House prices are insane

[Rusty Nails]

It's a question I don't have a good answer to but depends on many factors and I'm not sure comparisons between countries are always relevant.
eg I suspect a lot would depend on tenant protections and security in the private rental market (including sub-standard properties with eg dangerous damp, poor insulation, etc.). My impression is that the UK "regulations" (or lack of) are primarily in the interests of landlords and their profitability. And even when there are regulations how easy is it for tenants to get those enforced (without being evicted).

If the private rental market is of adequate standard (housing quality, tenant security, pricing, etc.) then I would consider no good reason for Councils to get involved. If there is good quality, etc. available through social housing charities then again no need for Councils.

But my impression is that the rental situation in the UK is not working, has not been working for a long time and Governments have been unable and/or unmotivated to resolve. (Maybe the private market "works" for landlords but often not working for tenants).

Ian

The amount of tenant security and how strongly the regulations are policed is key I believe. If governments enforced these properly then it might not tempt so many landlords who are just out to make a quick buck for as little outlay as possible. Even MPs are not averse to this as was shown recently.

Despite weasel words from government I am not sure they are doing much to improve matters and find it easier to hide behind the number of private landlords to get out of spending more on social housing.

 

[Ian H]

If you're going to have private landlords then rents should be capped, tenants' security strengthened and housing standards enforced.
But giving councils the wherewithal to build new social housing is the ideal solution. It does involve funding local government properly.

 

[Rusty Nails]

If you're going to have private landlords then rents should be capped, tenants' security strengthened and housing standards enforced.
But giving councils the wherewithal to build new social housing is the ideal solution. It does involve funding local government properly.

And that is why it is never going to happen again.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Housing/accommodation is one of the major issues to be tackled if we are to get the economy moving forward.
We need to stop seeing the ownership of property as 'an investment' for those who can afford it.
We need to stop the 'banking of land' for future use when the prices go up enough for developers to lick their lips.
Building of houses should be for the common good, not for the profits of a few. If current developers don't want to build affordable homes, don't compromise, feckem. When they've got nowhere to build luxury mansions, another model will evolve to build low cost dwellings.
There are other ways already - what did we do in the post war housing crisis? What do they do elsewhere?
We need to break the current system. We need to look at alternative ways to provide affordable habitable dwellings. We need to look at alternative funding models.
Too many people have made too much money for too long from putting a roof over people's heads. This needs to change - and fast.

 

[Psamathe]

If current developers don't want to build affordable homes, don't compromise, feckem. When they've got nowhere to build luxury mansions, another model will evolve to build low cost dwellings.

I agree but several political problems 1. They already have loads of already approved planning permissions so can be building for some time to come even if planning system went on holiday for sometime. so change will take time 2.Loads of applications granted are never built - since 22015 1 millions homes granted permission but not built, that's 1 in 3 and had they been built Gov targets of 300,000 would have been achieved in 8 of the last 10 years. So not a problem of permissions being granted, a problem with developers actually doing the building.

Plus such a change (where they have to adapt their model) will take time (given the already available permissions) and waiting will mean come next election Labour will have failed in achieving something the've made a big issue.

Ian

 

[Ian H]

I believe planning permissions lapse after five years.

 

[spen666]

I believe planning permissions lapse after five years.

if no work has been done, then that is correct. Its 5 years to start work, not 5 years to complete works.

However, if planning permission has been granted and lapsed, it would be difficult for a planning authority to refuse a new application on same site - especially for same number of properties, size etc. difficult but not impossible. A refusal to renew a grant of planning permission would run a high risk of being judicially reviewed as Wednesbury unreasonable

 

[Fab Foodie]

I believe planning permissions lapse after five years.

Let's get that shortened then!

 

[Fab Foodie]

I agree but several political problems 1. They already have loads of already approved planning permissions so can be building for some time to come even if planning system went on holiday for sometime. so change will take time 2.Loads of applications granted are never built - since 22015 1 millions homes granted permission but not built, that's 1 in 3 and had they been built Gov targets of 300,000 would have been achieved in 8 of the last 10 years. So not a problem of permissions being granted, a problem with developers actually doing the building.

Plus such a change (where they have to adapt their model) will take time (given the already available permissions) and waiting will mean come next election Labour will have failed in achieving something the've made a big issue.

Ian

None of the above is insurmountable in a short time period.....

 

[Psamathe]

if no work has been done, then that is correct. Its 5 years to start work, not 5 years to complete works.

However, if planning permission has been granted and lapsed, it would be difficult for a planning authority to refuse a new application on same site - especially for same number of properties, size etc. difficult but not impossible. A refusal to renew a grant of planning permission would run a high risk of being judicially reviewed as Wednesbury unreasonable

You can also ask that a granted permission be extended and it's something that certainly some (I expect most) planning departments would do under delegated powers.

