X

Sign Up

or

By signing up I agree to Property Tribes Terms and Conditions


Already a PT member? Log In

Sign Up

Sign Up With Facebook, Twitter, or Google

or


By signing up, I agree to Property Tribes Terms and Conditions


Already a PT member? Log In

Log In

or


Don't have an account? Sign Up

Forgot Password

To reset your password just enter the email address you registered with and we'll send you a link to access a new password.


Already a PT member? Log In

Don't have an account? Sign Up

  • Property-a-holics

    UKIP unveils housing policies with pledge to protect the Green Belt

    [Image: 15267253945_a8fce029e7_b.jpg]

    UKIP has unveiled its housing policies – which centre round a commitment not to build on the Green Belt.

    The party would also bring 700,000 empty properties back into use as affordable housing, and revitalise the Right to Buy scheme.

    UKIP would encourage building on brownfield land by transferring the risk of developing on potentially contaminated land from builders to the Government and investors.

    It would also eliminate Stamp Duty Land Tax from all properties developed on brownfield sites and remove VAT from all brownfield conversion costs.

    The party believes that as many as 2.5m homes could be build on brownfield land.

    Yesterday, at the UKIP party conference, housing spokesman Andrew Charalambous said: “We would establish the UK Brownfield Agency to compile and collate data for a national brownfield register, provide decontamination assessment grants, and low interest loans for decontamination and land remediation.

    “We would issue brownfield bonds with the aim of raising £5bn to fuel our brownfield revitalisation programme – paving the way for more affordable housing and more home ownership by investing in our country’s most derelict and underused land rather than turning beautiful landscapes into concrete jungles.

    “UKIP will never concede an inch of the British countryside to residential development."

    Full/source story

    In January 2012, Property Tribes TV interviewed UKIP Leader, Nigel Farage, about his views on the U.K. housing market:





    Original thread about Nigel Farage interview

    [Image: house.png]Related content:

    Housing to be a top 3 issue in the May 2015 General Election

    240,000 new homes need each year. Guess how many are being built?

    Fergus Wilson's recommendations to Government for landlords

    Labour to target landlords
    0
    0
    Isn't the issue with Brownfield that it costs the developers a fortune to demolish / clear the site?

    If I'm right, then I can't see much getting built.

    They're spot on about bringing empty homes back into use though.

    Green belt - unfortunately it's inevitable it will get built on some point in the next 50 years, I'd suggest we maybe need to get on with it, more housing = less bubbles as supply and demand won't be so out of whack.
    0
    0
    The UK has about 8% of the country developed. In other words, the greenbelt is a very large percentage of the land mass. One MP, party unknown, noted that if the UK built on 1% of the greenbelt, hardly anyone would really notice at the macro level. The issue is closer to a NIMBY issue.

    Brownfield means sites that have been used before. Given the age of the UK, most any development in or around a city will be a brownfield site. London has almost all brownfield (exception being Royal Parks plus a few other spaces) where no one has developed. Even saying that it might not be hard to find a Roman age artefact that shows something existed in the past.

    If we stripped out the emotion, the issue is mostly about siting things where people want to be vs what the people already want. Balancing competing interests.

    The housing shortage is not small enough to be wiped out by the empty homes. If it was easy to convert empty homes, many would already be converted. In many cases, the property is owned by someone and they should have a right to do as they see fit with their assets other than when health and safety issues exist. The idea that someone else should be able to force an owner to turn over a property just because it is under-utilised seems a bit rich. Why not ban cars that are not used more than x%. While some percentage of the empty homes might be used productively without extreme seizure regulations, the building problem is much bigger.
    0
    0

    John Corey 


    I host the London Real Estate Meet on the 2nd Tuesday of every month since 2005. If you have never been before, email me for the 'new visitor' link.

    PropertyFortress.com/Events

    Also happy to chat on the phone. Pay It Forward; my way of giving back through sharing. Click on the link: PropertyFortress.com/Ask-John to book a time. I will call you at the time you selected. Nothing to buy. Just be prepared with your questions so we can use the 20 minutes wisely.

    that sound like a graet idea. Builders can build on any old bit of contaminated land and the tax payer will pick up the bill. I can't imagine that many "investors" would like to put their money in to contaminated sites.

    There is an interesting article on BBC news - "The Great Myth of Urban Britain". It explains that the UK National Ecosystem Assessment conducted by 500 experts has concluded that the amount of the UK that is actually "built on" is a mere 1.5%.

    We will never build enough homes in this country as long as well organised, well funded, middle class, articulate groups of NIMBY's are allowed to block any development. Once they have blocked any attempt to build new homes they start whinging that their kids have got nowhere to live.
    1
    0

    Good point Glenn about the NIMBY blocks impacting the children of the NIMBYs.
    0
    0

    John Corey 


    I host the London Real Estate Meet on the 2nd Tuesday of every month since 2005. If you have never been before, email me for the 'new visitor' link.

