The housing crisis (London and beyond)

[teuchter]

With more sites available for development, developers would have a greater incentive to compete on beauty, not less. At the moment there is no incentive for developers to build beautiful homes, which is why so many new ugly buildings.

This logic can only apply to "beauty" in the eye of the people buying the new housing, rather than everyone else who looks at that housing as part of their general environment.

 

[WouldBe]

With more sites available for development, developers would have a greater incentive to compete on beauty, not less.

But beauty costs making the houses more expensive.

 

[Tulster218]

But beauty costs making the houses more expensive.

As the price falls, buyers can upgrade on both size and beauty. Instead of buying the only home they can possibly afford, buyers can shop around a bit.

 

[hitmouse]

All landlords, including social landlords set the level of rent, but if tenants can get something cheaper elsewhere the properties will remain empty. Landlords would have to respond to rapidly falling property prices otherwise they'd go bust. That's why social rents in the North off England are lower than in the South East.

The point I was making, which seems to have gone over your head, is that, since social housing rent is set at a different rate, not directly tied to your beloved supply/demand ratio, building more social housing will make more cheap housing available than just leaving it to the market will. Which somewhat undermines your line about

No. Just more homes. All tenures, all sizes, all densities.

Since some tenures are cheaper than others.

At least this is keeping Tulster off the Brixton forum, which he regularly pollutes with his shit.

I don't read the Brixton forum, any chance I can persuade you to take them back?

 

[Tulster218]

The point I was making, which seems to have gone over your head, is that, since social housing rent is set at a different rate, not directly tied to your beloved supply/demand ratio, building more social housing will make more cheap housing available than just leaving it to the market will. Which somewhat undermines your line about
Since some tenures are cheaper than others.

As has been pointed out before, building social housing costs the government money, which is limited.

I don't read the Brixton forum, any chance I can persuade you to take them back?

I'll pop you in the ignore box, you do the same and we'll all live happily ever after. Problem solved. Bye bye.

 

[hitmouse]

As has been pointed out before, building social housing costs the government money, which is limited.

Well, happily enough a mechanism exists to ensure that developers can be forced to either provide affordable housing or to make contributions to state funds that can then be spent to develop new social housing. It's called Section 106. But, oh wait:

'Rigged' planning system helps developers and cost taxpayers millions, say town hall bosses

Builders threaten to pull-out if profits suffer because they have to pay for new roads, parks and sport facilities near new homes

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

Town hall bosses say the planning system has been ‘rigged’ by ministers to favour developers after it was revealed that Salford will lose out on £1.8m that could have been poured back into the community.

Councils use Section 106 agreements when passing planning applications to ensure developers pump cash into nearby parks, sports facilities, road repairs or affordable housing to mitigate the impact of new builds.

Government guidelines state developers should be able to secure a 10 pc profit on projects. In some cases, builders say Section 106 payments would make the project unviable and threaten to pull-out - possibly developing land in another authority area. One council spokesman said government policy states councils must not push for Section 106 cash if it could scupper developments...

According to council policy, developers should pay £2.5m in Section 106 contributions as part of the Clippers Quay agreement.

But Amstone will pay just £700,000, because council bosses say the project would otherwise be ‘unviable’, with predicted profits lower than first expected.

Coun Garrido chose not to vote because of concerns over Section 106 cash, with a difference of £1.8m between the prescribed amount and the figure agreed.

She also had concerns over the mixture of apartments and the lack of affordable housing.

Coun Garrido said: “I feel that if they’d have come back saying they’d pay £1.5m - or even a £1m - it would be better, considering the size of the development.

“They should be paying nearly £2.5m and all they’ve come back with is £700,000 - and there’s no affordable housing. It may be more viable with homes for sale, rather than them all being for rent.”

With the economy picking up, councils are increasingly waiving a proportion of Section 106 contributions to ensure developers deliver housing.

Salford's new mayor accuses government of rigging planning system in favour of developers

Town hall chiefs have been forced to defer more than £5m in fees that could have been poured back into the community says Paul Dennett

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

Salford’s newly-elected mayor has accused the government of rigging the planning system to favour developers after town hall chiefs were forced to defer more than £5m in fees that could have been poured back into the community.

A bumper planning meeting saw council bosses give the green-light to three huge developments for nearly 2,000 flats in the city.

But city mayor Paul Dennett has raised concerns after the town hall was left with no choice but to defer £5.6m in ‘section 106’ payments because of government planning policy.

The arrangements are used by councils to ensure developers pump cash into nearby parks, sports facilities, road repairs or affordable housing to mitigate the impact of new builds.

But government guidelines state developers should be able to secure a profit of up to 20pc on projects, claiming they would be otherwise ‘unviable’.

If paying ‘section 106’ fees in full upfront - or providing a prescribed number of affordable homes - would scupper a development and hit profits, town halls must reduce the fees.

