Housing

[Moulin Yarns]

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

I think that price has more to do with profiteering than planning.

I previously posted about the area I live in. The local farmer got outline planning permission and sold 6 individual plots for around £100k each, in the early 1990s.

[superfurryhibby]

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

Presumably the farmer didn't sell his half-acre to someone for £4k and the buyer then made a profit of £220k for doing some paper/leg work, so are you really objecting to the farmer, in a position of finding himself with developable land, selling it for the going rate?

No, I'm questioning the spurious claim made that planning adds £100,000 to the cost of new house. However, if every Farmer sold developable land we would damage the environment and reduce our food growing capacity and that would be long term stupidity in a world where pressure on water resource will demand that there should less reliance on imported food.

[Ozyhibby]

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

I think that price has more to do with profiteering than planning.

?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

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

No, I'm questioning the spurious claim made that planning adds £100,000 to the cost of new house. However, if every Farmer sold developable land we would damage the environment and reduce our food growing capacity and that would be long term stupidity in a world where pressure on water resource will demand that there should less reliance on imported food.

If you think it’s spurious how much do you think it’s adds to the cost of a house then?

Prices vary massively across the country and location but a figure of £15k per acre for arable land looks a half decent average.

An acre of land with planning permission for housing goes for many multiples of that. Again varies by location but a multiple of 8x to 10x s not out of the question.

So the estimate of £100k per house looks pretty sensible. Some figures I’ve seen suggest all the way up to about 65% of the cost is the land.

But again if you think this is all made up to meet certain ’agendas’ you could always come back with some evidence to show that land prices don’t actually increase massively (and thus push the cost of the resultant houses up substantially) after getting planning to build on them and add some facts n figures to your claim.

[lapsedhibee]

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

long term stupidity in a world where pressure on water resource will demand that there should less reliance on imported food.

With you on that. To reduce the demand for housebuilding land, perhaps build more skyscrapers, or prevent people with surname Johnson or Ress-Mogg from breeding so rabidly, or declare Britain full. I'll go for the second of those options first.

[Stairway 2 7]

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

No, I'm questioning the spurious claim made that planning adds £100,000 to the cost of new house. However, if every Farmer sold developable land we would damage the environment and reduce our food growing capacity and that would be long term stupidity in a world where pressure on water resource will demand that there should less reliance on imported food.

People think of farms as green and pleasant land but the are generally giant polluters, 12% of our co2 comes from farms. Climate action estimates we need to reduce farmed land by 30% to get net zero by 2050. We have a climate and housing emergency not a food emergency. 9% of our manufactured food is wasted and 67% of Scots are overweight or obese, we'll be fine with a reduction and the planet would be happy too

Your constantly against house building. Do you have a permanent address because if you do how can you say to the 175,000 children that are homeless in the uk tough I'm alright Jack. Almost 400,000 people homeless and the smallest amount of spare homes in the oecd.

I'm fortunate I've got a house so no skin in the game but it makes me furious that kids all over Edinburgh will be sleeping in temporary houses and whole families in b and b rooms, whilst people rattle out excuses not to massively build housing

[superfurryhibby]

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

If you think it’s spurious how much do you think it’s adds to the cost of a house then?

Prices vary massively across the country and location but a figure of £15k per acre for arable land looks a half decent average.

An acre of land with planning permission for housing goes for many multiples of that. Again varies by location but a multiple of 8x to 10x s not out of the question.

So the estimate of £100k per house looks pretty sensible. Some figures I’ve seen suggest all the way up to about 65% of the cost is the land.

But again if you think this is all made up to meet certain ’agendas’ you could always come back with some evidence to show that land prices don’t actually increase massively (and thus push the cost of the resultant houses up substantially) after getting planning to build on them and add some facts n figures to your claim.

One persons guess is as good as another, why don't you request the person who stated that figure to back it up instead of me?

There is land for sale in West Linton, £85,000, without any permissions. You're not seriously trying to tell me that it would be worth 8-10 x that if it had the necessary consent?

The plot is 7.5 acres.

https://www.cullenkilshaw.com/reside...s/?prop=239149

Why don't you go onto a planning portal and scope it out for us and settle the debate?

