Britain’s delusions about the green belt cause untold misery • Hacker News Board

Re: Britain’s delusions about the green belt cause untold misery

#41

Post by mrec » Mon, Feb 13, 2017, 1:30 PM UTC

lhopki01 wrote: post #39

mrec wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Corbyn's approach (let councils start building again) is a far more rational approach than this. Leaving aside the question of where the money and land comes from (both main parties have announced impressive housebuilding targets at the last few GEs, and nobody's even come close to hitting them), doesn't this run afoul of parliamentary sovereignty? If "no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot chan…

> My gut feeling is that the #1 problem is excessive lending on housing and way too much tolerance for housing as a speculative investment. Does this mean you think that supply is adequate and the only issue is that? We have been running a deficit of 200,000 units of housing a year for over 30 years. The shortfall has been made up, in London at least, by turning flat living rooms into bedrooms and splitting up housin…

> Does this mean you think that supply is adequate and the only issue is that?

If only I'd written a second sentence directly after the one you quoted which could have answered such questions...

I want lots of housing built too, and I want prices to collapse and stay collapsed, and I want Mark Carney tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail, but as you say we seem to have become congenitally useless at building houses in this country.

By all means let's work on improving that, but we're probably looking at more decades even in the best case. I think the sentiment and finance and speculative aspects of the problem could be tackled much more quickly if the politics align to allow it.

Re: Britain’s delusions about the green belt cause untold misery

#42

Post by crdoconnor » Mon, Feb 13, 2017, 1:33 PM UTC

toyg wrote: post #37

crdoconnor wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You can already build in the city. In fact, New Labour put in subsidies and incentives to build multi-storey houses, which are probably still in place. So why don't developers just go and replace low-rise with high-rise? Because nobody really wants to live in flats in England if they can avoid it. It's a cultural thing and it has nothing to do with land scarcity, it's probably a result of the failed '70s projects mi…

Yes, but only in London. Most of "urban Britain" elsewhere is still considered very much undesirable. Price dynamics outside London are extremely different. This is the problem with housing policies in England: they are all designed around London and the South West, with little regard for the rest of the country.

There doesn't appear to be any shortage of demand for city center accommodation in Bristol, Manchester, Birmingham, etc. either.

Re: Britain’s delusions about the green belt cause untold misery

#43

Post by crdoconnor » Mon, Feb 13, 2017, 4:40 PM UTC

mrec wrote: post #36

crdoconnor wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Leaving aside the question of where the money and land comes The money would come from "people's QE" and lifting the housing revenue account cap. Building UP, as I mentioned before, is a better way of packing more people in than creating sprawling suburbs in the green belt. For a city its size London's density has been ridiculously restrained. >both main parties have announced impressive housebuilding targets at the…

> The money would come from "people's QE" Oh, yet more printy printy. Wonderful. > Would you prefer people didn't have homes? Just say it if that's what you want. No, I wouldn't prefer that. I'd quite like an affordable home of my own at some point before I die, thank you very much. I believe social housing - free from the inflationary incentives of the PRS - has an important role to play in keeping the PRS honest, m…

>I know I sound negative. 20 years of watching this madness unfold will do that to you. I have a kneejerk suspicion of "just build on brownfield land" - it's the housing equivalent of "we'll improve services and reduce taxes by cutting red tape and reducing government waste" - sounds nice, doesn't frighten anyone

Of course it frightens people. Owning mortgaged property and watching it fall in value is terrifying. Building a vast amount of housing will do that.

I've watched this madness for 20 years as well and it's painfully clear to me that high house prices was a deliberate choice. The "crisis" made the ultra-wealthy very happy and a large part of middle England were fairly okay with it too.

Re: Britain’s delusions about the green belt cause untold misery

#44

Post by mrec » Mon, Feb 13, 2017, 8:08 PM UTC

crdoconnor wrote: post #43

mrec wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The money would come from "people's QE" Oh, yet more printy printy. Wonderful. > Would you prefer people didn't have homes? Just say it if that's what you want. No, I wouldn't prefer that. I'd quite like an affordable home of my own at some point before I die, thank you very much. I believe social housing - free from the inflationary incentives of the PRS - has an important role to play in keeping the PRS honest, m…

>I know I sound negative. 20 years of watching this madness unfold will do that to you. I have a kneejerk suspicion of "just build on brownfield land" - it's the housing equivalent of "we'll improve services and reduce taxes by cutting red tape and reducing government waste" - sounds nice, doesn't frighten anyone Of course it frightens people. Owning mortgaged property and watching it fall in value is terrifying. Bui…

> Owning mortgaged property and watching it fall in value is terrifying. Building a vast amount of housing will do that.

Exactly. And yet "why can't they build on brownfield?" is the immediate cry whenever anyone even starts looking sideways at the green belt. Nobody is terrified of brownfield, which is why I strongly suspect that brownfield alone isn't going to make a damn bit of difference; to steal a phrase, "if building on brownfield changed anything they'd make it illegal".

