Making a ruin into something habitable.

[Richard Caley]

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:-(.

[Richard Caley]

a> You haven't a clue. Can't you focus?

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.

[Julian Fowler]

Just as there's another minority for whom the inconveniences of not having such amenities on the doorstep is more than offset by the other benefits of *not* living in towns or cities.

Don't expect Adam to understand that: his ideal for this country is a unform density of new, energy-efficient little boxes ("made of ticky-tacky ...") distributed across a landscape all of which will resemble Milton Keynes :-(

Yep: (entire population - Adam) understands this. 'Nuff said.

Julian

[Tony Bryer]

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 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]

This is a UK perspective, largely due to us building poor quality towers in the 1960's and putting the wrong people (i.e. families with children) in them. Go to Chicago or Melbourne and you will find thousands of people who have chosen to live high rise because of the advantages it offers.

[IMM]

"urban spawl" another emotive propaganda word. They said that about London in the 1920/30s. These "spawls" had their own facilities within walking distance, so smashes that myth. What you may be on about is close proximity to work. Planning has a lot to do with tarffic coingestion as more mega stores are allowed to be built meaning to get the milk you need car.

Because there is so few of them. High rise, around 60 floors, should be built, as long as they are run and policed properly with high sound insulation. We would need to change laws to evict neighbours from hell far more easily, and laws to ensure they are run and built correctly. There is a need for these block as the population get older and more people living alone. We could learn a lot from the USA and Continental Europe where these types of blocks have all their own amenties inside and strict security.

[IMM]

It is on another post about shanty towns.

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

[IMM]

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?

[Richard Caley]

tb> This is a UK perspective, largely due to us building poor quality tb> towers in the 1960's and putting the wrong people (i.e. families tb> with children) in them. Go to Chicago or Melbourne and you will tb> find thousands of people who have chosen to live high rise tb> because of the advantages it offers.

Really? I agree that the image of high rise is different, in the UK it brings up images of piss smelling blocks made with the wrong kind of concrete, whereas in Manhatten the first image might be a high status penthouse.

However, I would think that in any case it is always a compromise. Other than, perhaps, the view I can't think of any advantage to high rise living per-se. People live in luxury penthouse appartments because they can't afford to buy enough land in Manhatten to build a house in landscaped grounds. It is different in price but not in type from the person who lives in a UK council tower block because they can't afford to rent or buy a house in a similar area.

[Richard Caley]

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.

[Richard Caley]

a> Oh my God!!! What planet are you on?

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.

[RichardS]

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

[IMM]

And everyone benefits.

[Richard Caley]

a> "urban spawl" another emotive propaganda word.

No, it is a word which dates froma time when it was a reasonable argument that the reason cities like London were growing was just pointless sprawl. In such a situation, putting on a limit to persuae peope to redevelop already used land before building on the edge made sense.

Since then the world has changed. The London green belt is now not containing sprawl, but growth. The stupid economic policies of decades of governments have sucked many mroe people into london and the south east, resulting in even more stupid econocmic and so on. This means the pressure jumps the green belt, and we end up with people living near Birmingham and commuting to London every day.

It's politically impossible to reverse the insane economics (removing all subsidy from commuter transport, including road building, removing the london weighting from all public employees etc).

Personally I think the only way forward is to fence off the south east, push it out into the atlantic ans sink it:-).

a> They said that about London in the 1920/30s. These "spawls" had a> their own facilities within walking distance, so smashes that myth.

How many theatres, museums, quality restaurants, large libraries specilist food shops, permiership football ground, test cricket grounds, bookshops etc within walking distance of the homes in one of those suburban deserts? More fundamentally, how many jobs?

One (now closed) corner shop, a plastic pub and perhaps an infants school with the option of applying for a job in one of the three really doesn't cut it for civilisation.

People pay a lot of money to live in cities for a reason.

Other people pay a lot of money to live in reasonable comfort out in the boonies or on an island for analogous, but mostly inverse reasons.

Personally I can see fields from here and they aren't interesting enough to be worth living without a connection to a sewer. It is all a matter of taste.

The bit in the middle with none of the benefits of either the open spaces or civilisation is more a matter of distaste.

[Tony Bryer]

I plan to retire to a 25th floor flat in Melbourne city centre. The huge attraction to me will be having so much within walking distance - owning a car would be pointless. Main railway station and under construction shopping mall across the road, ordinary shops, theatres and other city centre attractions within 10 minutes walk. Tram stop outside front door - 8 per hour - beach

10 minutes away. Countryside - cross the road, get on a train. Because public transport tends to be radial and I'll be at the centre nearly everywhere in the city (and beyond) will be easy to get to. Currently although I only live in Twickenham going up to London proper is a pain (and as last week's meet reminded two of us, going home can be worse).

And once home apart from the view, high security, no maintenance (am I allowed to say that here ) and swimming pool (I'll leave the tennis courts and gym for others).

See

for the sort of thing that has been and is being built - this particular developer is building for the mass market, nothing very special - see for the Grollo 88 storey block, the tallest residential block in the world, currently under construction. If planning restrictions were to be relaxed then I see no reason why developments of this sort wouldn't spring up all over our big cities.

[IMM]

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!

[IMM]

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

[IMM]

I think you are hard of thinking.

[IMM]

..and it suits their lifestyle at that point in their lives.

[Steve]

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