[Moulin Yarns]

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

People think of farms as green and pleasant land but the are generally giant polluters, 12% of our co2 comes from farms. Climate action estimates we need to reduce farmed land by 30% to get net zero by 2050. We have a climate and housing emergency not a food emergency. 9% of our manufactured food is wasted and 67% of Scots are overweight or obese, we'll be fine with a reduction and the planet would be happy too

Your constantly against house building. Do you have a permanent address because if you do how can you say to the 175,000 children that are homeless in the uk tough I'm alright Jack. Almost 400,000 people homeless and the smallest amount of spare homes in the oecd.

I'm fortunate I've got a house so no skin in the game but it makes me furious that kids all over Edinburgh will be sleeping in temporary houses and whole families in b and b rooms, whilst people rattle out excuses not to massively build housing

You over simplified it. Livestock and arable farming are different.

[Stairway 2 7]

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

You over simplified it. Livestock and arable farming are different.

The figures for farming in general although both livestock non livestock are massive co2 and nitrogen producers. SNP wanted a 32% reduction in co2 from farms from 2018 to 2030 but we won't get close. Regardless with an obesity crisis and a housing crisis there is a simple shift

[RyeSloan]

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

One persons guess is as good as another, why don't you request the person who stated that figure to back it up instead of me?

There is land for sale in West Linton, £85,000, without any permissions. You're not seriously trying to tell me that it would be worth 8-10 x that if it had the necessary consent?

The plot is 7.5 acres.

https://www.cullenkilshaw.com/reside...s/?prop=239149

Why don't you go onto a planning portal and scope it out for us and settle the debate?

Ahh right so you claim they are spurious figures , made up to meet an agenda yet immediately pass it back to me to unprove your unproven comments? I see what you did there.

But hey ho I gave it a two second google and immediately found a 0.2 acre plot in West Linton with planning for a 4 or 5 bed house for sale at £195k.

Handily listed right above those 7.5acres in the same West Linton for £85k on right move.

So land that’s just urmm land £11k per acre. Land that has planning going for £1m an acre.

Makes that 10x look rather conservative don’t ya say?

[lapsedhibee]

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

There is land for sale in West Linton, £85,000, without any permissions. You're not seriously trying to tell me that it would be worth 8-10 x that if it had the necessary consent?

The plot is 7.5 acres.

Value of that would be huge. Bigly huge.

[superfurryhibby]

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

Ahh right so you claim they are spurious figures , made up to meet an agenda yet immediately pass it back to me to unprove your unproven comments? I see what you did there.

But hey ho I gave it a two second google and immediately found a 0.2 acre plot in West Linton with planning for a 4 or 5 bed house for sale at £195k.

Handily listed right above those 7.5acres in the same West Linton for £85k on right move.

So land that’s just urmm land £11k per acre. Land that has planning going for £1m an acre.

Makes that 10x look rather conservative don’t ya say?

You don't seem to be grasping that two spurious claims don't make for factual accuracy. Funnily enough, just to assist your grasp of this, I posted a link from Cullen Kilshaw, not Right Move.

So is the cost due to planning or profit? Of course land with planning is more valuable, but who determines the price? Developers aren't going to go through the process for the heck of it, clearly it adds value. So what percentage of the price is profit and what is costs?

[Moulin Yarns]

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

You don't seem to be grasping that two spurious claims don't make for factual accuracy. Funnily enough, just to assist your grasp of this, I posted a link from Cullen Kilshaw, not Right Move.

So is the cost due to planning or profit? Of course land with planning is more valuable, but who determines the price? Developers aren't going to go through the process for the heck of it, clearly it adds value. So what percentage of the price is profit and what is costs?

Again, my farming neighbour had land with little value, coo sheds, field margins etc. He obtained outline planning permission to build 6 houses. He's then sold each plot in the early 1990s for at least £100k. So £600k in the pocket for around £6k outlay to an architect. Damn good if you get it. Land value increase from 0 to £600k.

[RyeSloan]

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

You don't seem to be grasping that two spurious claims don't make for factual accuracy. Funnily enough, just to assist your grasp of this, I posted a link from Cullen Kilshaw, not Right Move.

So is the cost due to planning or profit? Of course land with planning is more valuable, but who determines the price? Developers aren't going to go through the process for the heck of it, clearly it adds value. So what percentage of the price is profit and what is costs?

