Housing

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's what confused me before. The public don't grant planning permission, the council planning officers are the ones who determine planning applications. More contentious applications usually being determined by the elected members of the planning committee.

The government know roughly how many new houses we need to build. It should have the power to buy the land it needs to build them. It can then build to a timetable that suits our needs and not a developers needs. No more land banking. House builders can then start making their profits from building houses and not land appreciation. It will encourage them to build quicker, invest in productivity etc.
Local govt is incentivised to provide housing and we all benefit from the healthier balance sheets in local govt. Less council tax rises etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The government know roughly how many new houses we need to build. It should have the power to buy the land it needs to build them. It can then build to a timetable that suits our needs and not a developers needs. No more land banking. House builders can then start making their profits from building houses and not land appreciation. It will encourage them to build quicker, invest in productivity etc.
Local govt is incentivised to provide housing and we all benefit from the healthier balance sheets in local govt. Less council tax rises etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're forgetting one major hurdle, the Scottish Government has no borrowing power! Where is this magic money tree to buy hectares of land and who will build the 'affordable housing'?

[Stairway 2 7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You're forgetting one major hurdle, the Scottish Government has no borrowing power! Where is this magic money tree to buy hectares of land and who will build the 'affordable housing'?

Land that makes you massive profits doesn't need to come from a magic money tree. I think it's a great idea but dubious it happens. We desperately need more housing however it happens

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You're forgetting one major hurdle, the Scottish Government has no borrowing power! Where is this magic money tree to buy hectares of land and who will build the 'affordable housing'?

There is no doubt it needs Labour in London to make it happen. We are not allowed to make decisions like this in Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Land that makes you massive profits doesn't need to come from a magic money tree. I think it's a great idea but dubious it happens. We desperately need more housing however it happens

It’s been talked about for years by economists. Be great if it eventually happens. It’s a bit mad that private individuals profit of something that is gifted by the public when it’s the public who lose out on the amenity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It’s been talked about for years by economists. Be great if it eventually happens. It’s a bit mad that private individuals profit of something that is gifted by the public when it’s the public who lose out on the amenity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please, please explain what is being gifted by 'the public'? Who owned the land at Hermiston Gate before Murray, for example?

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Please, please explain what is being gifted by 'the public'? Who owned the land at Hermiston Gate before Murray, for example?

If the land is worth x as farmland and the council allows planning permission then it’s worth y then who should gain from that?
In my opinion it should be the council on our behalf who gave the planning permission that realise the gain. After all, it is us who lose the unspoilt farmland and have houses there instead and we will also have to provide amenities for those new houses from the public purse.
The system just now is not working and is discouraging building in favour of speculating. We need building to be happening a lot faster.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2348000.html

More here. It’s a good policy. Not sure if Labour will see it through though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If the land is worth x as farmland and the council allows planning permission then it’s worth y then who should gain from that?


In my opinion it should be the council on our behalf who gave the planning permission that realise the gain. After all, it is us who lose the unspoilt farmland and have houses there instead and we will also have to provide amenities for those new houses from the public purse.
The system just now is not working and is discouraging building in favour of speculating. We need building to be happening a lot faster.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2348000.html

More here. It’s a good policy. Not sure if Labour will see it through though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I live in the countryside. When I moved here in 1989 there were 13 houses. There are now 29. The farmer who owned the land sold it as individual plots for development. He benefited financially from the sales. Why should anyone else benefit from his enterprise?

My biggest town is Perth, currently expanding north and west to the tune of 5,000 or so houses. But also schools, retail and other amenities as part of the planning approval. If this isn't happening where you live then it is down to your local authority. But Perth and Kinross is getting added value from developers.

[greenginger]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You're forgetting one major hurdle, the Scottish Government has no borrowing power! Where is this magic money tree to buy hectares of land and who will build the 'affordable housing'?

Even when the Council own the land they seem to take an age to get any development off the ground.

Take the redundant land that was part of Meadowbank. Sports centre. It’s been lying dormant for 5-7 years. Just last month a planning application for housing etc has been submitted.

I would guess it might might be another 5 years before a brick is laid.

[greenginger]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There is no doubt it needs Labour in London to make it happen. We are not allowed to make decisions like this in Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is this not what Scottish Futures Trust was set up to do. Oil the wheels of Scottish Developments .

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I live in the countryside. When I moved here in 1989 there were 13 houses. There are now 29. The farmer who owned the land sold it as individual plots for development. He benefited financially from the sales. Why should anyone else benefit from his enterprise?

My biggest town is Perth, currently expanding north and west to the tune of 5,000 or so houses. But also schools, retail and other amenities as part of the planning approval. If this isn't happening where you live then it is down to your local authority. But Perth and Kinross is getting added value from developers.

Planning permission is controlled by the council though. It was in their gift to turn down that farmer. And why should he be lucky enough to get permission but not all farmers who own land?
The farmers profit should not come from the uplift in land price at the stroke of a pen in a planning dept, it should come from the supply of fantastic houses.
Every farmer in the country would jump at the chance to build on their land. They can’t all get to for obvious reasons. Your farmer was given a gift from the people of Scotland. He had a lottery win. That can’t be what our planning system is?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's what confused me before. The public don't grant planning permission, the council planning officers are the ones who determine planning applications. More contentious applications usually being determined by the elected members of the planning committee.

