A challenge for old house lovers

[Andy Hall]

I think that the correct term would be Prescottanalpollicis

(Pollicis, latin genitive - of the thumb)

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[IMM]

....cor......

[Christian McArdle]

Well, I admit my house's plot isn't much bigger than the 6 yard box in area!

Christian.

[Mike Mitchell]

Stuff 'em! I'll open a window as soon as they've left.

Cavity insulated *brick and block*, not concrete, not rendered, ta all the same! Decent tiles, too. My favourite are the blue tiles you see on some new builds in Germany. Why don't we do fantastic looking, efficient properties of quality like the Germans? I don't mean one of IMM's weirdo properties, but bog-standard ones - just to German designs! My late sister's house is a fantastic property, but you'd never see one like it in Britain, except at an exhibition, perhaps. It has a basement. Nearly all modern German houses have a basement. Nearly all British houses, old or new, do NOT have a basement! You've paid for the plot, so why not exploit its full potential? Drive around any German suburb and see so many fantastic designs! And these are not all super-rich people, either, but just ordinary working folks with middling to good jobs who believe in paying for quality, and getting it.

Absolutely out of the question. I hate underfloor heating. It feels like the downstairs is on fire. When I stand at a bathroom sink having a shave, the floor tiles are *supposed* to be cold! Warm tiles feel like you've wet yourself. Horrid, horrid, HORRID!

Dunno about heating. As long as the water gets piping hot once a day for my bath and the washing up and it is cheap, I don't care if I feed it with IMM's straw bales. I definitely would look at recovering heat from the ground and at solar panels, though. Again, take solar panels. A bungalow near me has them on the roof. They look an absolutely eyesore! Why cannot designers at least try to make new gadgets visually appealing?

Absolutely! There's nothing like a roaring log fire, a glass of wine, and a prawn cocktail with a squeeze of lemon to finish the day very nicely indeed.

MM

[Mike Mitchell]

That is interesting, too. I think we do tend to get carried away by horror stories we read about or see on the telly. I cannot believe that a house that has stood for a good 150 years (in the meantime the estimate has risen to 200 years, having spoken again to the agent!) can be beyond redemption, even if it does need a "bit of work" done to it (the agent's comments). Certainly, the houses I grew up in, lacking central heating and only having a fire in the sitting room, and only

*then* if dad or mum had laid one, even in the depths of winter, were always damp and cold, yet we were healthy kids! Our warmth came from within, as Dad would admonish us, "Eat up your fat, it's good for you!", whether it was bacon, lamb, or beef.

MM

[IMM]

Oh my God! How awful.

Nice tiles. I like em.

Do you mean one of these:

but bog-standard ones - just to German

Do you means one that gobble up gas and give big bills? How awful.

They will only allow a certain amount of living area on the plot. In this country they seem to class a utility basement as living space, as probably immigrants can live down there.

Blame the 1947 T&C planning act.

Heat pumps are financially not worth it is ng is available.

Good idea.

If the whole roof was glass it would look very good.

How appalling. I agree with the wine and sherry though.

[Andy Hall]

Why indeed. Most that I've seen recently are being constructed with bricks and blocks with insulation in between.

Yes, and useful they are as well, same story in France, although they have specific things to store in the "cave".

.. and seemingly they do as well.

In Germany they have Black Forest Gateau as well :-)

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[IMM]

Here is why....

AN OBJECTIVE VIEW OF LAND IN THE UK

The UK has a very big problem that lies at the root of many of its problems; it is the usage and ownership of "land". Most people are not aware that land is a big problem that affects just about every man, woman and child in the UK. This problem has been effectively suppressed.

PROBLEMS

The value of land accounts for 2/3 of the value of the average home in the UK - a very big problem.

