This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
My problem with this logic is it lends itself to the idea that society is the same as it has been for decades, and so the tried and tested solutions will work it all out - I don't subscribe to that at all; this is an ongoing decline and direction of travel will only continue to go one way without significant intervention. The ongoing increases in inequality and ongoing decline in living standards for ordinary people is not going to change if we keep hopping 'sensibly' from one group of centrists to another, and as societies problems worsen and more people can see that neither the Tories nor Labour will fix it, they will look for alternatives on both the left and the right. I dislike Farage and Reform, but the left would be stupid to think he or they will go away, or that people aren't going to continue to be drawn to that type of offering as their lot gets worse year on year. Yep, I agree. The future will be on the left or right, I honestly only see managed decline with the centralists. I like Labour's plan of nationalising the railways as that privatisation has been a cock up by the economic right ever since Thatcher did it.....and of course the 'plans' for house building are all good verbals. However, I have to be honest, I remain to be convinced that any of this is actually going to happen.....maybe the railways will be nationalised but surely that's a pretty penny and I don't see how the house building makes a difference especially as they appear still willing to keep high immigration figures. I see another four years of wasted time with centralists. Yep, the longer term future is left or right. Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Jul 2024 7.41pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Yep, I agree. The future will be on the left or right, I honestly only see managed decline with the centralists. I like Labour's plan of nationalising the railways as that privatisation has been a cock up by the economic right ever since Thatcher did it.....and of course the 'plans' for house building are all good verbals. However, I have to be honest, I remain to be convinced that any of this is actually going to happen.....maybe the railways will be nationalised but surely that's a pretty penny and I don't see how the house building makes a difference especially as they appear still willing to keep high immigration figures. I see another four years of wasted time with centralists. Yep, the longer term future is left or right. Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Jul 2024 7.41pm) Who is going to build these houses? It certainly won't be the big boys. They build slow to keep prices up. Meanwhile, we keep allowing thousands of migrants to arrive. We can't even build fast enough for the people here already. How can it ever be possible to provide housing for an ever increasing number? Add to that the easily predictable surge in illegals coming our way, and the government's reluctance to set up an offshore detention centre from which to send them back, and we have a nightmare on the horizon. I despair.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Who is going to build these houses? It certainly won't be the big boys. They build slow to keep prices up. Meanwhile, we keep allowing thousands of migrants to arrive. We can't even build fast enough for the people here already. How can it ever be possible to provide housing for an ever increasing number? Add to that the easily predictable surge in illegals coming our way, and the government's reluctance to set up an offshore detention centre from which to send them back, and we have a nightmare on the horizon. I despair. Pretty much. I think Labour have talked about changing the planning laws and they expect the private sector to build. Personally I regard that as wishful thinking and passing the buck. They want to square a circle in my opinion and you're spot on about the pointlessness of increasing the population higher than what you can build. The sad thing is all the normies who believe the lies....currently some of my own extended family. I'm so fed up with lying politicians, wherever they are on the political spectrum. Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Jul 2024 8.04pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Pretty much. I think Labour have talked about changing the planning laws and they expect the private sector to build. They want to square a circle in my opinion and you're spot on about the pointlessness of increasing the population higher than what you can build. The sad thing is all the normies who believe the lies....currently some of my own extended family. I'm so fed up with lying politicians, wherever they are on the political spectrum. Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Jul 2024 8.04pm) Never going to happen. Apparently, planing permission has been granted for 300k houses, but they don't get built. Big building companies have no obligation to build at a rate set by government, and why would they? They answer to shareholders.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Pretty much. I think Labour have talked about changing the planning laws and they expect the private sector to build. They want to square a circle in my opinion and you're spot on about the pointlessness of increasing the population higher than what you can build. The sad thing is all the normies who believe the lies....currently some of my own extended family. I'm so fed up with lying politicians, wherever they are on the political spectrum. Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Jul 2024 8.04pm) The private sector does all the building at the moment, and they will only build where there is profit in it for them - so since all this housing that's needed seems to predominately be either social or affordable who's footing the bill? As an example, I live in a largish village, and we have 12 outstanding planning applications to build - all are for 3/4 bedroom 'luxury' homes with a few smaller starter homes thrown in for meeting requirements for new developments BUT..... going by the last three developments actually built, suddenly halfway through the building, the contractor claims to have financial problems and threatens to stop unless they are allowed to reduce the amount of 'social' housing. In one case 'affordable houses' went from 19 to 3 over a one year period, and in another from 9 to 2, leaving the developer to make a nice profit from the £250,000+ ones that actually got built. This is repeated all over Somerset and I'm sure it happens everywhere else - so how does this help the people who really need housing? The homeless, the first time buyers, local people who want to stay local, and that';s before you start on the people on the LA housing list..... Edited by becky (17 Jul 2024 8.32pm)
A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by becky
The private sector does all the building at the moment, and they will only build where there is profit in it for them - so since all this housing that's needed seems to predominately be either social or affordable who's footing the bill? As an example, I live in a largish village, and we have 12 outstanding planning applications to build - all are for 3/4 bedroom 'luxury' homes with a few smaller starter homes thrown in for meeting requirements for new developments BUT..... going by the last three developments actually built, suddenly halfway through the building, the contractor claims to have financial problems and threatens to stop unless they are allowed to reduce the amount of 'social' housing. In one case 'affordable houses' went from 19 to 3 over a one year period, and in another from 9 to 2, leaving the developer to make a nice profit from the £250,000+ ones that actually got built. This is repeated all over Somerset and I'm sure it happens everywhere else - so how does this help the people who really need housing? The homeless, the first time buyers, local people who want to stay local, and that';s before you start on the people on the LA housing list..... Edited by becky (17 Jul 2024 8.32pm) Yep, that makes sense and it's all pretty depressing. I'll give Labour the customary time to prove that they haven't just been leading their voters down the garden path with unrealistic promises.....but it just sounds like they have been. None of us will be surprised if after a year or two when people realise the social housing and affordable houses just aren't being built in anything like sufficient numbers and valid questions are then raised. Then Labour are just going to blame the developers. When we all knew this was the same situation the Tories had. Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Jul 2024 8.47pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by becky
The private sector does all the building at the moment, and they will only build where there is profit in it for them - so since all this housing that's needed seems to predominately be either social or affordable who's footing the bill? As an example, I live in a largish village, and we have 12 outstanding planning applications to build - all are for 3/4 bedroom 'luxury' homes with a few smaller starter homes thrown in for meeting requirements for new developments BUT..... going by the last three developments actually built, suddenly halfway through the building, the contractor claims to have financial problems and threatens to stop unless they are allowed to reduce the amount of 'social' housing. In one case 'affordable houses' went from 19 to 3 over a one year period, and in another from 9 to 2, leaving the developer to make a nice profit from the £250,000+ ones that actually got built. This is repeated all over Somerset and I'm sure it happens everywhere else - so how does this help the people who really need housing? The homeless, the first time buyers, local people who want to stay local, and that';s before you start on the people on the LA housing list..... Edited by becky (17 Jul 2024 8.32pm) The previous Labour administration's answer to analogous challenges of the day was the Private Finance Initiative. Essentially this funded at a premium / overpaid for construction projects but (1) got the job done - how well is debatable - and (2) kicked the "who foots the bill" can down the path. Up to 30 years down the path in some cases if memory serves. It will be interesting to see whether some reimagined form of public private partnership emerges in the coming months.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by becky
