Tower continuously since before it even got on the drawing board.

But Theresa May sent them £250 million of other people's money so they wouldn't have to pay for their mistakes.

And they spaffed it away so recklessly they gave it to people claiming to have lived in one of their flats that never even existed >:-)

You aren't going to put this right by taking more money from poor innocent taxpayers who had nothing to do with it (hardly likely to have voted Tory)

OK, so what is your proposal for returning those who have bought their flats in good faith to the status quo ante? I can't see who else can do that.

 

I'd like to see a levy on all new building sites over a certain square meterage so the small builders don't get hit. Together with a levy on the company's that make the cladding and insulation.

 

Neither of which will happen as both industries contribute massively to the Tories.

[Brian Kirby]

CurtainRaiser - 2021-02-01 4:57 PM

Brian Kirby - 2021-02-01 4:09 PM

John52 - 2021-02-01 2:42 PM.............................Yes well I'm not doubting the Government is at fault.

None more so than the Thatcher Government, and Royal Tory Borough 'responsible' for Grenfell Tower continuously since before it even got on the drawing board.

But Theresa May sent them £250 million of other people's money so they wouldn't have to pay for their mistakes.

And they spaffed it away so recklessly they gave it to people claiming to have lived in one of their flats that never even existed >:-)

You aren't going to put this right by taking more money from poor innocent taxpayers who had nothing to do with it (hardly likely to have voted Tory)

OK, so what is your proposal for returning those who have bought their flats in good faith to the status quo ante? I can't see who else can do that.

I'd like to see a levy on all new building sites over a certain square meterage so the small builders don't get hit. Together with a levy on the company's that make the cladding and insulation.

Neither of which will happen as both industries contribute massively to the Tories.

Excellent links, BTW. But surely such a levy would merely get passed on through an increase in prices, meaning that the buyers, probably first time buyers, would foot the bill. I'd prefer a selective increase in income tax through a new tax band applicable only to those whose incomes are above a level to exclude the poor. Above this new band, all income tax would increase. That at least would spread the burden away from just first time buyers.

[John52]

CurtainRaiser - 2021-02-01 4:57 PM

I'd like to see a levy on all new building sites over a certain square meterage so the small builders don't get hit.

 

and who will get hit by the increased housing costs?

[John52]

Brian Kirby - 2021-02-01 6:36 PM

I'd prefer a selective increase in income tax through a new tax band

 

Tax on earned income discourages earning.

Why not unearned income from the rentiers like a land value tax?

Or

Since the least worst time to pay tax is when you are dead and don't need money any more

Why not get into Her Majesty's Tax Havens and make the £billionaire rentiers pay tax on their unearned inheritances?

[John52]

Brian Kirby - 2021-02-01 4:09 PM

 

OK, so what is your proposal for returning those who have bought their flats in good faith to the status quo ante? I can't see who else can do that.

 

Preferably sue those 'responsible'

By which I mean holding people personally responsible - not the innocent taxpayers

Failing that we should remember our responsibility to innocent taxpayers, and not make a bad situation worse by mugging them to foot the bill, whilst the guilty get away with it.

[CurtainRaiser]

Brian Kirby - 2021-02-01 6:36 PM

 

CurtainRaiser - 2021-02-01 4:57 PM

Brian Kirby - 2021-02-01 4:09 PM

John52 - 2021-02-01 2:42 PM.............................Yes well I'm not doubting the Government is at fault.

None more so than the Thatcher Government, and Royal Tory Borough 'responsible' for Grenfell Tower continuously since before it even got on the drawing board.

But Theresa May sent them £250 million of other people's money so they wouldn't have to pay for their mistakes.

And they spaffed it away so recklessly they gave it to people claiming to have lived in one of their flats that never even existed >:-)

You aren't going to put this right by taking more money from poor innocent taxpayers who had nothing to do with it (hardly likely to have voted Tory)

OK, so what is your proposal for returning those who have bought their flats in good faith to the status quo ante? I can't see who else can do that.

I'd like to see a levy on all new building sites over a certain square meterage so the small builders don't get hit. Together with a levy on the company's that make the cladding and insulation.

Neither of which will happen as both industries contribute massively to the Tories.

Excellent links, BTW. But surely such a levy would merely get passed on through an increase in prices, meaning that the buyers, probably first time buyers, would foot the bill. I'd prefer a selective increase in income tax through a new tax band applicable only to those whose incomes are above a level to exclude the poor. Above this new band, all income tax would increase. That at least would spread the burden away from just first time buyers.

 

All buildings have a ceiling price, particularly at the entry / first time buyers level, if the building companies thought that they could extort more money either in the levy or profit they would already be charging it. The other way to tackle it would be an additional 1% corporation tax for construction companies, although I feel these companies would find a way around it.

[John52]

CurtainRaiser - 2021-02-01 8:27 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2021-02-01 6:36 PM

 

CurtainRaiser - 2021-02-01 4:57 PM

Brian Kirby - 2021-02-01 4:09 PM

John52 - 2021-02-01 2:42 PM.............................Yes well I'm not doubting the Government is at fault.