Some points relating to high land prices:

a) House Prices Are Far Too High - The people of the UK pay very high prices for very small high density homes. Very few people realise this. High land values cascading into house prices means both parents of homes in the vast majority of families need to work to pay mortgages to keep a very small roof over their heads. Only about 8% of UK families have the wife at home full time. This results in the latch-key kids, who all too often end up as delinquents and in trouble. Vandalism and graffiti is rife in the UK giving the country a very poor image.

b) People Priced Out of Housing Market - The problem of land is surfacing in parts of the country where people with low incomes and in some cases not so low, are being priced out of the housing market. Many cannot afford to live in the towns, villages and city districts where they were born and brought up, having to leave splitting family groups. Many of these towns and villages are surrounded by low grade land which lays idle through public subsidy. Small builders and individual selfbuilders are eager to build on this land to fill the local housing gap, however they are prevented from doing so.

This artificial shortage of available building land reduces home ownership. Home ownership in the UK is at 68% which is lower than Spain, Finland, Ireland, Greece, Australia and New Zealand and very close to rates in Italy, Portugal and Luxembourg.

The land is not serving the people. Not only that, it financially penalises the people.

c) Consumer Debt Is Mainly Mortgages - The media is full of tales of high consumer debt in the UK, yet few state that 80% is actually mortgages, not debt for luxury goods, giving the impression the people of the UK are financially reckless and decadent. In short, people pay extortionate amounts for a tiny roof to keep them warm and dry.

d) High Land Prices Discourage Commerce and Industry - High land prices result in high rents, which are passed onto commerce and industry. Many foreign investors and companies have been discouraged from establishing in the UK because of extortionate rents.

e) People Prevented From Building Affordable Homes - Preventing people from building affordable homes in the countryside forces them into urban areas where many will be given publicly owned or subsidised homes, paid for from our taxes. We pay from public money, which could be better spend on needy projects, to house people who would otherwise pay for and build their own homes. This is obviously a ludicrous situation. This ridiculous situation uses taxpayes money keeps land idle and then to house people. Better use can be made of public money.

f) Land Is at Root of Traveller Problems - Approximately 300,000 people the UK travel the roads in caravans, effectively homeless. Some traveller societies, mainly the original Gypsies, have deep routes and traditions of travelling, most do not. Many have become a nuisance to the wider society and are firmly unwanted and unwelcome wherever they set up camp. The root cause that initially forced theses people onto the roads was access to land to live on. The Irish travelling communities originated when Ireland's land was owned by a handful of people who forced these people off the land they lived on. Many of the travellers in the UK originate from Ireland. Most traveller families want a permanent place to live. The evictions of Travellers caravans from land they actually own when attempting a permanent settlement clearly demonstrates this. If travellers were allowed to build permanent homes the problem would be alleviated.

- Strange that land can be the root cause of much child and teenage vandalism, however very true.

- Strange that land can be the root cause of forcing people out of their home towns and villages, splitting up families, however very true.

- Strange that land can be the root cause of disrupted families, however very true.

- Strange that land can discourage business and growth, however very true.

- Strange that land accounts for vast profits by financial institutions lending money for homes with inflated prices, however very true.

- Strange in that land increases our tax burden on subsidised homes, however very true.

- Strange in that land created, and maintains, the problem of the travellers, however very true.

The above is all very true.

Contrary to popular belief, the UK has approximately only 7% of its land built on. The Urban plot of 4 million acres is only 6.6%. The UK actually has a surplus of land. Despite claims of concreting over the south east of England, only 7.1% is built on with the Home Counties being underpopulated. The North West of England is highest at 9.9% built upon.

Question 1. So why does land account for 2/3 of the value of the average home, with all the negative spins offs, if we have all this land available?

Quite simply, the deliberate creation of an artificial land shortage, which ramps up land prices.

Question 2. What creates this artificial land shortage?