They are able to ‘claw back’ cash if projects become profitable once up and running.

Council chiefs insist their hands are tied - and that if they pushed for the full amounts straight away, developers could simply walk away, hindering regeneration in the city.

They say the payments are not waived, but ‘deferred’.

Last year, Salford’s planning chief councillor Derek Antrobus said government regulations were ‘depriving and robbing local communities of essential investments to line the pockets of land owners and developers’.

And following the latest lot of ‘deferred’ payments, city mayor Mr Dennett said: “There absolutely needs to be a change in government planning policy.

“We are forced to defer section 106 payments until sites become ‘economically viable’.

“Government policy states they should be able to make a 17pc to 20pc profit.

“The system is biased towards developers and their financiers. It’s the elephant in the room.

“It drives up prices. The problem will continue until there’s a real change.”

Mr Dennett also criticised a lack of affordable housing in new developments, saying the council must be ‘more creative’ in its duty to provide homes for those on low incomes.

I am pretty much straightforwardly a NIMBY on this point, if developers can't provide affordable housing or meet their Section 106 obligations then fuck 'em, they shouldn't be allowed to build. But if your plan for cheaper housing is just to rely on the developers to sort it out, then the logical conclusion is that you have to go along with the developers when they whine about not being able to make enough profits if they provide affordable housing/pay their S106 contributions. This is one of those issues where you need to pick a side.

I'll pop you in the ignore box, you do the same and we'll all live happily ever after. Problem solved. Bye bye.

I don't know how you ever hope to defeat the dreaded NIMBYs with that defeatist attitude.

 

[teuchter]

I think tulster218 is creating a simulation of their fantasy urban planning regime where potential objectors are rendered invisible by the ignore function rather than the removal of red tape legislation. They are then free to construct their ill considered edifices any criticism of which can continue out of sight and out of mind.

 

[teuchter]

I am pretty much straightforwardly a NIMBY on this point, if developers can't provide affordable housing or meet their Section 106 obligations then fuck 'em, they shouldn't be allowed to build.

The thing about affordable housing quotas and s106 agreements is that in the end it's just a kind of disguised taxation and I think it's not unreasonable to say that it effectively gets paid by the purchasers of the housing through increased pricing. If the revenue that is gained via these systems, effectively funding "affordable" housing and local infrastructure, could be generated more transparently through income tax or council tax, that seems to me like it would potentially be a more fair way of doing it, extracting it for example from high earners or those already living in large properties, rather from those buying the new housing if your aim is to keep the cost of buying/accessing housing low

 

[oryx]

All of the housing built before 1947 was built without planning permission. Most of it is listed nowadays,

 

[klang]

Are you saying they are talking a lot of shite?

 

[oryx]

Are you saying they are talking a lot of shite?

I'm amused at the idea that all those rows of Victorian terraces, and Thirties semis, which form a huge part of the UK's housing stock, are listed. So, basically, yes!

I would hazard a guess that most of it isn't even in a conservation area, never mind listed.

 

[Tulster218]

I'm amused at the idea that all those rows of Victorian terraces, and Thirties semis, which form a huge part of the UK's housing stock, are listed. So, basically, yes!

I would hazard a guess that most of it isn't even in a conservation area, never mind listed.

Okay, maybe that was a rose-tinted hyperbole. I was thinking of some of the quite lovely social housing of the Peabody Estates like Blackfriars Road. It was built in the 1870s before the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act. It wouldn't be allowed today because a NIMBY would complain that it blocked their view of the sun.

The planning laws we have at the moment don't prohibit ugly buildings, they just resrict all kinds of buildings.

 

[oryx]

I was thinking of some of the quite lovely social housing of the Peabody Estates like Blackfriars Road. It was built in the 1870s before the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act. It wouldn't be allowed today because a NIMBY would complain that it blocked their view of the sun.

Actually, speaking generally about those type of late 19th century/early 20th century philanthropic landlord type blocks, while they look nice to a passer-by, they are very cramped and many of them used to have baths in the kitchens. They also tend not to have lifts. To live in, they're not that great although they tend to be in 'good' areas as London has changed so much, so many people like them.

They wouldn't be allowed today in their original form for those reasons, and are a headache to reconfigure, although I certainly wouldn't advocate demolition and redevelopment.

 

[Tulster218]

Actually, speaking generally about those type of late 19th century/early 20th century philanthropic landlord type blocks, while they look nice to a passer-by, they are very cramped and many of them used to have baths in the kitchens. They also tend not to have lifts. To live in, they're not that great although they tend to be in 'good' areas as London has changed so much, so many people like them.

They wouldn't be allowed today in their original form for those reasons, and are a headache to reconfigure, although I certainly wouldn't advocate demolition and redevelopment.

Incredibly, I'm not suggesting we build housing with baths in the kitchen.

Would you at least meet me half way and agree that it better to have these buildings, than to not have them?

