Queen's Speech: Infrastructure Bill

[SpontaneousOrder]

Why doesn't your local community collectively buy up whatever land it can, and attempt to buy agreements (in the form of some kind of covenant) with local land-owners that they won't be developed for housing purposes without a majority vote?

It seems to me that if you want to suppose that people shouldn't be able to sell their land for development, simply because it's in your neighbourhood, then your property was probably VERY under-priced when you purchased it.

What you want sounds reasonable, but a reasonable person would also recognise that that kind of privilege would come with a price.

[Gittins Gal]

Why doesn't your local community collectively buy up whatever land it can, and attempt to buy agreements (in the form of some kind of covenant) with local land-owners that they won't be developed for housing purposes without a majority vote?

It seems to me that if you want to suppose that people shouldn't be able to sell their land for development, simply because it's in your neighbourhood, then your property was probably VERY under-priced when you purchased it.

What you want sounds reasonable, but a reasonable person would also recognise that that kind of privilege would come with a price.

Well, with the example I highlighted the land belongs to the local Dioscese and they're selling direct to Barratts so not much of a look in there.

Sold out by the CofE!

[SpontaneousOrder]

Well, with the example I highlighted the land belongs to the local Dioscese and they're selling direct to Barratts so not much of a look in there.

Sold out by the CofE!

Meh. I had to take out an insurance policy in case the local cathedral needed a new roof. That was CoE too I think.

[Smartie]

The fact is that we need more houses - lots more houses and we need them now. A quarter of a million every year for the next 20 years would be a decent start.

The issue isn't just immigration, though that's worthy of some attention. It could also be argued that a significant part of the problem has been the rise in the number of women working, making the purchase of a property requiring two incomes rather than just one average working man's income.

Whatever the causes, the rate of house price growth over the past 50 years has been nuts and this is effectively a transfer of wealth from the young to the old and from the poor to the wealthy.

The problem is simply too much demand and not enough supply - we need to have more supply, urgently.
This needs to be provided where the demand is, which is to say mostly in London and the South East.

Unfortunately, our NIMBY culture is very much "I have my house now thanks, you can piss off".

Yes, we need infrastructure upgraded to support the population as well but new accommodation MUST be built and forced through if necessary. The current planning system doesn't work.

[d000hg]

Meh. I had to take out an insurance policy in case the local cathedral needed a new roof. That was CoE too I think.

For about £1 or something silly? Seems to be a standard quirk of English housing law.

[vetran]

The fact is that we need more houses - lots more houses and we need them now. A quarter of a million every year for the next 20 years would be a decent start.

The issue isn't just immigration, though that's worthy of some attention. It could also be argued that a significant part of the problem has been the rise in the number of women working, making the purchase of a property requiring two incomes rather than just one average working man's income.

Whatever the causes, the rate of house price growth over the past 50 years has been nuts and this is effectively a transfer of wealth from the young to the old and from the poor to the wealthy.

The problem is simply too much demand and not enough supply - we need to have more supply, urgently.
This needs to be provided where the demand is, which is to say mostly in London and the South East.

Unfortunately, our NIMBY culture is very much "I have my house now thanks, you can piss off".

Yes, we need infrastructure upgraded to support the population as well but new accommodation MUST be built and forced through if necessary. The current planning system doesn't work.

I was watching Britains Oldest building business last night. They stated the nation started a massive house building plan 1950 - 1960 they built a million houses . It was apparently unprecedented.

with 400,000 (half arriving and half born to immigrants) new people from immigration a year we need probably 200,000+ houses to cover immigration.

[darmstadt]

I was watching Britains Oldest building business last night. They stated the nation started a massive house building plan 1950 - 1960 they built a million houses . It was apparently unprecedented.

with 400,000 (half arriving and half born to immigrants) new people from immigration a year we need probably 200,000+ houses to cover immigration.

Well how about utilising some empty ones:

There are 79,971 empty homes in London

635,127 empty homes are currently empty in England

[SpontaneousOrder]

For about £1 or something silly? Seems to be a standard quirk of English housing law.

I think it only cost me £25. Basically the church used to own most of the land around the town, and it was sold (a long time ago i think) on with a covenant that said that the land owners were obliged to pay up to a certain amount (which I can't remember) in case of a fire, in order to repair the cathedral roof.

[vetran]

Well how about utilising some empty ones:

looks like we are :

The government introduced an empty homes program, providing grants and incentives for councils, housing associations, community groups and owners to bring empty homes into affordable use. This program is now delivering results.
In our view the major factor is the changes to council tax charging on empty homes introduced by the government in 2013. This has created strong incentives for owners to get their empty properties back into use quickly to avoid incurring additional council tax. It is possible that these changes have also influenced the way in which properties are reported. We note that the number of properties liable for council tax dropped in 2013, whereas the housing stock actually increased. This may indicate that some owners may be removing their properties from charging altogether by for example removing bathroom and kitchen facilities. More research is needed before conclusions can be drawn on this point.

[DodgyAgent]

Why doesn't your local community collectively buy up whatever land it can, and attempt to buy agreements (in the form of some kind of covenant) with local land-owners that they won't be developed for housing purposes without a majority vote?

It seems to me that if you want to suppose that people shouldn't be able to sell their land for development, simply because it's in your neighbourhood, then your property was probably VERY under-priced when you purchased it.

What you want sounds reasonable, but a reasonable person would also recognise that that kind of privilege would come with a price.

You will find that in areas of the country such as Lincolnshire the wealthy locals are buying the land surrounding their towns for the sole purpose of stopping any development