The 1947 Town and Country Planning act, introduced by a "Labour" government, that promised land reform during the 1945 general election, keeps people in small isolated highly dense pockets of land in urban areas. Foolishly the Labour government allowed the Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) to be heavily involved in drafting the act. CPRE was formed by large landowners. They influenced the act to suit themselves. The naïve Labour administration at the time accepted their input. Over 90% of the population, the second highest in Europe, now live in urbanised areas leaving the countryside virtually empty, because of this ridiculous act. This crams near 55 million people into 7.5% of the land, which is only 4.5 million acres out of a UK total of 60 million acres. 60 million people own just 6% of the land.

The act prevents us from building on the countryside, even though much of it is being paid for by taxpayers money to remain idle. The people of the UK are forced into tight urban pockets paying extortionate prices for land, and subsequently houses, with their taxes used to reinforce this bizarre situation. This adds insult to injury. A contemptuous slap in the face.

Question 3. Who are the biggest benefactors of this artificial land shortage?

a) Primarily Large Landowners.

The ludicrously small figure of 0.65% of the UK population own 68.3% of the land, many are aristocratic families dating back many hundreds years. Despite propaganda stating that the British aristocracy is poverty stricken and exists no more, they have managed to hang on to their lucrative acres very well, and in many cases expand their empires.

The root of this situation came about from the Norman conquest. They gave land to people who were favourable to them. In short, many of these families were traitors to their own kind conspiring with invaders. The Saxons had a very different approach to land, its ownership and usage. The situation has never been rectified. The UK still has this landowning aristocratic legacy, which still, despite propaganda stating otherwise, has a large effect and influence on the British people. Large landowners are part of the British establishment and do everything in their power to keep the status quo. The late Enoch Powel described the British establishment as "the power that need not speak its name". A very astute description. Most of these landowners produce little making their vast profits by taking rent. When the media reports that times are hard for farmers, they omit the word "tenant". It should be "tenant farmers". When times are bad the landowner always gets his rent, or takes the farm back, paying no taxes on it when idle, and leaves it until times are better.

To justify their monopolies in land ownership, large landowners state they are only custodians of the land and only they can maintain the land properly. "Maintaining the land properly" is a rather open and vague, if they ever do such a thing of course. If these people are only custodians and looking after the land for our benefit, then why aren't the public allowed on uncultivated land? These "custodians" fence off all their lands and only allow on people when forced to by law. Their claims clearly do not hold water.

The UK has never had a revolution and no political party has had the stomach to face up to large landowners, who are a legacy of our totally unjust past. Landed families infiltrate the top brass of the military. In the 1960s, there were many rumours of military coups against the reforming Wilson government as many thought, amongst other things, he would nationalise land. After all, in 1945 Atlee promise land reform, but ran out of time, so Wilson, a major part of the Atlee government, should carry out the promise when the Labour party returned to power, which he mysteriously never did.

Tony Blair ejected from the House of Lords 66 hereditary peers, who between them owned the equivalent of 4.5 average sized English counties. The Royal family controls approximate the size of one average sized English county. The Duke of Argyle owns vast tracts of Scotland. Historically landowners have been a problem; the Irish famine was a direct result of large landowners. The problem is still with us and in many respects even greater. With large landowners being omnipresent in the Palace of Westminster, land reform would always be difficult if near impossible. Tony Blair ejecting hereditary peers is the first step in land reform, as one barrier has been partially dismantled.

b) Large Construction Companies.

Approximately 80% of all homes built in the UK are built by only 20 companies. In no other country in the western world does this monopoly exist. The House Builders Federation influences the building regulations so heavily in order to maintain the status quo that the UK is backwards in house building technology compared to large parts of Western Europe, Scandinavia and North America. The House Builders Federation opposes any increase in building regulation that they perceive will eat into their vast profits. They opposed all increases in insulation standards and in 1990 described the proposed insulation increase as a cosmetic exercise.

Graham Chapman, who founded the Lotus motor car company, wanted to make the best sports cars, and aimed to do so. Large house developers only want profit not caring about the poor quality dross they serve up. None want to build the best designed and constructed houses. As no Graham Chapman is present in the British construction industry, they will have to be legislated into leading edge advanced designs and construction.

The deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has verbally ordered developers to adopt advanced technology, otherwise he says he will intervene. However, there is no legislation to force the issue, although Prescott's famed left hook might. All encouraging, however too little. The recent PPS7 law, which on paper actively encourages advanced eco construction, is a positive step. If PPS7 is implemented anything like the previous PPG7, Gummers law, which permitted building houses in the countryside, then hope is lost. Approximately 100 houses were built in the countryside under Gummers law from 1997 to 2004. This figure is so low it is not worth considering. Theoretically you could build, however the planners would block proposals at every angle and opportunity rendering the law virtually useless.

It comes as no surprise that the richest people in the UK are landowners and construction companies. The richest man in the USA is Bill Gates who creates software products that people benefit from - he is productive, he produces. In the UK, the richest man is the Duke of Westminster, who primarily takes in rent.

c) A Poor Performing Industry

Far too much land is given over to agriculture, which only accounts for 3% at most of the UK economy. This poor performing over subsidised industry is absorbing land that could be better used economically in commerce and for much needed higher quality homes for people. Much of the land is paid to remain idle out of our taxes. The UK could actually abandon most of agriculture and import most of its food, as food is obtainable cheaper elsewhere. The city of Sheffield, a one industry city of steel, was virtually killed by allowing imports of cheaper steel from abroad. This created great misery and distress to its large population. Yet agriculture is subsidised to the hilt having land allocated to it which clearly can be better utilised for the greater good of our society.

The justification for subsidising agriculture is that we need to eat. We also need steel and cars in our modern society, yet the auto and steel industries were allowed to fall away to cheaper competition from abroad. Should taxpayers money be propping up an economically small industry that consumes land that certainly could be better used? What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

The overall agricultural subsidy is about £4.5 billion per year, up to £6 billion if BSE and Foot and Mouth is taken into account. This is £6 billion to an industry whose total turnover is only £15 billion per annum. Unbelievable. This implies huge inefficiency in the agricultural industry, about 40% on the £15 billion figure. Applied to the acres agriculture absorbs, and about 16 million acres are uneconomic. Apply real economics to farming and you theoretically free up 16 million acres, which is near 27% of the total UK land mass.

This is land that certainly could be put to better use for the people of the UK. Allowing people to spread out and live amongst nature is highly desirable and at the same time lower land prices, which means lower house prices which the UK desperately requires. Second country homes could be within reach of many people, as in Scandinavia, creating a large recreation industry and keeping people within touch with the nature of their own country.

Question 4. Why is this artificial land shortage tolerated by the people of the UK?

Quite simply the large landowners have waged a subtle highly successful propaganda campaign that has convinced the people of The UK that they do not have enough land and that nothing should be built on open countryside. Propaganda may appear too strong a word, however propaganda it certainly is. Large landowners point to very large countries like the USA and Australia as proof the UK is small. When viewing the UK in isolation it is not small and can easily supports its 60 million people and even lots more. Their propaganda campaign has been so successful, you will find poor people in inner city sink estates agreeing that the countryside should not be built on; people who probably have never even stepped on a field.

Emotive terms have been formed and liberally used such as "concreting over the countryside" and "urban sprawl". With only 7.5% of the land built on, we can't concrete over the countryside even if we wanted to. About two thirds of all new housing is built within existing urban areas with the remainder mainly built on the edge of urban areas. Very little is built on open countryside. Cities have a natural limit. The generally accepted limit is that if it takes over an hour to travel from one side to the other its expansion naturally tails off. In olden times this hour was on foot or on horseback, now it is in cars or on public transport. So we can't "sprawl" too far either. In England the area of greenbelt has doubled since 1980, with nearly 21 million acres absorbed in total. We actually have greenbelt sprawl.