I tthink that's a very narrow interpretation. Council planning officers don't make decisions in isolation, otherwise it would be a system with no consistency, open to bribery and blackmail of individuals. Planning officers implement policy, in line with the legislation, national policy and guidance and local plans set to meet SG requirements around the SHIP and their own agreed priorities through the LHS.

Where decisions need escalated, you are right they will be determined by elected members, or Scottish Ministers. Critically, they are acting as democratically-elected representatives of the people - in essence they speak for 'the public' in that capacity.

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No, the article is about allowing councils to compulsory purchase land for development.
So I’m Edinburgh that could allow the council to buy the land owned by Murray at Ratho for the price of farmland. It can then give it the appropriate planning permission and build the houses. The council would bank the profit from their actions, we all get new houses and Murray gets no windfall from planning permission that we gift. I think this will result in more planning applications being granted rather than less if the council coffers were being swelled by doing it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In one of your other posts you said you weren't sure that Labour would see this through, if elected. Technically it's not in the manifesto yet anyway, but what do you think would lead to it not going ahead?

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

In one of your other posts you said you weren't sure that Labour would see this through, if elected. Technically it's not in the manifesto yet anyway, but what do you think would lead to it not going ahead?

Just that I’m not convinced they’ll see it through to the manifesto stage never mind after elected. Not just a Labour thing, I’m wary of any party doing anything about housing in the UK. I would be checking quickly to see how many house builders. developers and land owners are donating to Labour just now and watch if it rises over the next 18 month to the election. Plenty time for it to be quietly dropped. Not a dig at Labour as all parties guilty of it.
We are getting close now to it being politically worthwhile though so maybe.
Couldn’t say for sure but I think that housing must be close to number one issue for the under 40’s?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I live in the countryside. When I moved here in 1989 there were 13 houses. There are now 29. The farmer who owned the land sold it as individual plots for development. He benefited financially from the sales. Why should anyone else benefit from his enterprise?

Spoken like a true Thatcherite! Not so much Moulin Yarns as Moolah Yarns

Developments like these don't reaally strike me as genuine enterprise. It's not as if the farmer 'built' the land, is it? What he has done is monetized a land asset. Depending on whether he inherited it or bought it at land value for farming, he may have made a massive return solely from market speculation.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Spoken like a true Thatcherite! Not so much Moulin Yarns as Moolah Yarns

Developments like these don't reaally strike me as genuine enterprise. It's not as if the farmer 'built' the land, is it? What he has done is monetized a land asset. Depending on whether he inherited it or bought it at land value for farming, he may have made a massive return solely from market speculation.

I don’t mind people making money from adding value. The council added to the value by giving the planning permission. The farmer added to the value by building the houses. The profits should be split accordingly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/lbc/status/16636...dxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Just that I’m not convinced they’ll see it through to the manifesto stage never mind after elected. Not just a Labour thing, I’m wary of any party doing anything about housing in the UK. I would be checking quickly to see how many house builders. developers and land owners are donating to Labour just now and watch if it rises over the next 18 month to the election. Plenty time for it to be quietly dropped. Not a dig at Labour as all parties guilty of it.
We are getting close now to it being politically worthwhile though so maybe.
Couldn’t say for sure but I think that housing must be close to number one issue for the under 40’s?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I get where you are coming from. My own concerns are that, as in 1997, there is a massive need for direct investment into a number of problem areas, but the economy has been wrecked under the Tories. It's at least a two-term job to fix the mess and then improve.

I also think there are tipping points every so often though and sometimes it isn't always predictable when they happen, except in hindsight. The other thing is that while it is challenging to be trying to fighting on several fronts, or putting out the fire in different rooms of the house, there is also an opportunity there.

I would hope to see Labour coming forward in the run-up to the next election not just with policies in all these areas that need repaired, but also with a compelling narrative that binds them together - almost like a Beveridge Report for the 2020s.

I think there are the indicators that we may see this - fixing what the Tories broke and offering the security of an affordable roof over your head, the security of being able to heat your home and feed those in it, the security of being looked after when you need looked after, not on a waiting list for two years, the security of growing up with opportunity and growing old with dignity. There's a broad appetite for that, if the party can get the message across.

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don’t mind people making money from adding value. The council added to the value by giving the planning permission. The farmer added to the value by building the houses. The profits should be split accordingly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think the farmer built the houses according to MY, he sold the plots - speculative acquisition originally by him, or by the purchasers when he sold.