Cullen Kilshaw..who cares? The listing for the £85k piece of land is exactly the same.

And the cost of a house is the cost for the buyer of the house perspective.

The uplift in value of land can be associated to many reasons, not just the actual cost of putting in a planning request (substantial though that may be in some cases). Quite clearly one of the main drivers is the limited amount of land where such requests will succeed.

But back to your original assertions:

The £100k additional cost to the buyer of a house for the land element was a spurious figure.

Then you stated the stat was made up to suit an [undefined] agenda.

Yet here we have a real live example of one acre of land costing £11k the other close to £1m. The main difference is one has planning permission for a house the other not.

That’s not “made up” nor ‘spurious’ it’s right there in front of you. With the added bonus of being agenda free.

Quite simply the cost of the land that you are allowed to build a house on is a substantial cost of the end product.

Whether anyone thinks that’s fair or right and / or absolutely every one is ‘profiteering’ along the way is open to question for sure but surely there is no denying that is the current state of affairs?

[Andy Bee]

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

One persons guess is as good as another, why don't you request the person who stated that figure to back it up instead of me?

There is land for sale in West Linton, £85,000, without any permissions. You're not seriously trying to tell me that it would be worth 8-10 x that if it had the necessary consent?

The plot is 7.5 acres.

https://www.cullenkilshaw.com/reside...s/?prop=239149

Why don't you go onto a planning portal and scope it out for us and settle the debate?

The link I posted on the previous page showed 0.48 acre plots for £225k, I know the land is worth £8k an acre in its original form as I know the farmer neighbouring this one. The same farmer sold similar sized plots 10 years ago for £125k and the houses built were worth £500-£600k each, they're now getting close to being worth £1m hence the near doubling in price of the land. I know of a previous sale in the same area around 30 years ago in which a 21 acre field was bought for £50k with no hope of planning at the time but the buyer and a local lawyer found a loophole in which they gained planning because they planned the houses as crofts and planned a bantom shed on every plot. Those plots sold for £50k each for 0.25 acres and are now full of close to £1m houses. There's an old outdoor tennis court in Broxburn split into 4 plots with planning at around £100k a plot for sale right now, how big is a tennis court? It's the going rate for land with planning at the moment whether that's profiteering or not.

[lapsedhibee]

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

Again, my farming neighbour had land with little value, coo sheds, field margins etc. He obtained outline planning permission to build 6 houses. He's then sold each plot in the early 1990s for at least £100k. So £600k in the pocket for around £6k outlay to an architect. Damn good if you get it. Land value increase from 0 to £600k.

It wouldn't have had no value though, if it was at all developable. It would have had, at the very least, 'hope value'.

[Moulin Yarns]

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

It wouldn't have had no value though, if it was at all developable. It would have had, at the very least, 'hope value'.

OK, field margin and dilapidated coo shed, not valuable to anyone bar the farmer,until he gets planning approval, when the value increases many times. That value us £100k and is added to the building costs.

[lapsedhibee]

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

OK, field margin and dilapidated coo shed, not valuable to anyone bar the farmer,until he gets planning approval, when the value increases many times. That value us £100k and is added to the building costs.

Hope value can be substantial long before planning approval is achieved. Though of course never as high as the value of land once it actually has approval.

[Moulin Yarns]

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

Hope value can be substantial long before planning approval is achieved. Though of course never as high as the value of land once it actually has approval.

What is hope value?Hope value is the value of potential planning permission that attaches to land subject to a CPO. Currently, hope value can be taken into account when calculating compensation for landowners whose land is subject to a CPO.

Nowt to do with a farmer realising his assets!

[lapsedhibee]

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

What is hope value? Hope value is the value of potential planning permission that attaches to land subject to a CPO. Currently, hope value can be taken into account when calculating compensation for landowners whose land is subject to a CPO.

Nowt to do with a farmer realising his assets!

Hope value's not just about CPOs. HMRC are looking for it in CGT, IHT etc etc etc. If the farmer had died before he applied for planning permission, the hope value would/should have been counted in his estate. That land's value was never nothing or next to nothing.

But my general point is that the narrative of 'land is worth nothing without planning and £100k with planning, therefore planning costs £100k' isn't entirely accurate. Land that people can build on, or want to build on, for whatever reason, is always going to be more expensive than land which can't be built on, or which people don't want to build on. (And this situation's bound to get worse, not better, over time, because The Chief's not making any more of it and meanwhile His Children continue to multiply.) It's more accurately the buildable land which costs £100k, rather than the planning.

Doing away with the current planning system and building control, and building standards as well, would undoubtedly tend to make housing cheaper for young people. But the cost to the built environment would be high. Paint the Castle pink to attract more paying visitors, why not? Neon signs on the Scott Monument to brighten it up a bit? Maybe selfish but I would rather have Edinburgh's built environment under the influence of the likes of, say, the Cockburn Association and planning department than determined by builders whose building decisions might be motivated purely by £££. Too expensive to connect new cludgies to sewers? Dump stuff in the nearest watercourse, that'll take it away! Same logic should apply outside cities too, imo. 'Lighter touch' regulation? Hmm. Maybe not in a week when the Grenfell report's out.

[Stairway 2 7]

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

Hope value's not just about CPOs. HMRC are looking for it in CGT, IHT etc etc etc. If the farmer had died before he applied for planning permission, the hope value would/should have been counted in his estate. That land's value was never nothing or next to nothing.

But my general point is that the narrative of 'land is worth nothing without planning and £100k with planning, therefore planning costs £100k' isn't entirely accurate. Land that people can build on, or want to build on, for whatever reason, is always going to be more expensive than land which can't be built on, or which people don't want to build on. (And this situation's bound to get worse, not better, over time, because The Chief's not making any more of it and meanwhile His Children continue to multiply.) It's more accurately the buildable land which costs £100k, rather than the planning.

Doing away with the current planning system and building control, and building standards as well, would undoubtedly tend to make housing cheaper for young people. But the cost to the built environment would be high. Paint the Castle pink to attract more paying visitors, why not? Neon signs on the Scott Monument to brighten it up a bit? Maybe selfish but I would rather have Edinburgh's built environment under the influence of the likes of, say, the Cockburn Association and planning department than determined by builders whose building decisions might be motivated purely by £££. Too expensive to connect new cludgies to sewers? Dump stuff in the nearest watercourse, that'll take it away! Same logic should apply outside cities too, imo. 'Lighter touch' regulation? Hmm. Maybe not in a week when the Grenfell report's out.

Who's saying don't have regulation were saying build at decent standards, there is lots of great low co2 and green building projects. The fact is when you've got over 100k kids homeless we have no choice. It's always people with homes who tell the people without homes that we don't need more homes.

[lapsedhibee]

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

Who's saying don't have regulation were saying build at decent standards, there is lots of great low co2 and green building projects. The fact is when you've got over 100k kids homeless we have no choice. It's always people with homes who tell the people without homes that we don't need more homes.

Higher standards adds to the cost of building homes, making them more expensive for young people to buy.
I never said we don't need more homes, I was talking about the idea that planners are the problem.

[superfurryhibby]

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

It’s not the only factor. My point was build more houses if we want to keep prices down. Edinburgh has a massive shortage of houses. We can either build them or try make people leave the city.
Planning adds about £100k to the value of a house before a brick is laid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

Cullen Kilshaw..who cares? The listing for the £85k piece of land is exactly the same.

And the cost of a house is the cost for the buyer of the house perspective.

The uplift in value of land can be associated to many reasons, not just the actual cost of putting in a planning request (substantial though that may be in some cases). Quite clearly one of the main drivers is the limited amount of land where such requests will succeed.

But back to your original assertions:

The £100k additional cost to the buyer of a house for the land element was a spurious figure.

Then you stated the stat was made up to suit an [undefined] agenda.

Yet here we have a real live example of one acre of land costing £11k the other close to £1m. The main difference is one has planning permission for a house the other not.

That’s not “made up” nor ‘spurious’ it’s right there in front of you. With the added bonus of being agenda free.

Quite simply the cost of the land that you are allowed to build a house on is a substantial cost of the end product.

Whether anyone thinks that’s fair or right and / or absolutely every one is ‘profiteering’ along the way is open to question for sure but surely there is no denying that is the current state of affairs?