The biggest propaganda organs are: the Council For The Protection of Rural England, the Countryside Alliance and Friends of the Earth. All are fronts or used by large landowners. Large landowners use green groups to keep people out the countryside. The former is an organisation formed by large landowners and the latter is funded by large landowners. Their angle is keep the status quo by keeping townies out of the countryside, and also keeping villagers in villages.

The Council for the Protection of Rural England, have protected little of rural England, except the large bank balances of large landowners. They have protected little of the character of the English countryside since world war two, despite claiming they have. To justify their existence and increase public awareness, acceptance and credibility they have objected to Liverpool Football Club building a new stadium on a grade two listed park adjacent to their current Anfield home. The Anfield district of Liverpool is far from rural being one of the most densely populated districts in the UK.

In 1940 the German air force took photo reconnaissance photos of largely southern England. The captured photos, when compared to the ordnance survey maps of 1870, 70 years before, clearly indicated there was little difference in topology. When compared to the ordnance survey maps of today, there are vast changes. The 1947 T&C planning act just allowed landscape raping agriculturalists, who only contribute 3% to the UK economy, to go wild.

They claim to be acting in the interest of the land, wildlife and the countryside in general. This is far from the case. It is the obscene profits of landowners they are primarily interested in.

SOLUTIONS

1. Nationalise Land
2. Redistribute Land.
3. Land Value Tax

1. NATIONALISE LAND

In theory, the Queen, the state, owns all the land in the UK. When you buy you only have an infinite lease on the land, you do not actually own it. A nation state has sovereignty over its own territory. In short, it owns all the land. So how can individual people own its land too? Sounds like horse trading, and it is.

For the state to take direct control of land would be a difficult task to undertake. It would not be generally accepted by the people, although they own it anyhow. Compensation would be demanded by landowners. Compensating landowners would be akin to compensating slave traders when slavery was abolished; as the British government did. The concept of "land ownership" has been in the western psyche for hundreds of years, and redirecting their mindset would be difficult and lengthy.

Nationalising land would mean some form of lease back arrangement, which the government would receive rents. Of course, a relaxed planning system must accompany such nationalisation, to allow people to freely live on the land.

1. REDISTRIBUTE LAND.

Most major western nations have re-distributed land or have laws preventing large areas of land being in the hands of a few people. These countries generally have a higher quality of life than the UK because of their sensible land laws. The British government started the ball rolling in the late 1800s to re-distribute land in Ireland. It was accomplished in 2000 with the Irish Land Commission being disbanded completing the task. The land had to be bought from the larger landowners, none was given away. Land re-distribution in Ireland has been attributed as one of the platforms of its economic success. Large landowners were a direct cause of the Irish famine, which eventually resulted in the Irish rebellion. Land being in the hands of a few is not ideal from many aspects.

The British government is to pay for land re-distribution in Zimbabwe - using British taxpayers money. The British government can re-distribute land elsewhere in the world, but fails to do so in its own backyard. A backyard screaming out for land and planning reform.

In 1945 the Americans assessed Japan and how it should cope with the future. They assessed that land ownership was a major obstacle, being in the hands of a few people. Land re-distribution forced on the Japanese to great effect, was one of the keystones of their post war economic miracle.

Land re-distribution is effective. It may mean large landowners will have to sell parts of their estates, with laws capping land ownership levels. Of course, a relaxed planning system must accompany such re-distribution, to allow people to freely live on the land.

1. LAND VALUE TAX (LVT)

Henry George, an American, the man who devised LVT, initially proposed government ownership of all land, as the people owned it anyhow. Getting it across and accepted would have been virtually impossible. If you say, redistribute land, people cry "commie, taking away from me what is mine". Henry George realised that people will not accept that you cannot own land. It is in the western world's psyche, especially the Anglo Saxon. That is where LVT scores. Own land by all means, but if you own half of Scotland just to shoot birds on, then you will be taxed on that land, which currently is not the case. LVT will force large landowners to sell land and not hoard it. It will also encourage them to make productive use of the land, if they can't then they sell it to someone who can make productive use of it.