    PropertyFortress.com/Events

    Also happy to chat on the phone. Pay It Forward; my way of giving back through sharing. Click on the link: PropertyFortress.com/Ask-John to book a time. I will call you at the time you selected. Nothing to buy. Just be prepared with your questions so we can use the 20 minutes wisely.

    In Cambridge “Green Belt” is better thought of as cycle belt….

    If a home is built on the green belt, it is likely that will be close enough to work to allow someone to cycle, and as nearly 50% of people in Cambridge and live near work do cycle that is very important in reducing damage from car usage.

    The green belt round Cambridge is mostly large fields that have had every last sign of nature kills of by intensive farming over the last 50 years. A lot of the brown field sites are old airfields that are mostly natural meadow land!

    So please can someone explain to me why it is always believed that building home on greenbelt is a bad option?
    0
    0
    There aren't really any issues regarding building on such low grade GB land.
    BUT.............................................what about all the empty homes including apparently substantial amounts of empty social housing!?
    These should be used FIRST and then brownfield land.
    Recycle FIRST and once all that has been done; then use GB.
    Yet again nobody has mentioned that the major reason for housing problems is NOT a housing shortage as such.
    It has been the 4 million immigrants admitted to the UK over the past 10 years.
    If those migrants weren't here there would be NO housing shortage.
    Now if so many migrants are going to be admitted and they are coming at a rate of 250000 per year then clearly normal house building will be inadequate.
    The political classes have determined over the years to allow MASS UNCONTROLLED IMMIGRATION!!
    Whether that has been an appropriate strategy or not is NOT the point nor part of this thread discussion.
    The facts are that if you admit such large numbers of migrants then there must be surely be an exponential pressure on housing demand.
    There is NO way that builders could EVER build sufficient supply to meet demand UNLESS the borders are closed.
    This seems unlikely to happen anytime soon; so clearly there will be the existing and further continuing pressure on housing supply from this uncontrolled mass immigration!
    The questions we might ask of ourselves is do we really want all these migrants or could we not just deport most of them back to their home countries once we have changed our laws!?
    If we are NOT prepared to do this then we must accept that these migrants will cause unstoppable demand for housing.
    We are also NOT even including the increasing pressures from our own existing population which is comprising of more and more fractured households..
    As a nation we have to accept that if we wish to continue with MASS UNCONTROLLED IMMIGRATION then facilities for housing them MUST be arranged.
    This will undoubtedly eventually affect NIMBY'S.
    It is a straight forward political choice as to whether the nation wishes to accept such housing pressures. with the consequent inevitable effects on GB land.
    So with the continuing increasing UK population then extra emergency steps need to be carried out to build sufficient housing for EVERYONE who wants to come here.
    This could be ANY amount as we CANNOT presently control our borders.
    If as a nation we choose to allow the alleged benefits of MASS UNCONTROLLED IMMIGRATION then we must accept that provision MUST be mad for them
    Housing is but one component of that provision; the others being things like school places; GP's, hospitals public transport
    The UK taxpayer just has to accept that they will need to fund these uncontrolled migrants.
    If in doing so it is considered by many to be despoiling the countryside and putting additional unsustainable and unaffordable burdens on the public purse for dubious alleged benefits then the answer to those concerns lies in the ballot box!!
    So if people are NOT prepared to vote against such circumstances then the will just have to accept the consequences of massively increasing infrastructure to cope with all these uncontrolled migrants.
    Life is all about choices; if you vote a certain way then you will reap the rewards of whatever the political class you vote for decides to do.
    As it stands presently we have a policy of MASS UNCONTROLLED IMMIGRATION which requires certain responses to it.
    One of these is to build millions of properties as that is the only way to cope once all the existing properties have been used up along with all the brownfield sites
    In another 4 years there will another million EU migrants; where are they all going to live!
    It will have to be in increased housing supply.
    It is as plain as the nose on one's face.
    Why is everybody in denial that this is what needs to happen seeing as we seemingly accept UNCONTROLLED MASS IMMIGRATION!!!!??
    I suggest we just stop moaning about it and get on with the building led by GOVT assistance and money,
    That is the ONLY way to meet the current and future housing demand based on existing political policies.
    Planning laws will have to be relaxed to allow building on low quality GB land.
    It is just tough luck that you won't be able to walk your doggie on that fieldwhich you have done for years.
    The migrants need that field so they can be housed.
    If you don't like it there is a GE coming up soon; so you need to consider who would be the best representatives for your parochial views!!!
    Just imagine what would happen if the Ukraine and Turkey joined the EU!!??
    What happened in 2008 will seem like a mere blip compared to the amounts of EU migrants that would flock here from those new EU accession countries!!
    Be careful who you vote for as it could seriously damage your future wellbeing; including your property prices!!?
    But above all just accept that millions of homes need to be built whether you like it or NOT!!
    0
    0
    As for the UKIP policy of RTB I fundamentally disagree with such a policy UNLESS such sales are carried out at FULL market value and such sale receipts are invested in further council houses.
    Very few would wish to exercise a RTB if they had to pay full market value!!
    It is fundamentally WRONG that taxpayer capital could be transferred to a council tenant just because they happen to be a council tenant.
    It is effectively giving council tenants vast tranches of taxpayer funds.
    It is however fundamentally wrong that taxpayer assets in the form of council houses are sold for a song to their former tenants.
    Doing this loses substantial amounts of desperately needed social housing.
    Substantial amounts of former RTB property is now ownd by PRS LL who rent out to LHA tenants at substantially more than social rents.
    It is now costing far more in HB to house these tenants than if they had retained the council properties for future use.
    Councils have been the loser and former council tenants and now PRS LL have been the winners at great cost to the taxpayer and the council tax payerAngry
    RTB should be ended except under the circumstances I mentioned above; that means that effectively RTB would stop as nobody would be getting anything for FREE!!
    We have to STOP 'selling the family silver'!!
    This has been purchased over generations only to be sold off to savvy LL once the RTB sells off usually in distress.
    This is because most of the RTB purchasers got themselves into financial difficulties.
    The should NEVER have been allowed to purchase their council properties as they don't know how to manage money.
    That is why they were council tenants in the first place!!
    RTB is a bankrupt policy from a reactionary Tory Govt attempting to Gerrymander votes.
    No council tenant was ever going to decline the opportunity of a load of FREE money in the form of property equity!!
    Sorry UKIP on this occasion you are WRONG!!
    0
    0

