Jump to content


ebuild is sad to announce its closure - it has become too time and resource intensive to develop, manage and maintain.

However, ebuild will remain on-line in archive mode (ie no posting facilties) for several weeks so that users can use it as an information resource.

Landbanks


  • Please log in to reply
108 replies to this topic

#21 NeilW

NeilW

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 490 posts
  • LocationHalifax, Yorkshire, UK

Posted 04 January 2016 - 10:25 AM

View Postjsharris, on 03 January 2016 - 11:47 AM, said:

I don't really think we have a problem at all with finding the land needed for new housing.

We do, because it is not just about there being land there. It is what replaces what it is currently being used for.

The UK has good growing and grazing land. Once you build on it that is lost. You have increased population now being fed by less land area, which means ever more dependence upon food imports - in a world suffering from climate change impacts. It's simply not smart policy.

The South East in particular is vastly overcrowded. Less so elsewhere in the country. And again that is simply because standard market forces pull people to a particular location. We essentially have a policy of pulling people to where the businesses are - crowding cities and clogging up roads, rather than forcing businesses to go where the people are.

And we know where the end game is, because we've done it dozens of times before. The squalor of 19th century Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds is legendary. Yet we seem to have forgotten.

There is too much pandering to business going on, and not enough stick metered out to them because they are failing to spread themselves around the place sufficiently.

#22 NeilW

NeilW

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 490 posts
  • LocationHalifax, Yorkshire, UK

Posted 04 January 2016 - 10:31 AM

View PostSteamyTea, on 03 January 2016 - 12:06 PM, said:


Even at 200,000 units a year, that is nothing compared to our automotive industries which makes about 2.2 million units a year (11 times as many).
.

The main problem is that we don't make our houses in factories. I have a brick on brick kitchen extension - no more than 4 metres square - going on at the back that has been in progress since September. They haven't even got the roof on yet, and the insulation has been open to the elements for several weeks.

You are getting stalls on larger building projects because of the lack of brickies. They are being poached from site to site at the moment round here (and that was before the floods and bridge collapses which will make things even worse).

We have a primitive land availability system and a primitive production system for buildings. It's laughable.

#23 jayroc2k

jayroc2k

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 297 posts

Posted 04 January 2016 - 10:56 AM

No easy fix.

In simplistic terms

Capitalist approach will be driven by demand/supply and therefore inherently speculation.

Socialist approach will be driven by government bureaucrats, imagine what mess they will make of it when they can't run simple functions efficiently (planning process etc.). You will end up with mass building when its popular to do so (just look at Petrzalka in Bratislava if you want a slice of what government approach to housing looks like).

In an ideal world, developers will just build while a separate body owns and controls land supply. But in reality, lobbying and corruption will take over.

In terms of best of the worst case, I'll happily leave it to the powers of demand and supply to drive the building of homes with an overlay of regulation and goverment concentrating on affordable housing.

It’s a perfect storm at the moment:
- Great demand
- Cheap credit to both home purchasers and developers
- Lots of investment cash chasing few opportunities
- Global stage for investing. A Malaysian pension fund putting over £1 billion into UK property because Hong Kong/New York are not yielding the required return


Think about it for a second, you can get a 1% two-year mortgage, unsecured loans at 3.6%, pension funds are investing in "high yielding" bonds paying under 2%, high risk projects generating 5-10% returns.

Money is VERY cheap at the moment.

#24 Roger440

Roger440

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts

Posted 04 January 2016 - 08:48 PM

View PostNeilW, on 04 January 2016 - 10:25 AM, said:



There is too much pandering to business going on, and not enough stick metered out to them because they are failing to spread themselves around the place sufficiently.

Not sure how you see this working? My business simply would fold if it wasn't where it is, ie accessible from large areas of the country. Id love to live in North Norfolk, for example, but id be broke. The business simply wouldn't survive. I have to be where the people are. What stick exactly do you propose to beat me with?

#25 Roger440

Roger440

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts

Posted 04 January 2016 - 08:50 PM

View Postjayroc2k, on 04 January 2016 - 10:56 AM, said:

No easy fix.

In simplistic terms

Capitalist approach will be driven by demand/supply and therefore inherently speculation.

Socialist approach will be driven by government bureaucrats, imagine what mess they will make of it when they can't run simple functions efficiently (planning process etc.). You will end up with mass building when its popular to do so (just look at Petrzalka in Bratislava if you want a slice of what government approach to housing looks like).

In an ideal world, developers will just build while a separate body owns and controls land supply. But in reality, lobbying and corruption will take over.

In terms of best of the worst case, I'll happily leave it to the powers of demand and supply to drive the building of homes with an overlay of regulation and goverment concentrating on affordable housing.

It’s a perfect storm at the moment:
- Great demand
- Cheap credit to both home purchasers and developers
- Lots of investment cash chasing few opportunities
- Global stage for investing. A Malaysian pension fund putting over £1 billion into UK property because Hong Kong/New York are not yielding the required return


Think about it for a second, you can get a 1% two-year mortgage, unsecured loans at 3.6%, pension funds are investing in "high yielding" bonds paying under 2%, high risk projects generating 5-10% returns.