LVT taxes only the "value" of the land, which is based on the area the land is located. Someone in northern Scotland on one acre will pay very little as the land is not worth so much. Someone in central London with one acre pays a hell of a lot more.

LVT does not tax a mans effort, his labour, and hence his productivity, which the current system does, holding back advancement.

Currently we tax people's labour and lifestyle. If I work more they tax me more, if I build a nice extension to my house so my family can enjoy and improve their quality of life, they raise the council tax on the house. Totally ludicrous. There can be two one acre plots side by side. I want to build an 8 roomed house for my family to enjoy and the man next door a 2 bed bungalow, so he can enjoy the land for gardening. Under the current system, I pay more than next door in council tax. Under LVT we pay the same as the bricks on the land is not regarded as taxable, only the land is. A large house creates jobs in building and maintaining it, yet the current system suppresses job creation and curtails the quality of life by penalising people who build larger houses. The word large is all relevant. A large house in the UK would be an average house in the USA.

LVT spreads the proceeds of a society's productivity more evenly than at present. It does not penalise a person's effort to advance.

Winston Churchill was a great advocate of Land Value Tax.

PLANNING

Land reform must mesh with decent relaxed planning laws that allow people to build on all land. Relaxed planning laws are essential, as any laws passed relating to land are rendered sterile. Areas of natural beauty, SSSI's, national parks, industrial and commercial sectors etc, of course should have restrictions, which still leaves a vast amount of subsidised field Britain to build on. Building on a larger mass of land will eliminate the unappealing high density, high impact developer estates; the sort people when looking at shudder, with many having to buy as they have hobson's choice. When people say do not build on the countryside they envisage high density, high impact developer estates. The vision of these estates stirs negative emotions. That just would not occur if the people are allowed to spread out on the land. With cheaper land, people would build larger houses on larger plots for less money. Having the large developers curtailed will result in a mixed assortment of higher quality homes.

The autonomous house is virtually here. Superinsulation, septic tanks, combined heat & power units, grey water re-cycling, rainwater harvesting, wireless communications, mobile phones, etc, are all here. This sort of house also has a low impact on the environment. Connection to urban utilities is no longer necessary. Locating homes just about anywhere in the UK is now feasible. Herding people into urban communities because they offered basic utilities no longer need be the case.

We should be living amongst nature, not having to drive out to see it. Walking on land is another matter, as most of it is fenced off. Countryside organisations are demanding all city brownfield sites be built on. We now have an ideal opportunity to leave most of these sites vacant, cleaned up and into parks or made natural again, encouraging wildlife for the local people to enjoy. This is an ideal opportunity to improve brownfield areas, improving the quality of life of urban dwellers righting the wrongs of the incompetent planners of the past. Areas like Hampstead Heath should be actively encouraged. Woods in towns and cities would also be a great bonus. The deliberate differentiation between town and country requires abolition as the Town & Country planning act attempts to divide. Using the words town and country sets the tone. It creates conflict. It creates two separate societies. It creates distrust.

When presenting an advanced German Huf Haus house on TV, Quentin Wilson stated that modern architecture in Britain ceased after world war two. Quentin was totally correct. The 1947 Town & Country Planning act curtailed advancement in design, being hostile to change. Top British eco architects Brenda and Robert Vale left the UK to practice abroad, disillusioned at a planning system that firmly restricts advancement.

The recently passed PPS7 law, may hopefully pave the way for people to live back in the countryside and build individual homes on greenfield sites. The proviso is that it must be an eco house, well designed, modern, with advanced construction techniques. Taken from the act:

Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas

"11. Very occasionally the exceptional quality and innovative nature of the design of a proposed, isolated new house may provide this special justification for granting planning permission. Such a design should be truly outstanding and ground-breaking, for example, in its use of materials, methods of construction or its contribution to protecting and enhancing the environment, so helping to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas. The value of such a building will be found in its reflection of the highest standards in contemporary architecture, the significant enhancement of its immediate setting and its sensitivity to the defining characteristics of the local area."

