Well, quite

On the issue of planning, she said: “But we also recognise that rising house prices fundamentally reflect demand that greatly exceeds supply. Addressing imbalances in the housing market by alleviating supply-side constraints will require further measures to increase the availability of land, land for development and to remove unnecessary constraints to land use.”

The IMF’s report also criticised the “unnecessary constraints on brownfield and greenfield developments”.

It’s the chitty that allows you to build on a piece of land that is rising in scarcity value.

The solution therefore is to issue more chittys.

It’s really not rocket science you know.

13 thoughts on “Well, quite”

  1. Surreptitious Evil

    Tim’s “lack of chitty” = IMF’s “unnecessary constraints to land use”?

  2. SE

    Yes, that’s what Tim says and what the IMF says.

    But those that really know what they’re talking about, the REAL experts – Richard Murphy and George Monbiot – say tax is the only fair way to solve the under-supply. Yes indeed, Tax Macht Frei.

  3. And then my (Tory) MP and local tories oppose planning permission for homes on the basis that someone will make large profits on the land and the homes.
    a) Since when was making a profit by providing homes wrong?
    b) The large profits prove that there is a chronic lack of supply
    c) If the gormless muppets stopped opposing planning permissions then the profits would drop.
    Of course they may be aware of this, but happy to help their smug middle-class home-owning NIMBY supporters while rising accommodation costs drive away the young and poor who probably wouldn’t vote for them anyway. Or am I being cynical?

  4. @Alex
    No, you are not being cynical.
    To get elected you have constantly rising house prices that give the homeowning bloc vote unearned capital gains while leaving the young homeless or ,possibly as bad, those “fortunate” enough to afford a big mortgage or high rent, very hard pressed (so bad they can only afford to live off cheap imports so killing demand for UK produced goods.)
    Tim keeps wittering on about chitties but there is no undeveloped land in Planet London.( And he is a staunch land taxer too! Although LVT and forcing investment/ hoarded land onto the market will not now be enough.)
    The answer will be more like the revival of the urban development corporation and other features of the post-war consensus brave men died for, such as the dispersal of public sector jobs out of London – the Treasury as far as possible away- to effect a more even spread of paid work and population.
    Obviously neo-laissez faire is totally fucked, an ephemeral fashion like New Romanticism. But Tim believes in reinforcing defeat and going down amidst the feathery boas and silk shirts.

  5. Why not build high rises? Here in China we have them with really nice apartments and you don’t need so much land.

  6. Its not only the cost of the chitty as you put it, its the costs that get heaped on top by the local authority as ‘planning gain’ contributions that cost all the money. I have seem costings for a local large urban extension and the largest cost on the list was all the things the council were demanding the developer pay for as a quid pro quo for the development getting the green light. Councils view large developments as a cash cow to be milked for all its worth – without all that cost developments could be done faster and cheaper, even allowing for the costs of actually getting planning permission.

  7. It’s sometimes worth remembering that this is an issue for more than just London – my ex-council three bed 200 odd miles further north is worth about twice what it would cost to actually build another one. There is no shortage of land round here, and without planning permission it makes ~£10k an acre.

    I personally couldn’t care less what happens to London property (I expect over time market forces will solve the problem as employers relocate rather than pay ever increasing premiums for London based staff), but dealing with the national housing problem by relaxing planning constraints sounds logical to me. The tricky parts of this are doing it in such a way that it doesn’t dump everyone with a mortgage into -ve equity and thus crash the ecconomy, and also doing this without getting done in by angry voters.

    To be fair to the current lot, when they aren’t pumping property prices via batty schemes to lend lots to people who probably can’t pay it back, they have tried to liberalise the planning system a bit – the trouble is every time they try this, the nimby tendancy kicks up such a fuss they give up.

  8. Laissez Faire, by very definition, leaves people to do what they want. If they did that then, guess what, they’d build houses! So, to put in place a ‘planning’ regime that acts to stop exactly what Laissez Faire would leave them to do and then take the logical outcome as evidence that Laissez Faire is”fucked” is just…Socialism.

    And to claim to know, after 70 years, that brave men died for a “consensus”, which just happens to be what YOU want, is…also Socialism. In fact all such claims are revolting. Those brave men fought and died for whatever reason they fought and died. I am not worthy of claiming their legacy; nobody on this blog is.

  9. It’s the chitty that allows you to build on a piece of land that is rising in scarcity value.

    Not in central London: there it is the land, because what counts is proximity to other desirable residences and that’s constrained by geography.

    But in other parts of the country (including outer London) this is true.

    A big part of the problem is that people insist on calling for measures to control the London housing market when the housing market in central London actually operates completely differently to everywhere else (for example, houses in central London are bought with cash, not mortgages, so any changes to mortgage availability (eg, affordability checks or help-to-buy schemes) has no effect at all in central London, while having a big and possibly destructive effect in other areas).

  10. Contrary to what DBC Reed thinks, London, even central London has lots of green spaces and a fair number of derelict sites where someone could build houses if they had planning permission. Riverside parks have been created in Southwark and Westminster on land that could have been used for housing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *