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

#41 ferdinand

ferdinand

    Advanced Member

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,031 posts

Posted 07 January 2016 - 09:36 AM

View PostTriassic, on 07 January 2016 - 09:22 AM, said:

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.

Be interested to know who said that, since a PP only lasts 3 years so can't lock in value for very long :-) and at a very considerable cost to obtain the PP. And the "start development to lock it in and landbank it" tactic can only be done after Detailed PP has been obtained afaik.

Yes .. it is probably land owners looking to capture part of the uplift.

The main reason they do it is that it is almost impossible to sell land without PP to developers, who are hugely risk averse, unless there is a high probability that they will get PP. Even then, eg if it is zoned in a local plan for housing, they will want 50-75% of the uplift value, after deducting costs.

The question to ask anyone like that is always: how many houses / housing estates have you built in the last 5 years?

If we think that is a problem, I'd put half the blame on landowners not making sure they have good enough advisers, and half on the planning system for being too complicated, half on an illiquid and untransparent market, and half on large developers for being barstewards.

Ferdinand

Edited by ferdinand, 07 January 2016 - 09:37 AM.


#42 SteamyTea

SteamyTea

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,322 posts
  • LocationCornwall

Posted 07 January 2016 - 09:42 AM

Yes, he did imply that there are speculators sitting on undeveloped land with planning permission.
One problem is that a few square metres of extension can be treated the same as a 1000 housing development when it comes to planning and counting applications.

Generally, speculation does not drive up prices, but tends to regulate it. There are some exceptions, a recent one was food prices being driven up by bio-fuel speculation. It did not last long though as the speculators soon realised that they had got the numbers wrong, and took a serious financial hit.

#43 joiner

joiner

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 10,718 posts
  • LocationWest Midlands

Posted 07 January 2016 - 10:03 AM

Errr, so four halves = 2?

:D

#44 joiner

joiner

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 10,718 posts
  • LocationWest Midlands

Posted 07 January 2016 - 10:10 AM

I thought the bio-fuel speculators were hit by the back-firing Saudi tactic of trying to undermine shale gas in the US by over producing and bringing down the price of oil?

#45 SteamyTea

SteamyTea

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,322 posts
  • LocationCornwall

Posted 07 January 2016 - 10:13 AM

No, was about 2008/9 it happened.

The price of oil (at another low today) is because world manufacturing output is low.
We tend to forget how much oil is used in manufacturing globally as the UK has not used it as a primary energy source much.
We just see it as something for transport.

Attached Files


Edited by SteamyTea, 07 January 2016 - 10:16 AM.


#46 joiner

joiner

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 10,718 posts
  • LocationWest Midlands

Posted 07 January 2016 - 10:18 AM

http://www.theglobea...rticle25208490/

http://www.ceicdata....-biofuel-sector

http://www.reuters.c...N0KI0F020150109

#47 SteamyTea

SteamyTea

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,322 posts
  • LocationCornwall

Posted 07 January 2016 - 10:27 AM

Think we are talking different things here.
My comment was about speculators getting it wrong, and I used an example, not really about the battles between oil producers, food producers and land values.

Generally what speculators do is invest when others won't and sell when the asset is needed.
The last thing they do is keep hold of an asset as that reduces their working capital. They tend to be a single minded bunch and not get too involved in the financial markets and derivatives.

#48 jsharris

jsharris

    Please ignore all posts by me, some are erroneous

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11,461 posts
  • LocationWiltshire/Dorset border

Posted 07 January 2016 - 10:58 AM

Although PP now runs out after 3 years, with no automatic right to renewal, is it realistic to assume that land that had planning permission, but which has expired, wouldn't easily regain planning permission?

The main issue is usually the principle of development of the land. If there has been a past planning permission granted for the land then that issue goes away, as the principle of development has already been demonstrated. Unless there is a significant shift in planning policy between the initial approval date and a later submission, I would think it's near certain that permission would be granted again.

The "running out of time" problem may not be a practical issue at all in practice, especially if the area still has a demand for new houses.

Edited by jsharris, 07 January 2016 - 10:58 AM.


#49 joiner

joiner

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 10,718 posts
  • LocationWest Midlands

Posted 07 January 2016 - 11:26 AM

The argument used by land agents hereabout (one in particular) to overcome the fact that an Authority has 5 years of housing land supply is to claim that land with renewed OPP cannot be counted towards the 5 years supply because if it COULD be built on it would have been built on, therefore it will never be built on and so cannot be considered 'deliverable'.

#50 ProDave

ProDave

    Self build in the Highlands

  • Moderators
  • 5,960 posts
  • LocationScottish Highlands

Posted 07 January 2016 - 11:48 AM

My plot is a good example of expired permission. Before I bought it, it had PP in 1980, but was never built on, the PP expired and was never renewed.

So I offered to buy it subject to getting PP and that was granted. It met the criteria in 1980 as housing land, and still met that criteria in 2014.

#51 ferdinand

ferdinand

    Advanced Member

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,031 posts

Posted 07 January 2016 - 11:51 AM

View Postjoiner, on 07 January 2016 - 10:03 AM, said:

Errr, so four halves = 2?

:D

Are you arguing that the Planning System should add up? :rolleyes:

It normally takes 1 year's worth of paperwork to achieve one month's worth of results in my experience. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Ferdinand

Edited by ferdinand, 07 January 2016 - 11:51 AM.


#52 joiner

joiner

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 10,718 posts
  • LocationWest Midlands

Posted 07 January 2016 - 01:38 PM

:D Indeed.