And if you agree that it's good to have them, then wouldn't it be good to have more of the same, permitted by a similar (pre 1947) laissez faire planning process, albeit meeting modern building codes?

 

[teuchter]

The above is rubbish - all that pre 1947 terraced housing was not built under a laissez faire planning process, it was subject since the 1870s to regulations that effectively determined things like density and space between buildings, that is, stuff that our current planning system (rather than building regulations) is also concerned with.

Byelaw terraced house - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[oryx]

Would you at least meet me half way and agree that it better to have these buildings, than to not have them?

And if you agree that it's good to have them, then wouldn't it be good to have more of the same, permitted by a similar (pre 1947) laissez faire planning process, albeit meeting modern building codes?

Yes, it is certainly better to have the old industrial dwellings than not, as they are usually fairly sound buildings in popular areas (I want social housing tenants to be able to live in gentrified areas in central-ish London) albeit with the shortcomings I detailed above.

No, I wouldn't want to see a more laissez-faire planning process. Developers and builders cut corners as it is (see: Grenfell Tower) and I personally think new developments should be more closely scrutinised if anything, especially in building control terms.

 

[Tulster218]

Yes, it is certainly better to have the old industrial dwellings than not, as they are usually fairly sound buildings in popular areas (I want social housing tenants to be able to live in gentrified areas in central-ish London) albeit with the shortcomings I detailed above.

No, I wouldn't want to see a more laissez-faire planning process. Developers and builders cut corners as it is (see: Grenfell Tower) and I personally think new developments should be more closely scrutinised if anything, especially in building control terms.

So 150 years ago you would have been a NIMBY, but today you're glad the buildings were built?

 

[marty21]

All landlords, including social landlords set the level of rent, but if tenants can get something cheaper elsewhere the properties will remain empty. Landlords would have to respond to rapidly falling property prices otherwise they'd go bust. That's why social rents in the North off England are lower than in the South East.

I work in Social Housing in London , so a 1 bed Council flat in a central London Borough will charge a rent of around £150 a week . Go find me a private let in Central London for less , so these council tenants can go somewhere cheaper.

 

[Tulster218]

I work in Social Housing in London , so a 1 bed Council flat in a central London Borough will charge a rent of around £150 a week . Go find me a private let in Central London for less , so these council tenants can go somewhere cheaper.

That's the point. If we built lots of new housing, the prices would drop significantly.

£150 per week gets you a nice flat in areas of the country where housing is abundant. We could have that here in London too. We just need to build more housing. All sizes, all tenures, all densities.

 

[marty21]

That's the point. If we built lots of new housing, the prices would drop significantly.

£150 per week gets you a nice flat in areas of the country where housing is abundant. We could have that here in London too. We just need to build more housing. All sizes, all tenures, all densities.

I'd hazard a guess that social housing rents are also lower in cities and towns outside London .

 

[Tulster218]

I'd hazard a guess that social housing rents are also lower in cities and towns outside London .

As has been pointed out before, building social housing costs the government money, which is limited.

 

[klang]

Since the

As has been pointed out before, building social housing costs the government money, which is limited.

Where does the gov money go to? How could public spending eg housing be improved? By bypassing building regs?

 

[Puddy_Tat]

How could public spending eg housing be improved?

building council housing that pays for itself long term, rather than pay huge amounts of housing benefit for private tenants whose landlords charge inflated rents because everyone involved in the process is seeking big short term profits?

 

[marty21]

As has been pointed out before, building social housing costs the government money, which is limited.

There are savings to be made , more social housing means less people in temporary housing. It lowers the HB/UC Rent Element bill as less people are claiming more expensive private rents.

 

[oryx]

So 150 years ago you would have been a NIMBY, but today you're glad the buildings were built?

That's not what I am saying at all.

Are you a developer?

 

[Tulster218]

That's not what I am saying at all.

I rather think it is.

Are you a developer?

I'm not. I know when I've won a part of the argument because people start discussing me, and not the topic in hand.

 

[oryx]

I rather think it is.


I'm not. I know when I've won a part of the argument because people start discussing me, and not the topic in hand.

Ha, I think I know what I was saying!

Don't flatter yourself. No-one is 'discussing you', it just seems that such an obsession with relaxing planning regulations might suggest a developer. But if you're not, fair enough.

 

[bcuster]

A radical solution to the problem:

 

[Tulster218]

A radical solution to the problem:

You're not thinking straight. The UK is short of at least 1.5m homes. The UK doesn't have that many empty pubs.

And even if there were enough empty pubs, there is always an outcry from CAMRA and the like when pubs are turned into residential accommodation.

Turning pubs into housing would help, but it's a only drop in the ocean.

The only real solution to the housing crisis is to build more houses.

 

[pbsmooth]

there’s always the golf courses. London’s 95 golf courses cover an area the size of Brent.

Homes or Golf?

The case for building on some of London's 95 golf courses

www.samdumitriu.com