Of course buying land with planning consent is much more costly. However, I would hazard a guess that buying an individual plot for 85k and commissioning an architect to design a home and submit for plans for consideration by planning won't be adding a 100,000k to your bill.

That is by the by though.The whole discussion started with my response to a comment that planning adds £100,000 to the cost of a new house before a brick is laid. The poster referred to Edinburgh. That is the spurious figure I was referring to. Clearly a development that builds c300 houses, like the one out at West Craigs in Edinburgh, that isn't going to cost £100,000 x 300 in planning costs, is it?

[RyeSloan]

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

Of course buying land with planning consent is much more costly. However, I would hazard a guess that buying an individual plot for 85k and commissioning an architect to design a home and submit for plans for consideration by planning won't be adding a 100,000k to your bill.

That is by the by though.The whole discussion started with my response to a comment that planning adds £100,000 to the cost of a new house before a brick is laid. The poster referred to Edinburgh. That is the spurious figure I was referring to. Clearly a development that builds c300 houses, like the one out at West Craigs in Edinburgh, that isn't going to cost £100,000 x 300 in planning costs, is it?

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

Of course buying land with planning consent is much more costly. However, I would hazard a guess that buying an individual plot for 85k and commissioning an architect to design a home and submit for plans for consideration by planning won't be adding a 100,000k to your bill.

That is by the by though.The whole discussion started with my response to a comment that planning adds £100,000 to the cost of a new house before a brick is laid. The poster referred to Edinburgh. That is the spurious figure I was referring to. Clearly a development that builds c300 houses, like the one out at West Craigs in Edinburgh, that isn't going to cost £100,000 x 300 in planning costs, is it?

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

Of course buying land with planning consent is much more costly. However, I would hazard a guess that buying an individual plot for 85k and commissioning an architect to design a home and submit for plans for consideration by planning won't be adding a 100,000k to your bill.

That is by the by though.The whole discussion started with my response to a comment that planning adds £100,000 to the cost of a new house before a brick is laid. The poster referred to Edinburgh. That is the spurious figure I was referring to. Clearly a development that builds c300 houses, like the one out at West Craigs in Edinburgh, that isn't going to cost £100,000 x 300 in planning costs, is it?

Riiight.

You literally replied to a post that made it clear the discussions on value differences were relating to land that would not get planning versus land that did have approval to build….by calling it a made up stat to suit an agenda.

Then there is a number of other posts in the thread clarifying a number of times the discussion was over land that didn’t have planing permission versus land that did.

At no point, ever, was anyone suggesting that the difference was only down to the cost of an individual planning application but was quite clearly down to have consent granted versus not (or very unlikely to ever get).

I know that, you know that, but if you want to pretend the whole discussion was about the semantics of what was meant by ‘planning’ then you crack on

[Stairway 2 7]

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

Higher standards adds to the cost of building homes, making them more expensive for young people to buy.
I never said we don't need more homes, I was talking about the idea that planners are the problem.

Planning is the problem. Planning deliberately takes long in the UK. Rail projects and urban rail projects take over twice the time to get through planning than western Europe so they cost on average almost double the price. Our house planning comes from rules written in 1947 and unlike Europe our planning isn't national is controlled by councils. In normal countries they government say we've a housing emergency so pick areas to build. In the uk it goes to a group of local people who have houses deciding they don't want newcomers or people without houses to get houses near them.

Paris has only 6% of homes spare so the government wants quickly to build to get that number to 8% and bring prices down. I don't believe that they will be built at a lower standard than ours or German of Spanish homes, rail or bridges that take half the time to go through planning.

[Moulin Yarns]

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

Planning is the problem. Planning deliberately takes long in the UK. Rail projects and urban rail projects take over twice the time to get through planning than western Europe so they cost on average almost double the price. Our house planning comes from rules written in 1947 and unlike Europe our planning isn't national is controlled by councils. In normal countries they government say we've a housing emergency so pick areas to build. In the uk it goes to a group of local people who have houses deciding they don't want newcomers or people without houses to get houses near them.