Money is VERY cheap at the moment.

You fail to mention the real unsolvable in all this. Population growth. There are simply too many people. But we cant talk about that.

As long as the population grows at its current pace, there will be no solution to the cost of housing.

#26 billt

billt

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 56 posts

Posted 04 January 2016 - 10:14 PM

*
POPULAR

While I feel that the UK (England especially) is overcrowded, you can't blame the housing shortage, (if there is one, which I doubt) on population.

In the year I was born the UK population was 50.2 million. 60 years later, in 2011 it was 63.2 million. An increase of 26%. That isn't really an enormous increase.

What has changed is household size. In 1961 the average household size was 3.1 people, in 2011 it was 2.3. At a household size of 3.1 you need about 20 million homes with the 2011 population. With a household size of 2.3 you need an extra 7 million homes (27.5 million).

Simple answer, force everyone to live in households of 4 or more people - no housing problem!

#27 jayroc2k

jayroc2k

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 297 posts

Posted 05 January 2016 - 10:48 AM

There is always a solution, check out the two pics, one even allows for green spaces and scenary ;)


BTW: if you have visited Tokyo or HK, London seems sparely populated in comparison. But I digress

On a seperate note: The forecasted world population growth in the next 50 years is set to slow considerably as reproduction rates in 'emerging economies' fall to levels in developed nations . It's well known that second generation immigrants reproduce at similar level to the local population.

If anything, those in their 20s and 30s now will have a smaller workforce to pay for their pensions (unless you think pensions are fully funded!!), this is growing problem in Japan and China (The China one is the driver behind relaxing of the 1-child policy).

Attached Files



#28 joe90

joe90

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 847 posts

Posted 05 January 2016 - 11:08 AM

Well, I have a land bank and have been fighting for a year and a half to just replace the dwelling that was there. Planners need a rocket up their a..e.

#29 PeterStarck

PeterStarck

    Regular Member

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • LocationEast Kent

Posted 05 January 2016 - 11:36 AM

View Postjoe90, on 05 January 2016 - 11:08 AM, said:

Well, I have a land bank and have been fighting for a year and a half to just replace the dwelling that was there. Planners need a rocket up their a..e.

It took us 4 years in total, probably partly my fault in getting outline first, then full. That was also for a replacement.

#30 joe90

joe90

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 847 posts

Posted 05 January 2016 - 11:58 AM

Peter, don't tell me that.

#31 ProDave

ProDave

    Self build in the Highlands

  • Moderators
  • 5,960 posts
  • LocationScottish Highlands

Posted 05 January 2016 - 12:16 PM

View Postjayroc2k, on 05 January 2016 - 10:48 AM, said:

There is always a solution, check out the two pics, one even allows for green spaces and scenary ;)


BTW: if you have visited Tokyo or HK, London seems sparely populated in comparison. But I digress

On a seperate note: The forecasted world population growth in the next 50 years is set to slow considerably as reproduction rates in 'emerging economies' fall to levels in developed nations . It's well known that second generation immigrants reproduce at similar level to the local population.

If anything, those in their 20s and 30s now will have a smaller workforce to pay for their pensions (unless you think pensions are fully funded!!), this is growing problem in Japan and China (The China one is the driver behind relaxing of the 1-child policy).
I am afraid I would not wish to live in the places in either of those two pictures.

Perhaps I the problem is I "have a life". I like to do things and go places. For that I have a boat and a caravan. Both need parking space at my house. I have a trailer as well for moving things. I like some outdoor space to work and to relax. I like the sound of peace and quiet so I like my outside space to be away from traffic and other people and their noise.

If I had to live in a high rise like that in some densely populated city I could have none of that. You would probably struggle to even keep a simple car for your own use. your life would be restricted to work, shop, "live" moving between them by public transport. No thank you.

But lets be thankful there are a lot of people prepared to live like that, because if we all wanted a detached house in the country with a large garden then there really would be a shortage of land.

Edited by ProDave, 05 January 2016 - 12:17 PM.


#32 SteamyTea

SteamyTea

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,322 posts
  • LocationCornwall

Posted 05 January 2016 - 02:24 PM

Number of interesting issues in the last couple of days.
In no particular order.

Jobs and Housing:
A lot of our industry has changed to retail and commerce, they can quickly and easily be moved about.

Transport:
This is quite difficult as it requires infrastructure. Trouble is we under build on what is wanted (roads and parking for personal transport), and over build on what we think is wanted (railways and bus lanes).
Not sure what the answer is really. My choice is more personal transport as it is very flexible. If you move house you don't need to move a railway or bus station.

Agriculture:
This is an area I know a bit about as studied a small part of it for my Masters.
Most of the imports into the UK are high value, low bulk weight items. We can get rid of most of them.
We can also stop using some of the best land for horticulture.
And we can farm more intensively, especially livestock.
And finally, we are increasing yields year on year.
Agriculture is not really a problem, we just take the cheapest option, which is currently imports.
You may not approve of intensive farming, but you would approve less of 1970s/80s food prices (about 60% higher than today in real terms).