My local Planning Department tends to make decisions (or recommendations to Committee) based on probability of an appeal being upheld - not a cynical view but as discussed with local planning officers. They seem scared of appeals being found against them, maybe it reflects badly in statistics or opens them to criticism or something but the result is that if they think an appeal might find against them they'll approve (or recommend approval).

Also, locally for private individuals the modus operandi these days it to "ask forgiveness afterwards rather than bother to ask permission before". And even if planners decide to enforce, it can be several years for them to get through the paperwork to start enforcement (eg they often have to do things like get Social Services involved to check if their enforcement would cause anybody "undue hardship" or make anybody homeless). Then when they eventually get round to starting enforcement you just tell them "I'm taking it to court, to judicial review" and they'll put their enforcement on indefinate hold pending you getting round to starting a court case ...

Ian

 

[Tanis8472]

Time limit
In the UK, planning permission is usually valid for three years from the date of approval.

Conditions
The decision notice for the planning application will specify when construction should begin.

Material operations
To avoid the permission expiring, you can start "material operations" such as digging a trench for foundations.

Re-applying
If construction hasn't started within the time frame, you'll need to re-apply for planning permission.

Outline permission
Outline permission is valid for five years, with three years to submit reserved matters and two years after that to implement the approval.
Once construction has started, the planning permission is considered implemented and there's no longer an expiry date. However, local policies can change, so it's important to check.

That one boils my piss. Place behind me has done exactly that. Been sitting for years.

 

[BoldonLad]

We need rubber boats full of bricklayers, etc

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yg1471rwpo

 

[stowie]

We need rubber boats full of bricklayers, etc

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yg1471rwpo

Except they would spend years in our chaotic asylum system without the legal right to work.

The article shows the absurdity of government house building policies. And not just this one, but previous governments also. This government are calling for 1.5 million new homes by 2029. Assume they mean Dec 31st 23:59 in 2029 and they have 5 years to deliver. That is 300,000 homes every year until the end of the decade. The only time we hit those sort of numbers since WWII was between 1964 and 1972, and a very significant portion of those was social (council) housing builds which have been pretty much zero since the mid 80's. Not co-incidentally, most years since the mid 80's has had new house builds below 200,000 per year with only a few years managing to squeeze above the 200k threshold.

So, I would give a rough estimate of average number of new homes built per year since 2005 at 175k p/a. Let's be generous and say the last 20 years has been 200k p/a. The government need to increase new home completions immediately by 50% to achieve their targets. OK, they could backload the house completion targets, but that would mean the last part of this decade would see a home completion rate we haven't seen post-war.

 

[BoldonLad]

Except they would spend years in our chaotic asylum system without the legal right to work.

The article shows the absurdity of government house building policies. And not just this one, but previous governments also. This government are calling for 1.5 million new homes by 2029. Assume they mean Dec 31st 23:59 in 2029 and they have 5 years to deliver. That is 300,000 homes every year until the end of the decade. The only time we hit those sort of numbers since WWII was between 1964 and 1972, and a very significant portion of those was social (council) housing builds which have been pretty much zero since the mid 80's. Not co-incidentally, most years since the mid 80's has had new house builds below 200,000 per year with only a few years managing to squeeze above the 200k threshold.

So, I would give a rough estimate of average number of new homes built per year since 2005 at 175k p/a. Let's be generous and say the last 20 years has been 200k p/a. The government need to increase new home completions immediately by 50% to achieve their targets. OK, they could backload the house completion targets, but that would mean the last part of this decade would see a home completion rate we haven't seen post-war.

True 😊

 

[Ian H]

Except they would spend years in our chaotic asylum system without the legal right to work.

The article shows the absurdity of government house building policies. And not just this one, but previous governments also. This government are calling for 1.5 million new homes by 2029. Assume they mean Dec 31st 23:59 in 2029 and they have 5 years to deliver. That is 300,000 homes every year until the end of the decade. The only time we hit those sort of numbers since WWII was between 1964 and 1972, and a very significant portion of those was social (council) housing builds which have been pretty much zero since the mid 80's. Not co-incidentally, most years since the mid 80's has had new house builds below 200,000 per year with only a few years managing to squeeze above the 200k threshold.

So, I would give a rough estimate of average number of new homes built per year since 2005 at 175k p/a. Let's be generous and say the last 20 years has been 200k p/a. The government need to increase new home completions immediately by 50% to achieve their targets. OK, they could backload the house completion targets, but that would mean the last part of this decade would see a home completion rate we haven't seen post-war.

Council houses would be good. Affordable rents and security of tenure.