Making a ruin into something habitable.

Page 3 of 7  
Richard Caley wrote:

So we ARE saying that the price of houses and land is restricted, not by a conspiracy, but by our planning system ? If so, I agree with the motion.
Sorry, I just want to put a fixed reference point in this thread. Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
s> So we ARE saying that the price of houses and land is restricted, not s> by a conspiracy, but by our planning system ? If so, I agree with the s> motion.
That and by simple geometry. Even if we fixed the planning rules to make more ex farmland available for development, that would probably only affect prices in the outer suburbs of cities and wider commuter areas. People who currently live in cities and inner suburbs are paying a premium to be near civilisation (their job, theatres, whatever they value), and would continue to do so.
Theoretically, I suppose you could change planning to let people build on parks and so on, and that would make more land near civilisation available, but hopefully that is not the fix they choose:-(.
--
Mail me as snipped-for-privacy@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
|<
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
a> Or you could let people build where they like, as long as not in National a> Parks, next to Power Station's, etc. most of the country is open green a> fields.
This would result in all green areas in cities being concreted over.
--
Mail me as snipped-for-privacy@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
|<
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Richard Caley wrote:

Which results in them becoming less popular, which results in lower prices, which results in uneconomic structures, which are torn down and - grassed over....
Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
abuse-imm (a) writes:

National
green
And everyone benefits.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
a> Parks, next to Power Station's, etc. most of the country is open green a> fields. This would result in all green areas in cities being concreted over.s> Which results in them becoming less popular, which results in lower s> prices, which results in uneconomic structures, which are torn down s> and - grassed over....
By observation, it results in them being pulled down and left to grow rats until someone decides to build a car park.
In general I am against strong planning and associated laws, the two exceptions are some kind of very basic structural planning -- keeping some level of open space in cities is one example, planned transport links is another -- and perhaps some level of compulrpory purchase for very extreme cases.
Of course, both will always end up being abused, but so will lack of them.
--
Mail me as snipped-for-privacy@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
|<
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"IMM" wrote | Or you could let people build where they like, as long as not in | National Parks, next to Power Station's, etc.
If people built next to power stations, that would lessen the transmission losses in the electricity network which would be more energy efficient and so environmentally friendly.
There would also not be pylons all over the country and the opportunity for more district heating schemes.
Owain
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

for
Local power stations were the norm in this country. In Sweden they still have them and supply district heating. But they still pollute and much of this falls on the surrounding town. They are only suitable for natural gas.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Me too. But given that 65-70% of people are owner occupiers, most of the population has a vested interest in keeping prices up - thus all the NIMBY's - none more than those with big mortgages who would be wiped out if property prices fell (qv 1990-92). Meanwhile if you are the Duke of X and the value of your landholdings falls from 200m to 100m it's academic really. You won't find me voting for a system that wipes out little people and leaves the landed gentry unscathed.
The other thing that IIM's proposals fail to take into account is the huge costs that would fall on the public purse if people were free to build what they wanted where they wanted: infrastructure, educational, health and social services would all cost far more per dwelling than in towns and the resultant traffic generation is the last thing we need.
When I get to run things <g> the planning system will be changed: I will leave it to the market to determine what is built (in economic terms if you can make most money building executive houses this suggests that these are in the shortest supply) and drastically curtail conservation legislation. There are thousands of Conservation Areas that are so designated because they are 'nice' but certainly far from unique and often they are the very sites near town centres and transport links. IIRC something like 60% of LB Camden is CA: if you declare 60% of an area to be (effectively) off-limits market forces are going to do some very perverse things in what remains.
--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve wrote:> > So we ARE saying that the price of houses and land is

Few people were affected by that crash in relation to the whole population. Those who just hung on to their homes saw the price rise and all was fine. The situation was made worse in people's minds, by tabloid papers with lines like "x amount of people are in negative equity". Your house may be worth less than the mortgage, but it means sweet nothing if you don't sell. Value is abstract. Cash is reality.