#53 ferdinand

ferdinand

    Advanced Member

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,031 posts

Posted 07 January 2016 - 01:39 PM

View Postjsharris, on 07 January 2016 - 10:58 AM, said:

Although PP now runs out after 3 years, with no automatic right to renewal, is it realistic to assume that land that had planning permission, but which has expired, wouldn't easily regain planning permission?

The main issue is usually the principle of development of the land. If there has been a past planning permission granted for the land then that issue goes away, as the principle of development has already been demonstrated. Unless there is a significant shift in planning policy between the initial approval date and a later submission, I would think it's near certain that permission would be granted again.

The "running out of time" problem may not be a practical issue at all in practice, especially if the area still has a demand for new houses.

That depends on each site and a significant number may not be revisited.

There's one round the corner from me where they went for Planning for a house in the back garden 10 years ago. That was granted subject to a Phase 2 Ground Investigation. They never applied for detailed - I'm assuming the cost of a Phase II scared them off.

There's another one round the corner that is a half acre garden of a derelict house, unused for 15 years or more. It will not get built on because there are about 11 TPOs spread across the site, and a previous application was rejected as "cramped" for 3 houses. It is now unviable. Any new applicant will have to play a game of pin the tail on the donkey with an entry fee of 10s of thousands. There's a further issue that the current owners paid too much and seem to have got TPOd before they had their wits together to cut some of them down, so they face a loss of 100k at least to sell it at anything like a market price.

Ferdinand

Edited by ferdinand, 07 January 2016 - 01:41 PM.


#54 ferdinand

ferdinand

    Advanced Member

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,031 posts

Posted 07 January 2016 - 01:53 PM

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.

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.

Just listened to that on the net.

The bod making the complaint is the Housing Lead for the Local Govt Association. The other chappie is from the House Builders' Federation. I wonder why they ended up blaming the landowner applicants who weren't developers and weren't ni the conversation ? :mellow:

The stats from the LGA - observing that 380k unbuilt Planning Permissions existed in 2012 and 474000 in 2014 - were misleading, because the number of housing starts has increased a good deal faster, so the "backlog" is shrinking at a rate of knots. The HBF bloke also pointed out that half of the alleged 474k backlog were actually in process of being built.

The LGA labelled all non-developing landowners "speculators" - prejudicial and not at all accurate, and used *London* figures in his argument to apply to the whole country.

And they failed to acknowledge that a good part of those PPs not yet built are because there are 6 months to 2 years of negotiations with a LA to get from Outline PP to agreeing what will actually be built and get started.

After all if the LGA want more things built, they could give more Planning Permissions and not refuse for political reasons to curry favour with the voters; that causes a year of delay for an Appeal.

And the LGA bloke is from Oxford City Council, who are the ones who brought ni rental regulation making shared houses more difficult and loft conversions unviable, so making single people live in whole houses or flats, and putting more pressure on supply. They then demanded the right to build on others' Green Belt as they had run out of space. You couldn't make it up.

A farrago, but not a surprise.

At 1:48 - http://www.bbc.co.uk...rammes/b06tvgns

I still say that Osbo will fix this; there is too much political investment not to do so.

Ferdinand

Edited by ferdinand, 07 January 2016 - 01:58 PM.


#55 fuzzy

fuzzy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,229 posts

Posted 07 January 2016 - 02:10 PM

other reasons why planning permissions don't get implemented as quickly as people would like.

- need for new infrastructure that has to be funded by the private sector to provide roads, schools and affordable housing - particularly relevant when council's dont know what they need and when.
- need to undertake mitigation works in respect of protected species i.e. great crested newts which can only be survyed in april/may - thereby potentially delaying a start on site by a year
- incompetent solicitors representing farmers/landowners - taking too long to exchange once planning permission has been granted.
- farmers/land owners holding out for unrealistic returns on their land - its not worth as much as you think it is
- regulatory regime in respect of flooding, ground conditions, drainage - need to be signed off before they can start
- not enough planners in planning departments to discharge pre-commencement conditions
- securing utility connections
- increase in number land/trading companies seeking outline planning permission and flogging on to housebuilders - adds another couple of years to seek reserved matters approval, exchange, discharge conditions and then start building before you get your first completions.

#56 fuzzy

fuzzy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,229 posts

Posted 07 January 2016 - 03:15 PM

of interest

http://www.local.gov...80/7632945/NEWS

Interesting quote from the article:

Cllr Peter Box, LGA Housing spokesman, said: "These figures conclusively prove that the planning system is not a barrier to house building. In fact the opposite is true, councils are approving almost half a million more houses than are being built, and this gap is increasing.

#57 ferdinand

ferdinand

    Advanced Member

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,031 posts

Posted 07 January 2016 - 04:52 PM

Thank-you.

I couldn't find the report.

F

#58 jayroc2k

jayroc2k

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 297 posts

Posted 27 January 2016 - 01:27 PM

article on the matter of banking land
http://www.theguardi...property-prices

#59 Triassic

Triassic

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,239 posts
  • LocationCumbria

Posted 27 January 2016 - 02:00 PM

"Daly said housebuilders had to be careful not to flood an area with new housing, pointing to the “distorting effect” that oversupply could have on the local property market."

So there you have it, they control supply to keep new build prices up!

#60 joiner

joiner

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 10,718 posts
  • LocationWest Midlands

Posted 27 January 2016 - 02:27 PM

But...

Daly and Stewart pointed to delays in the planning system, caused by local authorities’ understaffed planning departments, along with a shortage of smaller housebuilders and skill shortages in the industry."

I think by now, on here anyway, we all know that that combination of factors is to blame for most, if not all the ills.