> it's painfully clear to me that high house prices was a deliberate choice

Yes, very obviously. And not just in the obvious "pandering to donor builders and smug homeowners" sense, either; debt creation through mortgage lending is at the heart of UK monetary policy now. Probably the most extreme example I've ever seen of jam today at the cost of long-term disaster.

Re: Britain’s delusions about the green belt cause untold misery

#45

Post by Lazare » Mon, Feb 13, 2017, 10:42 PM UTC

lhopki01 wrote: post #38

djmobley wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don't want to live in the London green belt? Let's lift the restrictions and see if that holds true, shall we? I think you vastly underestimate the suffering millions of people in the UK are enduring as a result of the housing crisis, and the range of alternatives that would be considered an improvement for those people.

No I'm just realistic about what the private sector will do. If you look at the long running trend in house building since the second world war private companies have built roughly 200,000 units a year varying by about 50,000 units a year. Significantly this held true when the government also built 200,000 units a year and also when the government stopped building too. The private sector will only ever build for the…

> No I'm just realistic about what the private sector will do. If you look at the long running trend in house building since the second world war private companies have built roughly 200,000 units a year varying by about 50,000 units a year.

It would be more accurate to say:

> I'm just realistic about what the government will do. If you look at the long running trend in the granting of planning permissions since the second world war, the government has allowed roughly 200,000 units a year to be built.

The private sector builds as many houses as it is legally allowed to do so. This is, as you note, an insufficient number. And yes of course, when they're not allowed to build enough houses to meet demand, they will prioritize building the most profitable ones.

> The private sector will only ever build for the top end of the market and never in the quantities actually needed to reduce house prices.

Yes, we've passed laws to make damn sure of that.

> So yes if we opened up the green belt it would be built on but it wouldn't achieve anything to alleviate the housing crisis.

It's quite possibly true that focusing on denser, brownfield developments is a better idea. But it's rather absurd to suggest that building more houses isn't going to help with the problem of there not being enough houses.

Re: Britain’s delusions about the green belt cause untold misery

#46

Post by Lazare » Mon, Feb 13, 2017, 10:46 PM UTC

lhopki01 wrote: post #40

djmobley wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The London green belt is so far away from the city center that you'd be better of living in Birmigham and taking the train than trying to get in from there. Utter nonsense. Vast swathes of the green belt around London are within walking -- or a short bus journey -- distance of rail stations providing very reasonable commute times into central London. You mention the failure of private builders to meet demand for ne…

> You mention the failure of private builders to meet demand for new houses. Why do you think that is? No I don't think that's true. If you look at the number of privately built units of housing it has been remarkably consistent at about 200,000 units a year since the second world war. Now are you going to tell me that the regulatory regime has been the same the entire time? I'd have more sympathy for your arguments…

> If you look at the number of privately built units of housing it has been remarkably consistent at about 200,000 units a year

Between 2006 and 20015, planning permission was awarded in England for 2,035,835 housing units. That is an average of 204,000 per year.

> I'd have more sympathy for your arguments if the biggest complaint from councils about new housing was that they give planning permissions and then developers just sit on the land and send in further speculative planning applications.

That is something they complain about. The data does not support it.

Re: Britain’s delusions about the green belt cause untold misery

#47

Post by lhopki01 » Mon, Feb 13, 2017, 11:43 PM UTC

Lazare wrote: post #46

lhopki01 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You mention the failure of private builders to meet demand for new houses. Why do you think that is? No I don't think that's true. If you look at the number of privately built units of housing it has been remarkably consistent at about 200,000 units a year since the second world war. Now are you going to tell me that the regulatory regime has been the same the entire time? I'd have more sympathy for your arguments…

> If you look at the number of privately built units of housing it has been remarkably consistent at about 200,000 units a year Between 2006 and 20015, planning permission was awarded in England for 2,035,835 housing units. That is an average of 204,000 per year. > I'd have more sympathy for your arguments if the biggest complaint from councils about new housing was that they give planning permissions and then develo…

> Between 2006 and 20015, planning permission was awarded in England for 2,035,835 housing units. That is an average of 204,000 per year.

You've completely missed my point. The private sector has been building 200,000 units a year since the second world war. So if the planning regime is holding them back it's been doing it since the second world war. But we haven't had a housing crisis since the second world war because we used to build enough houses. The difference is that in addition to the 200,000 privately built housing units we used to have 200,000 units of government built housing a year. That stopped at the end of the 70s and we're paying the price of 30 years of shortfalls. There's only so many living rooms that can be turned into bedrooms before it comes to a head. What I want is for councils to be given the money to build housing again. They used to do this but then the funding was cut in the very early 80s.

> That is something they complain about. The data does not support it.

http://www.local.gov.uk/documents/10180/11831/Unimplemented+... This report from local governments shows that around 50% of granted planning permissions are still waiting to be built. Additionally it says that councils approve 9/10 planning permissions really suggesting that the planning process is not at fault here.

