Dave’s latest planSeptember 27, 2014 Tim WorstallPolitics10 CommentsApparently David Cameron Failed His GCSE In Planning previousWhat The Guardian doesn’t understand about the Labour PartynextQuote of the day 10 thoughts on “Dave’s latest plan” Shinsei1967 September 27, 2014 at 9:21 am A brownfield site with the remains of an old asbestos and mercury processing factory might well be more expensive to develop than a green field, but a brownfield site housing a former out-of-town supermarket with already-built access roads, plumbing, utilities etc might well be substantially cheaper. I’m not sure that “the BBC says brownfields are more expensive” is sufficient evidence to make your claim. And Dave would have failed O level Planning in his day. Richard September 27, 2014 at 9:31 am “The prime minister told the Daily Mail that the new “starter homes” would be sold at a 20% discount by exempting them from some taxes and the zero-carbon homes standard” Good to see them admitting that their own regulations add 20% to the cost of a house and make them unaffordable to many. I think it’s actually more than 20%, but at least we’ve got a start. Jim September 27, 2014 at 10:08 am This just proves my point that I’ve been repeating on here for ages. Its not the cost of the actual planning permission that adds that much extra to the cost of housing (it adds a bit but nothing like the house price increase in the last 15 years) its the additional costs that get lumped on to house builders via the local council demanding bribes aka section 106 agreements, and increased building standards. If by exempting these sort of housing developments from section 106 agreements and some extra low carbon bollocks house builders can build houses on more expensive brownfield sites AND be 20% cheaper, then on a greenfield site they could be 30-40% lower still. And with less onerous regulation of how houses should be built,even lower than that. Luke September 27, 2014 at 10:35 am Further to Shinsei’s point above, a garden counts as brownfield. So knock down a detached house with garden in a leafy suburb, stick up a block of flats, covering all the garden, job done. Garden grabbing is the way to go. Utilities, roads all there. Has the added bonus that sociable people who don’t mind living near others tend to vote Labour/Democrat, so you turn conservative suburbs into labour seats. Also, if land needs decontaminating, won’t you be able to buy it cheaper? Mr Ecks September 27, 2014 at 11:24 am It is a brazen bribe to the mugs. What politics is all about. Fuck up the economy/housebuilding/well… pretty much everything and then ride in like the Lone fucking Ranger promising to save said mugs from the mess you (and your fuckwit predecessors have created. bloke (not) in spain September 27, 2014 at 11:35 am To add to Jim, I’d say it’s the parasitical aspects of development adds most to house prices. Go back to the turn of the last century, when most British cities got built in their distinctive late Vic/Edwardian style, it was all pretty simple. Some basic regulations & most of the finance came from the money in people’s pockets. The more regulation, the more people living off the proceeds of the regulation. But it’s the credit creation industry adds the most cost. The day of the builder could buy a bit of land, sling up a few houses utilising the resources gained by the previous sweat of his brow has long gone. Now everything’s done with tomorrows money & much of it’s hoovered up by the bankers, “developers” & the extended tribes of facilitators hold the keys to credit creation. bloke (not) in spain September 27, 2014 at 12:00 pm To riff off of the thread below, this shows the total disconnect so many of those who would rule us have from the realities of life. You can tell Dave’s never put a shed up in his own garden. If he had, he’d know it was a damn sight easier putting one up on the lawn than clearing the old shed & reusing the pitch. It really is that simple. NiV September 27, 2014 at 2:20 pm I think what Dave is saying is that the dilemma he is caught in is that to provide more houses they need to grant more planning permission, but nimby conservative voters oppose granting planning permission to greenfield sites, spoiling their views and lowering the value of their houses. So although it is actually more expensive to build on brownfield, it’s politically cheaper. David September 27, 2014 at 2:46 pm Brownfield land is often better for wildlife than greenfield. Sorry no time to provide a reference buy Canvey Wick is a prime example. Interested September 27, 2014 at 10:24 pm I assume they’ve taken advice as to the legality of this on age discrimination grounds. Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.