Paris has only 6% of homes spare so the government wants quickly to build to get that number to 8% and bring prices down. I don't believe that they will be built at a lower standard than ours or German of Spanish homes, rail or bridges that take half the time to go through planning.

https://www.gov.scot/policies/planning-architecture/reforming-planning-system/

Planning Scotland act 2019.

[lapsedhibee]

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

Planning is the problem. Planning deliberately takes long in the UK. Rail projects and urban rail projects take over twice the time to get through planning than western Europe so they cost on average almost double the price. Our house planning comes from rules written in 1947 and unlike Europe our planning isn't national is controlled by councils. In normal countries they government say we've a housing emergency so pick areas to build. In the uk it goes to a group of local people who have houses deciding they don't want newcomers or people without houses to get houses near them.

Paris has only 6% of homes spare so the government wants quickly to build to get that number to 8% and bring prices down. I don't believe that they will be built at a lower standard than ours or German of Spanish homes, rail or bridges that take half the time to go through planning.

Quite agree with you, local democracy slows things down. In fact, so does democracy in general.

[superfurryhibby]

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

Riiight.

You literally replied to a post that made it clear the discussions on value differences were relating to land that would not get planning versus land that did have approval to build….by calling it a made up stat to suit an agenda.

Then there is a number of other posts in the thread clarifying a number of times the discussion was over land that didn’t have planing permission versus land that did.

At no point, ever, was anyone suggesting that the difference was only down to the cost of an individual planning application but was quite clearly down to have consent granted versus not (or very unlikely to ever get).

I know that, you know that, but if you want to pretend the whole discussion was about the semantics of what was meant by ‘planning’ then you crack on

I literally replied to a post that made a blanket reference to planning adding 100,000k to the cost of a house. The conversation grew arms and legs thereafter, as they do. In order to assist your understanding, I even quoted that post for your benefit.
But aye, you're obviously always right.


"It’s not the only factor. My point was build more houses if we want to keep prices down. Edinburgh has a massive shortage of houses. We can either build them or try make people leave the city. Planning adds about £100k to the value of a house before a brick is laid".

[Stairway 2 7]

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

Riiight.

You literally replied to a post that made it clear the discussions on value differences were relating to land that would not get planning versus land that did have approval to build….by calling it a made up stat to suit an agenda.

Then there is a number of other posts in the thread clarifying a number of times the discussion was over land that didn’t have planing permission versus land that did.

At no point, ever, was anyone suggesting that the difference was only down to the cost of an individual planning application but was quite clearly down to have consent granted versus not (or very unlikely to ever get).

I know that, you know that, but if you want to pretend the whole discussion was about the semantics of what was meant by ‘planning’ then you crack on

Not related to land but interesting that a study shows that a house with planning permission can add around 100k to the value compared to if it didn't have planning. So 100k

https://www.introducertoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2021/12/study-planning-permission-can-boost-property-prices/

Study – Planning permission can boost property prices

The biggest boost is in Bradford, where a home with planning permission sells for 52% more than those without – that’s an £81,789 rise.

Selling with pre-granted planning permission in both Birmingham and Bournemouth can also increase the value of a property by 51%. Both areas are also home to the highest premium in a financial sense at £106,674 and £159,049 respectively.

[superfurryhibby]

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

Not related to land but interesting that a study shows that a house with planning permission can add around 100k to the value compared to if it didn't have planning. So 100k

https://www.introducertoday.co.uk/br...operty-prices/

Study – Planning permission can boost property prices

The biggest boost is in Bradford, where a home with planning permission sells for 52% more than those without – that’s an £81,789 rise.

Selling with pre-granted planning permission in both Birmingham and Bournemouth can also increase the value of a property by 51%. Both areas are also home to the highest premium in a financial sense at £106,674 and £159,049 respectively.

Not quite though is it

The house price premium associated with planning permission properties across these 20 major UK cities ranges from 1% to 52% but on average, homebuyers can expect it to increase property price expectations by 21% or £46,000.

However, the ability for a quicker build doesn’t have the same effect in every city. In both Plymouth and Nottingham, pre-granted planning permission only brings a 1% premium when looking to sell, while in Swansea it’s just 2%"

However you look at it. The planning process in itself isn't costing 100,000k per house. It may add significant value to land, but that isn't just due to the cost of planning is it? There obviously commercial factors at work.




"