We have another name for this laddie

Momentum’s The World Transformed has discussions on everything from the nature of work, the housing crisis and rebuilding Britain’s democracy to the challenges facing a radical left government. But it’s done in a participatory way: meetings break out into groups to discuss and debate the issue at hand.

Reinforcement of groupthink.”

‘Coz there ain’t anyone there saying they’ll solve housing just by issuing more planning chitties, is there?

19 thoughts on “We have another name for this laddie”

  1. You solve the housing crisis by murdering Jews and class enemies and taking their property. This will obviously require chitties.

  2. Interesting point- this starts with the assumption that all the answers are in the room, and the only thing that may derail the inevitably correct answer from emerging is a lack of consensus.

    Well, I can’t see a flaw in that logic.

  3. Its one step away from Chicom “self-criticism meetings” shite as practiced by Mao’s gang.

    And Marxist feminist “Turd sessions” of 1970s leftist Kalifornia fame. Where males–can’t call them men–the ancestors of today’s cucks and SJW scum used to stand up and announce that they were “turds–abject turds” to the jeers and applause of the femmi-freaks

  4. “Coz there ain’t anyone there saying they’ll solve housing just by issuing more planning chitties, is there”

    Maybe because thats bollocks?

    Was true in the past, not true today. 30 years ago you applied for planning, if you were lucky enough to get the scheme past the planners that was it, you were made, money galore for developer and landowner, like winning the lottery.

    Today, its entirely different. The State has captured c.50% of the planning gain on grant of permission for itself, via either regulatory costs of actually constructing dwellings, or the Section 106 cash payments that it demands from all developers before planning is granted. Its a de facto planning development tax, but one that has been imposed by stealth rather than legislation. And as such, this cost is not subject to market forces – you could get the green light to apply for thousands of acres of land, yet the cost of building those houses would remain largely the same because of the ‘tribute’ you have to pay to the State to get them to agree.

    There is a virtual green light over the entire South of England for developers at the moment, they can get planning pretty much anywhere they want it. But it comes with the State imposed costs attached and thats what sets a floor in house prices nowadays.

  5. If you disagree with us, we will sit down with you to explain why you are wrong.

    If you still disagree with us we will organise a “Day of Rage” march outside your workplace or house.

  6. Issue loads of chitties and people know that the land will just sit there unused even after “developers” have bought it.And the answer is…

  7. Ah, if only DBC Reed knew something about planning permission! The developers buy the land and it then takes over two years, on average, to get consent to start building because outline planning permission has to be followed by detailed planning permission and appeals against unreasonable refusals (or appeals by NIMBYs against acceptance of proposals) take months and can take years.
    The land sitting idle is a feature of the limited supply of chitties.

  8. “The developers buy the land and it then takes over two years, on average, to get consent to start building because outline planning permission has to be followed by detailed planning permission and appeals against unreasonable refusals (or appeals by NIMBYs against acceptance of proposals) take months and can take years.”

    No they don’t buy the land, then apply for planning. Developers almost NEVER buy land until they have the planning permission signed and sealed in their grubby mitts, and then only when they are ready to start digging. All this development activity is done on borrowed money, and having money tied up in land for years has a cost. The vast majority of land up for development will be under option (whereby the developer agrees to promote the land through the planning process at its expense, then buy it according a set valuation formula once planning is gained) or by promotional agreement (whereby the developer agrees to promote the land for development at his expense, then once its gained the land is sold on the open market, they take they expenses out, plus their profit, and the landowner gets the rest). Getting cash out of developers for land is like getting blood out of the proverbial. They’re as tight as anything. The only way they would agree to buy land for cash without planning would be if there is a cast iron guarantee they’ll get planning in the very near future, AND they get massive discount in price (50% of market value). They’re sharks, and never give anyone anything for free.

    All the large housebuilding companies are is a large portfolio of contracts, and thats about it. Very little in the way of actual assets – just the bit of land they are building houses on at that very moment in time. The rest is all on paper.

  9. If you own a piece of.land you should be allowed to build whatever you like on it (subject to building regs). If you don’t want someone to build on that nice field/hill/view then put your hand in your pocket and buy it.
    Compulsory purchase should also be outlawed.

  10. “If you own a piece of.land you should be allowed to build whatever you like on it (subject to building regs).”

    What if its at the end of a very little lane, and you want to build 100 houses there? Who pays for the access to be improved? Or does a road suitable for half a dozen cars/day suddenly have to accommodate several hundred? What about the local school, who pays for the 50 new places it needs to take all the kids from the new houses? What if the sewerage system is at capacity, who pays to make sure that it doesn’t back up every time someone flushes their toilet? Or are you expecting someone else to pay for all that while you pocket the profits from selling your houses? What if I own a field next to Stonehenge? A Barrett estate might look a bit out of place.

    In a small island like the UK, its a bit more complicated than ‘I should be able to build what I like on my land’. 100 years ago, when you built a house, dug a well, and spread the contents of your privvy on the garden and worked in a field next door or rode a bicycle to a factory a few miles away, then maybe such a policy was possible. These days every new house has education/health/transport/utilities/employment requirements as externalities. Someone has to pay for them, the obvious place to go is the person making the money from building and selling new houses.

  11. Bloke in North Dorset

    Jim,

    If the developer doesn’t provide those facilities it will make the houses just about worthless. Even if there were willing buyers it’s hard to see the banks putting up mortgages.

  12. Jim – well, since each house is charged council tax to cover things like street lighting, road maintenance, education, parks and there upkeep, etc then the council should build those things….

    Same with sewage – you pay for a service so it’s the service providers responsibility to provide that…

    Only problem is that we all know the local councils waste loads of money on stupid things rather than the core things people care about… Time to introduce competition in the local government sector…

  13. “What if I own a field next to Stonehenge? A Barrett estate might look a bit out of place.”

    That’s what the National Trusts were founded for. To put their money where their mouth is and buy up bits of land to prevent it being built on.

  14. “If the developer doesn’t provide those facilities it will make the houses just about worthless.”

    It’ll also make all the existing houses in the area worthless too/and make the lives of the people living in them a nightmare.

    “each house is charged council tax to cover things like street lighting, road maintenance, education, parks and there upkeep, etc then the council should build those things….”

    Council tax provides a very small % of what is paid for locally (about 20%). The majority comes from central taxation. And a few extra council tax payments won’t pay for a school to be extended if the current buildings are full, or a new sewage treatment plant to be built, or a new road junction. Plus no council could have any idea what services it would have to provide until after the people demanding them have moved in, as it would have no control over what was built where. It would be chaos.

  15. Jim – “No council could have any idea what services…” Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha… The council have a very well defined set of services they are supposed to provide – the fact they fail so miserably at it is no excuse.

    The sewage treatment plant would be built by the water company – you know, the one that is paid to build sewage treatment plants etc… Now, they may need to raise capital to be able to do this as my local one has been making more than £100 million profit a year for the last few years i’m sure they can afford to do this now…

  16. @ Jim
    If you try reading the Report & Accounts of some of the stock-exchange-quoted builders you might find that they do own a lot of land. the first I looked at, Redrow, owns 26k plots which is nearly 5 times completions during the year – they also have 26k plots in their “forward land bank that they do not yet own, so you are not completely wrong, just misundersttod the relative proportions. Taylor Wimpey has just spent £190m on buying some land from Royal Mail in addition to the 76k plots, roughly 5.5x annual completions that it held at end-2016 and the 106k plots that it does not yet own that constitute its pipeline of future land acquisitions.

Leave a Reply

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