The private sector does all the building at the moment, and they will only build where there is profit in it for them - so since all this housing that's needed seems to predominately be either social or affordable who's footing the bill? As an example, I live in a largish village, and we have 12 outstanding planning applications to build - all are for 3/4 bedroom 'luxury' homes with a few smaller starter homes thrown in for meeting requirements for new developments BUT..... going by the last three developments actually built, suddenly halfway through the building, the contractor claims to have financial problems and threatens to stop unless they are allowed to reduce the amount of 'social' housing. In one case 'affordable houses' went from 19 to 3 over a one year period, and in another from 9 to 2, leaving the developer to make a nice profit from the £250,000+ ones that actually got built. This is repeated all over Somerset and I'm sure it happens everywhere else - so how does this help the people who really need housing? The homeless, the first time buyers, local people who want to stay local, and that';s before you start on the people on the LA housing list..... Edited by becky (17 Jul 2024 8.32pm) What I heard was going to be the primary target was to stop “land banking”, the buying up of developable land and sitting on it, waiting for its value to increase. What was suggested that any developer, or agent thereof, who failed to develop land they could develop within a set period without a reasonable excuse, would have that land compulsorily purchased at the same price, or less if the market fell. Releasing land should reduce the price of it. Freeing up, speeding up and simplifying planning will then help. Limiting the opportunities to object will also be done, be unpopular and controversial but with such a huge majority will still get done. The big builders will get the work, but under contract to local authorities after competitive tendering. So I do think something different could be on the way.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
What I heard was going to be the primary target was to stop “land banking”, the buying up of developable land and sitting on it, waiting for its value to increase. What was suggested that any developer, or agent thereof, who failed to develop land they could develop within a set period without a reasonable excuse, would have that land compulsorily purchased at the same price, or less if the market fell. Releasing land should reduce the price of it. Freeing up, speeding up and simplifying planning will then help. Limiting the opportunities to object will also be done, be unpopular and controversial but with such a huge majority will still get done. The big builders will get the work, but under contract to local authorities after competitive tendering. So I do think something different could be on the way. So exactly why would any big builder want to build for a local authority (after a competitive tender, which means lower price per unit) when they can buy land, develop it much more easily with all these simplified planning regs and less objection AND keep all the profit from sales for themselves? Let's be honest, we are taking business here, not social work....
A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by becky
So exactly why would any big builder want to build for a local authority (after a competitive tender, which means lower price per unit) when they can buy land, develop it much more easily with all these simplified planning regs and less objection AND keep all the profit from sales for themselves? Let's be honest, we are taking business here, not social work.... They have to be given a reason. Incentivise or penalise. I'd like to think that the Labour Party or the civil service have people clever enough to find a way but the evidence is not encouraging. The more important question is, when will they drastically cut immigration?
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by becky
So exactly why would any big builder want to build for a local authority (after a competitive tender, which means lower price per unit) when they can buy land, develop it much more easily with all these simplified planning regs and less objection AND keep all the profit from sales for themselves? Let's be honest, we are taking business here, not social work.... A lot of big developers are not acquiring land or buying in London at the moment, certainly in zones 1-2. The appetite from overseas for off-plan property investments in London has reduced drastically (a lot of that driven by the high lending rates) but also the lack of appreciation in the last 5 or so years. Go back to 2016, and a developer could launch a new scheme in Singapore or Hong Kong and have it sold out in 24hrs. Now most high-end developments in London are completing with huge amounts unsold. Without overseas clients overpaying for flats, there is a lot less appetite from the traditional big developers to build and most are looking for new revenue streams. So on that front I think it's possible that this works - as others have said, the key to it is ensuring the end result includes the quotas for social and affordable housing.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by becky
So exactly why would any big builder want to build for a local authority (after a competitive tender, which means lower price per unit) when they can buy land, develop it much more easily with all these simplified planning regs and less objection AND keep all the profit from sales for themselves? Let's be honest, we are taking business here, not social work.... I suspect that what I suggested would only apply to land compulsorily purchased from land banks. Developers being free to develop it themselves within the required time frame. They would though be likely to face ever more demanding social housing requirements as part of planning approval. Not always on the same site but as a levy per house on the free market ones.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.