Population:
Hard to believe that in my lifetime, the population of the UK has only gone up 25%.
The way people talk you would think it was 2500%!

Construction:
We really need to start building houses in factories. It is absolutely barmy that we rely on on a few blokes to turn up on time and do as they are asked, especially if we give them £800/week and let them go to the pub.

Planning:
This really needs to be clear cut and speedy, rather than the current game of 'Guess and Gotcha'.
Imagine going to a restaurant that has only meat, fish or vegetable on the menu, and you can only get served after you have paid, and this is the gotcha, you guess correctly what they want to serve you.
That restaurant would not last long.

Edited by SteamyTea, 05 January 2016 - 02:24 PM.


#33 Roger440

Roger440

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts

Posted 05 January 2016 - 09:14 PM

View Postbillt, on 04 January 2016 - 10:14 PM, said:

While I feel that the UK (England especially) is overcrowded, you can't blame the housing shortage, (if there is one, which I doubt) on population.

In the year I was born the UK population was 50.2 million. 60 years later, in 2011 it was 63.2 million. An increase of 26%. That isn't really an enormous increase.

What has changed is household size. In 1961 the average household size was 3.1 people, in 2011 it was 2.3. At a household size of 3.1 you need about 20 million homes with the 2011 population. With a household size of 2.3 you need an extra 7 million homes (27.5 million).

Simple answer, force everyone to live in households of 4 or more people - no housing problem!

Interesting statistic. Feels like a lot more. I suspect that the growth is not evenly distributed though. As i live in the "Arc of properity" im probably seeing rather more.

Equally, it seems more probably because there are so many more cars compared to just 20 years ago.

Ref the number of people in a house, that was probably what the goverment were trying to do with the bedroom tax! That didn't end well, but the principle of your statement is sound.

#34 Roger440

Roger440

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts

Posted 05 January 2016 - 09:18 PM

View PostSteamyTea, on 05 January 2016 - 02:24 PM, said:



Construction:
We really need to start building houses in factories. It is absolutely barmy that we rely on on a few blokes to turn up on time and do as they are asked, especially if we give them £800/week and let them go to the pub.



So true! I get the impression that people have tried this, but it seems impossible to wean people away from the traditional system of building.

Whilst plotting my extension, i keep asking myself why its all so complicated. Ulitmately you want a weathertight box that looks nice.

#35 SteamyTea

SteamyTea

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,322 posts
  • LocationCornwall

Posted 05 January 2016 - 10:39 PM

"Equally, it seems more probably because there are so many more cars compared to just 20 years ago."
A quick look at this:
https://www.gov.uk/g...ables-index.xls
And I produced this, as I have often wondered if we have about the same number of licence holders as cars.
If I get time I shall dig a bit deeper and look at the regional variations.

Attached Files


Edited by SteamyTea, 05 January 2016 - 10:41 PM.


#36 gravelld

gravelld

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 655 posts

Posted 06 January 2016 - 03:12 PM

View PostSteamyTea, on 05 January 2016 - 02:24 PM, said:

This is quite difficult as it requires infrastructure. Trouble is we under build on what is wanted (roads and parking for personal transport), and over build on what we think is wanted (railways and bus lanes).
Not sure what the answer is really. My choice is more personal transport as it is very flexible. If you move house you don't need to move a railway or bus station.
Not sure I agree with that - it depends totally on the situation.

#37 SteamyTea

SteamyTea

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,322 posts
  • LocationCornwall

Posted 06 January 2016 - 03:16 PM

Started a new thread on it:
http://www.ebuild.co...too-much-money/

#38 joiner

joiner

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 10,718 posts
  • LocationWest Midlands

Posted 07 January 2016 - 05:37 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35245313

#39 SteamyTea

SteamyTea

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,322 posts
  • LocationCornwall

Posted 07 January 2016 - 08:01 AM

Just had bit on the Today radio show about our useless building and planning system.
Seems from that, all sides are to blame, councils, planners, builders, trainers, colleges, housing associations, government, speculators, land owners.
And the solution, to charge developers more.

Have I ever mentioned that I am convinced that for every rule we have that says you must do something, you have another rule that says you can't do it.

#40 Triassic

Triassic

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,239 posts
  • LocationCumbria

Posted 07 January 2016 - 09:22 AM

View PostSteamyTea, on 07 January 2016 - 08:01 AM, said:

Just had bit on the Today radio show about our useless building and planning system.
Seems from that, all sides are to blame, councils, planners, builders, trainers, colleges, housing associations, government, speculators, land owners.
And the solution, to charge developers more.
So house prices go up, sales go down, recession, then boom, then bust!!!

There was an interesting comment from one interviewee that, around 45% of all planning permissions were granted to people who were not house builders, he appeared to suggest that the 45% were speculative applications to lock in value to land, to be held as an capital investment rather than to be built on.