THE WAY FORWARD

Sort out the land and planning systems and many problems that appear unrelated in our society disappear. It is not a panacea to right all the country's ills; however it will be a superb base on which to spring from, as other countries have effectively demonstrated, and right many, many of the problems of our unfair and uneven society.

A stumbling block to any reform by the general public is that many home owners perceive that planning and land reform will devalue their homes and result in negative equity. The country appears obsessed with house price values. Value is an abstract concept with cash being the reality. In some areas negative equity may be the case, although some opinion is that this would not occur. A fund taken from LVT taxes could compensate those who drop into the trap. As land prices rise negative equity will no longer be a problem, just a transitional problem from changing from one system to another.

Clearly the public need to be informed that land, the God given stuff under their feet, without which we cannot survive, is the major problem in their own advancement and actually curtails their current living standards and quality of life. That is the man in the inner city sink estate, the man in the terraced house, the man in the box semi, the man in the executive home and the country villager. Once the public is aware and this suppressed problem becomes an open issue, then the road is clear for land reform no matter what method is selected. Until then land and land tax reformers are spitting into the wind. The emphasis must be moved to educate and alert the average man and how he is directly affected.

[Bob]

snip IMMs regurgitated substitute for own thinking.

YAWN

[Andy Hall]

Yawn......

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[Tony Bryer]

We do have some builders who set out to produce quality energy efficient homes: I was on a course last weekend where a presentation was given by the boss of Gusto Homes - see

. In questioning though he reckoned that only about 1/3 of their buyers were interested in the spec: for the rest it was price, appearance and location.

[Tony Bryer]

Will you never learn. They can look in the estate agents opposite our office and see 1/8 acre 3-bed semis and poky 2-up 2-down cottages for the same price. Lots of people choose the latter knowing full well that they could get more m2 for their money.

Wrong way round: the house prices determine the land value. You value a piece of development land by the residual method: value = sale price of completed development - (build+design+legal+marketing costs + required profit). If it's a difficult site (contamination, ground conditions etc) it might have a negative value.

[IMM]

Yoiu never read it! Now read it!

[Bob]

I reckon high house prices are due to the obsession with "affordable" housing and starter homes. If they'd built thousands of large detatched houses instead, then people with the money would be buying those, not competing for the smaller houses that everyone else expects to be able to buy.

The price at the cheaper end of the market drifts up to what the average first time buyer can afford to pay. It doesn't matter how small or cheaply you build them, the price will always drift up to that level (unless there is oversupply, which there is not). It would be better to lay down minimum plot and room sizes, and not allow tiny houses to be built at all. The bottom end of the market would then eventually consist of these decent sized homes instead of the rabbit hutches - but for the same price.

[IMM]

. not competing for the smaller houses

Very true. We need land released to make the houses affordable even for large houses too.

Good thinking.

Very true.

[IMM]

Right way around. the high land prices is because they only drip feed land for building, keeping land and hence house prices up. It is not the way you say.

[IMM]

That is why the government have to legislate eco homes into the mainstream.

[Richard Faulkner]

In message , Bob writes

I wonder if this follows from average wage differences in different regions.

[The Natural Philosopher]

iNDEED. i LEARNT A LOT FROM WATCHING MY SISTERS HOUSE GET BULT IN GERMANY.

iTS TOTALLY FEASIBLE TO BUILD YOUR WON TEH WAY YOU WANT IT

Oh? I just like the overall 'its not cold, its not hot, its just right' feel to everythung.

Bit hard with solar panels. Flat and black is what you need.

On that we can agree.

[The Natural Philosopher]

No house is beyond redemption, but there is a point at which a rebuild is more economic, especially if the basic structure is unsatisfactory.