I disagree. No one would build a family house on the edge of a town if the facilities and traffic were appalling. The system would be self-levelling. Of course, if many homes were being built on the edge of a particular town, then there would be a reason for it. Maybe a large company has setup a large factory, then the authorities would have to provide facilities. They would be prepared for it if there was an economic upturn in the town anyway.
Cost to the public purse? The public purse spends a hell of a lot on subsidising and building homes when there are millions of people out there able and willing to build their own (this means buying their own plot, own design and maybe getting a builder to do it) out of their own money. Little government money need be spent on housing. The free market can cope adequately if then planning system allowed and land was re-distributed. Only 10% of homes in the UK are selfbuilt, where in other countries it is as high as 60-70%

I agree!
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve wrote:

The vast majority of homes in the UK are built by only 20 companies. This situation exists in no other country.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well it would, but no party would be brave enough to do this. The reason that even Mrs T wouldn't privatise the post is that a private sector postal service would want to charge something like 20p for letters from London to other cities and perhaps 1 (which IIRC is the real cost) for letters to outlying rural areas. Look at the outcry now from rural places that can't get broadband and think it their entitlement to have it even if it is a money loser for the supplier.
--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Peter Ashby wrote:

Only in the short term because there are only so many executives. In my BCO days we had successive periods when flats, exec houses, ordinary houses, back-to-back starter homes and senior citizens developments each were in favour. If you look back to pre-WW2 when people could build what they liked plenty of houses for 'ordinary' people were built - 395 a time on my patch.
--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
abuse-imm (a) writes:

It is on another post about shanty towns.

stolen
Oh my God!!! What planet are you on?
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The one where if you own some land, it doesn't matter whether pepople could get plannign permisison to build on it, because if you can just decide not to a sell it to them.
--
Mail me as snipped-for-privacy@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
|<
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes I am focusing on how planning permission can be `dirt cheap' yet the difference in price between unplanned and planned land can be hundreds thousands of pounds.
a> An artificial shortage has been created. Can't you figure that a> out?
Yes. There is a shortage of planning permission which makes planning permission expensive, not `dirt cheap'.
Let us do a thought experiment. Imagine two hectares of land next to each other, one with and one without permission for residential development. I believe we are agreed that an average price for one would be maybe 4K, the price for the otehr maybe 400K. Agreed?
Imagine the cost of getting planning permission was a few thousand quid. Clearly anyone anting land in that area would buy the 4K land, get the few K permission and build. The price of 400K for the other land would be unsustainable and would fall to 4K + a few K + a small premium for convinience.
Conversely if the permission cost more than a few hundred K the person with the planned land would not sell for that price. In the extreme case if getting such permission was impossible for any price, the land with permission would become an irreplaceable resource and if there is demand (which there clrarly is) the price would only be limited by what he very richest people wanting homes could pay. A few millions at least.
So, we can deduce that the average cost of getting permisison for a hectare of land must be a few hundred K.
--
Mail me as snipped-for-privacy@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
|<
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
abuse-imm (a) writes:

Planning permission is dirt cheap!!!! If I buy some land and the local plan is extended over my land, I can then apply for planning permission. They give it and charge a smal fee. Not expensive at all.
If I want to sell this land with planning permission then, as there so little of it around, the potential buyers may offer me far more than what I paid for the land and the planning permission fee. If the land is not in demand then it may go for about what I paid for it, or less.
Can you understand that?
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
abuse-imm (a) writes:

plan
They
<snip>
ah., but these are often intangible, and Adam's already stated that intangibles are irrelevant and presumably don't have a value attached to them. Tcha! don't you read the facts that he's already stated loud and clear? ;-)
Presumably he's currently in the process of buying Coca Cola's (intangible) brand name for a nominal fee (perhaps the filing fees and a bit extra so they can "buy the missus something nice"....)
cheers Richard
-- Richard Sampson
email me at richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
abuse-imm (a) writes:

plan
They
I think you are hard of thinking.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So, the only person to take up my challenge and claim to get what IMM is saying, hasn't got a clue. IMM, have you ever considered that the reason that no-one comprehends you, is not that everyone on this newsgroup is stupid, but that your postings are incomprehensible?
--
Selah

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.