To be honest, I don't mind him making money from it so as long as he pays his taxes (and the taxes are set at a level which isn't punitive but do refelct that society is something we all contribute to and take from, in a way that is fair and benefits the common good as well as the individual)

[Colr]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If the land is worth x as farmland and the council allows planning permission then it’s worth y then who should gain from that?
In my opinion it should be the council on our behalf who gave the planning permission that realise the gain. After all, it is us who lose the unspoilt farmland and have houses there instead and we will also have to provide amenities for those new houses from the public purse.
The system just now is not working and is discouraging building in favour of speculating. We need building to be happening a lot faster.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2348000.html

More here. It’s a good policy. Not sure if Labour will see it through though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m hearing this enough to believe they are sincere.

It can also be linked to the greenbelt policy.

Some reference commission for new towns successes.

Land supply is a parallel problem to planning. I’m wholly in favour but I want to see sub-regional planning bodies wrapped around London and maybe elsewhere.

Very excited about this. It’s been a long, long time coming!!!

[Colr]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Just that I’m not convinced they’ll see it through to the manifesto stage never mind after elected. Not just a Labour thing, I’m wary of any party doing anything about housing in the UK. I would be checking quickly to see how many house builders. developers and land owners are donating to Labour just now and watch if it rises over the next 18 month to the election. Plenty time for it to be quietly dropped. Not a dig at Labour as all parties guilty of it.
We are getting close now to it being politically worthwhile though so maybe.
Couldn’t say for sure but I think that housing must be close to number one issue for the under 40’s?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You may be surprised then by the level of support for (and active involvement with) Labour from significant sections of the housebuilding and housing association sectors.

The Tories aren’t engaging with the industry. “Bugger business” as Alex Johnson said

[Moulin Yarns]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't think the farmer built the houses according to MY, he sold the plots - speculative acquisition originally by him, or by the purchasers when he sold.

To be honest, I don't mind him making money from it so as long as he pays his taxes (and the taxes are set at a level which isn't punitive but do refelct that society is something we all contribute to and take from, in a way that is fair and benefits the common good as well as the individual)

Some of the plots were redundant farm buildings and the rest were field margins with other properties making arable farming difficult. Fine for livestock but not mixed farming. This was certainly not prime agricultural land. The council has benefited from additional council tax from LARGE properties, £600k+ each.

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Some of the plots were redundant farm buildings and the rest were field margins with other properties making arable farming difficult. Fine for livestock but not mixed farming. This was certainly not prime agricultural land. The council has benefited from additional council tax from LARGE properties, £600k+ each.

Assuming the houses were band H, 30 would generate around £100,000? P&K has a gross budget of over £500m and a significant overspend IIRC.

It would be interesting to know whether P&K know what their spend is on emergency accommodation, out-of-area placements etc and see if CPO legislation would have allowed them to build, using prudential borrowing, and divert the money from facilitating poor outcomes for those in unsatisfacory housing positions.

[1875godsgift]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Some of the plots were redundant farm buildings and the rest were field margins with other properties making arable farming difficult. Fine for livestock but not mixed farming. This was certainly not prime agricultural land. The council has benefited from additional council tax from LARGE properties, £600k+ each.

That's great!

Affordable housing for local people then?

[Hibrandenburg]

Some New Towns anybody?

[Moulin Yarns]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Assuming the houses were band H, 30 would generate around £100,000? P&K has a gross budget of over £500m and a significant overspend IIRC.

It would be interesting to know whether P&K know what their spend is on emergency accommodation, out-of-area placements etc and see if CPO legislation would have allowed them to build, using prudential borrowing, and divert the money from facilitating poor outcomes for those in unsatisfacory housing positions.

100k more than pkc got before, a good thing.

Lots of new people in the area to support the local economy, a good thing.

Employment for local businesses, a good thing.

At least 4 of the properties are also business owners, employing local people, a good thing.


Not everything is a negative you know.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

100k more than pkc got before, a good thing.

Lots of new people in the area to support the local economy, a good thing.

Employment for local businesses, a good thing.

At least 4 of the properties are also business owners, employing local people, a good thing.


Not everything is a negative you know.

Building new houses is good. The system as it is just now doesn’t supply enough of them. It has to change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Building new houses is good. The system as it is just now doesn’t supply enough of them. It has to change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I gave an example of Perth, which will grow by more than 13% in the coming years. At least one local authority is tackling the shortage.

[Colr]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Some New Towns anybody?

It’s a sensible solution if you can introduce regional planning authorities.

I’d love to do one. As an ex-new town kid, I’ve got a few opinions on how to do it better!

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

100k more than pkc got before, a good thing.

Lots of new people in the area to support the local economy, a good thing.

Employment for local businesses, a good thing.

At least 4 of the properties are also business owners, employing local people, a good thing.


Not everything is a negative you know.

That's short-sighted IMO - once you factor in infrastructure costs for the council, and whether those represented a net loss on the section 75s, then there's a risk to the council.

Perhaps more importantly, there is an opportunity cost. P&K spend at least £2m on out-of-area residential placements for looked after children. It's well-established and agreed by everybody that out-of-area leads to poor outcomes. It feels like the powers around CPOs being talked about may have given P&K the opportunity to save money and deliver better outcomes, if managed properly.

As for the rest of your post, I'm assuming the business owners already employed people before they moved into their new homes? So that's a moot point. Out of interest, was any affordable housing required?