    Yes, Right to Buy.

    Tenants buy at 40% of value.

    5 years later, they sell to a PRS landlord at 80% of value.

    I've bought 12 from RTB ex-council tenants.

    I've benefitted, so can't complain, but it can't be good for the taxpayer.
    0
    0
    (03-10-2014 04:41 PM)daniel_booth Wrote:  Yes, Right to Buy.

    Tenants buy at 40% of value.

    5 years later, they sell to a PRS landlord at 80% of value.

    I've bought 12 from RTB ex-council tenants.

    I've benefitted, so can't complain, but it can't be good for the taxpayer.

    It depends on what the taxpayer gets from the bargain. If increased ownership and recycling of the housing stock is an objective, potentially the model work. Also, the RTB does not address condition or the ability to sell the units privately. Some RTB stock is stuff that private owners will have a hard time financing.

    So, the topic is more complex than just an economic discount.

    That said, I still do not understand why a council must house people and at the same time they sell off housing. I also do not get why housing is not means tested so those who have improved their economic position are asked to move out of subsidised housing.

    As to Lisa's last point about having a home impacted by a development.

    If we look at the narrow definition of ownership, I am not sure that protection of something you did not buy is valid. When I buy a house, I get the land and the view yet I did not really pay someone for the view. If someone else gets permission to build and that changes my view, I might have a real loss yet I am not sure that I had any right to the view. If trees grow tall and block a view, I can not go onto someone else's land and cut them down.

    So, the peace and quiet enjoyment that any home has is limited in some way. Otherwise, the overlapping interests would block any change.
    0
    0

    John Corey 


    I host the London Real Estate Meet on the 2nd Tuesday of every month since 2005. If you have never been before, email me for the 'new visitor' link.

    PropertyFortress.com/Events

    Also happy to chat on the phone. Pay It Forward; my way of giving back through sharing. Click on the link: PropertyFortress.com/Ask-John to book a time. I will call you at the time you selected. Nothing to buy. Just be prepared with your questions so we can use the 20 minutes wisely.

    You've done nothing wrong Daniel; you just recognised a business opportunity and nicked some good deals.
    But you would NOT have been able to if those properties were still council houses.
    It may be that the sales were caused by financial distress of the vendor.
    Because of this you managed to buy BMV and yet the distressed vendor still profits out of all the FREE equity that the council gave under the RTB scheme which is why they could sell BMV and still make a fortune.
    What these ex-council tenants did with their 40% of sale proceeds I would guess has been frittered away.
    It wouldn't surprise me if some of these former RTB tenants are now on HB renting their former RTB homes from a PRS LL who is making a nice profit; effectively all courtesy of the taxpayer.
    0
    0