None more so than the Thatcher Government, and Royal Tory Borough 'responsible' for Grenfell Tower continuously since before it even got on the drawing board.

But Theresa May sent them £250 million of other people's money so they wouldn't have to pay for their mistakes.

And they spaffed it away so recklessly they gave it to people claiming to have lived in one of their flats that never even existed >:-)

You aren't going to put this right by taking more money from poor innocent taxpayers who had nothing to do with it (hardly likely to have voted Tory)

OK, so what is your proposal for returning those who have bought their flats in good faith to the status quo ante? I can't see who else can do that.

I'd like to see a levy on all new building sites over a certain square meterage so the small builders don't get hit. Together with a levy on the company's that make the cladding and insulation.

Neither of which will happen as both industries contribute massively to the Tories.

Excellent links, BTW. But surely such a levy would merely get passed on through an increase in prices, meaning that the buyers, probably first time buyers, would foot the bill. I'd prefer a selective increase in income tax through a new tax band applicable only to those whose incomes are above a level to exclude the poor. Above this new band, all income tax would increase. That at least would spread the burden away from just first time buyers.

 

All buildings have a ceiling price, particularly at the entry / first time buyers level, if the building companies thought that they could extort more money either in the levy or profit they would already be charging it. The other way to tackle it would be an additional 1% corporation tax for construction companies, although I feel these companies would find a way around it.

 

So if you run a good construction company, take pride in your work and do everything right, you will be mugged to pay for the bad practice of your cowboy competitors?

How is this better than mugging innocent taxpayers?

And how does it encourage or reward construction companies for acting responsibly and doing the right thing when the good builders pay for the cowboy builder's recklessness?

[John52]

CurtainRaiser - 2021-02-01 8:27 PM

if the building companies thought that they could extort more money either in the levy or profit they would already be charging it.

I'm not sure about this.

If its a free market competitors will come in and offer the product cheaper. Which they can't do if everyone's costs are increased by a levy.

But we don't really have a free market economy in housing

More like rentier capitalism.

With constant Government intervention in the housing market, restricting supply with their onerous planning system thats a recipe for corruption, whilst stoking up demand with taxpayer funded subsidies like their so-called 'Help to Buy' keeping prices high for the benefit of their status quo of existing owners and rentiers.

(Incidentally remarkable how they can over ride planning consent when it suits them, like the new lorry parks in Kent. Why can't we build homes as quick as that )

 

[CurtainRaiser]

John52 - 2021-02-02 5:57 AM

 

CurtainRaiser - 2021-02-01 8:27 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2021-02-01 6:36 PM

 

CurtainRaiser - 2021-02-01 4:57 PM

Brian Kirby - 2021-02-01 4:09 PM

John52 - 2021-02-01 2:42 PM.............................Yes well I'm not doubting the Government is at fault.

None more so than the Thatcher Government, and Royal Tory Borough 'responsible' for Grenfell Tower continuously since before it even got on the drawing board.

But Theresa May sent them £250 million of other people's money so they wouldn't have to pay for their mistakes.

And they spaffed it away so recklessly they gave it to people claiming to have lived in one of their flats that never even existed >:-)

You aren't going to put this right by taking more money from poor innocent taxpayers who had nothing to do with it (hardly likely to have voted Tory)

OK, so what is your proposal for returning those who have bought their flats in good faith to the status quo ante? I can't see who else can do that.

I'd like to see a levy on all new building sites over a certain square meterage so the small builders don't get hit. Together with a levy on the company's that make the cladding and insulation.

Neither of which will happen as both industries contribute massively to the Tories.

Excellent links, BTW. But surely such a levy would merely get passed on through an increase in prices, meaning that the buyers, probably first time buyers, would foot the bill. I'd prefer a selective increase in income tax through a new tax band applicable only to those whose incomes are above a level to exclude the poor. Above this new band, all income tax would increase. That at least would spread the burden away from just first time buyers.

 

All buildings have a ceiling price, particularly at the entry / first time buyers level, if the building companies thought that they could extort more money either in the levy or profit they would already be charging it. The other way to tackle it would be an additional 1% corporation tax for construction companies, although I feel these companies would find a way around it.

 

So if you run a good construction company, take pride in your work and do everything right, you will be mugged to pay for the bad practice of your cowboy competitors?

How is this better than mugging innocent taxpayers?

And how does it encourage or reward construction companies for acting responsibly and doing the right thing when the good builders pay for the cowboy builder's recklessness?

 

When the building regulations were relaxed did we see those "good companies" continue to build to a higher standard? Did we see them pass on the benefits and savings to buyers with cheaper prices?

 

What the big building companies do is set up a new company for each development, partially to minimise tax payments, but it also gives them a vehicle to exit from a development with no ongoing liability. That's how they have dodged responsibility for their shoddy practices, it's a industry wide problem, which is why they have enjoyed super profits and should now pay up.