Re: Britain’s delusions about the green belt cause untold misery

#48

Post by Lazare » Tue, Feb 14, 2017, 12:43 AM UTC

lhopki01 wrote: post #47

Lazare wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you look at the number of privately built units of housing it has been remarkably consistent at about 200,000 units a year Between 2006 and 20015, planning permission was awarded in England for 2,035,835 housing units. That is an average of 204,000 per year. > I'd have more sympathy for your arguments if the biggest complaint from councils about new housing was that they give planning permissions and then develo…

> Between 2006 and 20015, planning permission was awarded in England for 2,035,835 housing units. That is an average of 204,000 per year. You've completely missed my point. The private sector has been building 200,000 units a year since the second world war. So if the planning regime is holding them back it's been doing it since the second world war. But we haven't had a housing crisis since the second world war beca…

> The private sector has been building 200,000 units a year [...] we used to build enough houses. The difference is that in addition to the 200,000 privately built housing units we used to have 200,000 units of government built housing a year.

Right, so government stopped building public housing, but didn't allow private sources to fill the gap. That seems clear enough.

> This report from local governments shows that around 50% of granted planning permissions are still waiting to be built.

That's not at all what that report says. Again, in the past 10 years permission has been granted to build over 2 million homes; the overwhelming majority have been built. Planning permissions are the most critical input in the house building process; of course builders keep an inventory on hand. That inventory ballooned a bit during the crisis; as your own link notes, it's now falling again, and only amounts to about a 12 month supply.

> Additionally it says that councils approve 9/10 planning permissions

The existing rules are pretty clear, and obviously people don't apply for permissions which they know will not be granted. I mean, this entire thread is on the context of loosening restrictions; you're surely not claiming that 90% of applications to build in the greenbelt would be granted?

What would be relevant - and what is crucially NOT in your link - is evidence that there are building sites for which planning permission would be granted, if anyone applied, but for which no one is applying. But what seems to be the current status (and which your link supports) is that the supply of building sites for which permission can be obtained is about 200k/year, of which the overwhelming majority are 1) applied for and 2) built upon.

Re: Britain’s delusions about the green belt cause untold misery

#49

Post by lhopki01 » Tue, Feb 14, 2017, 9:03 AM UTC

Lazare wrote: post #48

lhopki01 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Between 2006 and 20015, planning permission was awarded in England for 2,035,835 housing units. That is an average of 204,000 per year. You've completely missed my point. The private sector has been building 200,000 units a year since the second world war. So if the planning regime is holding them back it's been doing it since the second world war. But we haven't had a housing crisis since the second world war beca…

> The private sector has been building 200,000 units a year [...] we used to build enough houses. The difference is that in addition to the 200,000 privately built housing units we used to have 200,000 units of government built housing a year. Right, so government stopped building public housing, but didn't allow private sources to fill the gap. That seems clear enough. > This report from local governments shows that…

Or that the private sector only caters to the top end of the market and will never cater to the the lower ends. Where do you get that the government didn't allow them to make up the shortfall? What you're claiming is that the planning permissions were tightened just enough so that despite twice the demand there was no real increase in housing built?

Housing is something that is too important to leave to just market forces because it isn't really a market. Land is scarce and you can't import to make up the shortfall. Additionally the government has committed to providing housing for the less fortunate which means that they now have to pay market rents further inflating prices. Everyone is better off if they just go back to building houses.

Just saying build in the green belt will not achieve much. It'll divert developers from building on brownfield and lead to even more of a sprawl than there currently is in cities like London.

Re: Britain’s delusions about the green belt cause untold misery

#50

Post by lhopki01 » Tue, Feb 14, 2017, 9:07 AM UTC

mrec wrote: post #41

lhopki01 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My gut feeling is that the #1 problem is excessive lending on housing and way too much tolerance for housing as a speculative investment. Does this mean you think that supply is adequate and the only issue is that? We have been running a deficit of 200,000 units of housing a year for over 30 years. The shortfall has been made up, in London at least, by turning flat living rooms into bedrooms and splitting up housin…

> Does this mean you think that supply is adequate and the only issue is that? If only I'd written a second sentence directly after the one you quoted which could have answered such questions... I want lots of housing built too, and I want prices to collapse and stay collapsed, and I want Mark Carney tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail, but as you say we seem to have become congenitally useless at buildin…

While I agree that buy to let inflates prices a tiny bit the biggest issue is still lack of supply. For all the cheap credit out there many can still not get a house. It's not that they can't afford to pay the mortgage (often mortgages are cheaper than renting) it's that they can't get a mortgage big enough because you can only get a mortgage at 5 times your salary.

In the best case if developers were forced to build once they had planning permission rather than sitting on land and the government built houses like it used to the problem would be mostly gone within a decade.