[John52]

CurtainRaiser - 2021-02-02 7:35 AM

 

 

When the building regulations were relaxed did we see those "good companies" continue to build to a higher standard?.

 

Yes

[CurtainRaiser]

John52 - 2021-02-02 6:08 AM

 

CurtainRaiser - 2021-02-01 8:27 PM

if the building companies thought that they could extort more money either in the levy or profit they would already be charging it.

I'm not sure about this.

If its a free market competitors will come in and offer the product cheaper. Which they can't do if everyone's costs are increased by a levy.

But we don't really have a free market economy in housing

More like rentier capitalism.

With constant Government intervention in the housing market, restricting supply with their onerous planning system thats a recipe for corruption, whilst stoking up demand with taxpayer funded subsidies like their so-called 'Help to Buy' keeping prices high for the benefit of their status quo of existing owners and rentiers.

(Incidentally remarkable how they can over ride planning consent when it suits them, like the new lorry parks in Kent. Why can't we build homes as quick as that )

 

Your point regarding the levies was the point I was trying to make, so we agree!

 

I also agree with you about government intervention in the housing market through help to buy hasn't helped new buyers, it has though helped the construction industry who are big donors to the Tory party.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/01/help-to-buy-pushes-uk-housebuilder-dividends-to-23bn?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

 

Now to where we disagree! Planning permission is not delaying the construction of new properties, the industry is sitting on enough sites to build between 600,000 and 800,000 houses, it is not in their interests to build these, even if they had the capacity, as over supply in the housing market would suppress prices.

 

https://www.bigissue.com/latest/landbanking-construction-companies-still-hoarding-land/

 

Indeed around where I live in the north east, the developers have already reached saturation point of "executive" housing with a over supply of £500k housing on the outskirts of Darlington, Yarm and the neighbouring commuting villages. There are a lot of show homes surrounded by undeveloped plots, who knew that there weren't that many executives on £100k plus salaries up here! If the developers had not been so greedy and built £200k first time buyers homes they would have raked it in.

 

Perhaps the most important thing about supply and demand in the housing market is that for years governments have been using the wrong formula.

 

"As a result, Ian Mulheirn calculates that, for the past 15 years, English councils have been working to annual targets of up to 80,000 more homes than there were households to fill them." More here https://bylinetimes.com/2020/11/25/the-government-cannot-build-its-way-out-of-englands-housing-crisis/

[John52]

CurtainRaiser - 2021-02-02 8:34 AM

 

 

Now to where we disagree! Planning permission is not delaying the construction of new properties, the industry is sitting on enough sites to build between 600,000 and 800,000 houses, it is not in their interests to build these, even if they had the capacity, as over supply in the housing market would suppress prices.

 

 

Well you need to look at the conditions attached to the planning permission to see if its viable.

You invariablty find they have to pay for roads/even schools etc, (what are we paying taxes for) all of which has to go on the price of the houses.

Even if its viable they may not build yet because they expect building land prices to rise.

If the Goverenment started giving more planning permission, increasing the supply of building land to all and sundry without onerous restrictions that make it unviable, they would not expect building land prices to rise and so release it now.

[CurtainRaiser]

John52 - 2021-02-02 10:34 AM

 

CurtainRaiser - 2021-02-02 8:34 AM

 

 

Now to where we disagree! Planning permission is not delaying the construction of new properties, the industry is sitting on enough sites to build between 600,000 and 800,000 houses, it is not in their interests to build these, even if they had the capacity, as over supply in the housing market would suppress prices.

 

 

Well you need to look at the conditions attached to the planning permission to see if its viable.

You invariablty find they have to pay for roads/even schools etc, (what are we paying taxes for) all of which has to go on the price of the houses.

Even if its viable they may not build yet because they expect building land prices to rise.

If the Goverenment started giving more planning permission, increasing the supply of building land to all and sundry without onerous restrictions that make it unviable, they would not expect building land prices to rise and so release it now.

 

So you are suggesting that we do away with section 106 Agreements? If a land owner/house builder makes a massive profit from the transformation of agricultural land into building land, and those new buildings put a strain on the local infrastructure, why shouldn't the developer meet that cost rather than the taxpayer?

[John52]

CurtainRaiser - 2021-02-02 8:34 AM

 

 

"As a result, Ian Mulheirn calculates that, for the past 15 years, English councils have been working to annual targets of up to 80,000 more homes than there were households to fill them." More here https://bylinetimes.com/2020/11/25/the-government-cannot-build-its-way-out-of-englands-housing-crisis/

 

Well at the risk of stating the obvious, prices wouldn't be so high if there were no shortage, and builders won't build them if nobody wants to buy them.

Social Housing is probably an even bigger recipe for corruption then the English planning system. 8-)

If we are selling houses at below market value .. who decides who gets them *-)

If thats not a recipe for more corruption I don't know what is.