Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Agelastus]

Insisting on building 3 and 4 bedroom homes all the time may have something to do with the price issue; I suspect with retirement and downsizing, or with people buying their first house, there's more of a market for 2 bedroom houses than one might think.

Having three bedrooms instead of two probably adds £40000 or more to the price local to me, minimum.

[Tamas]

Insisting on building 3 and 4 bedroom homes all the time may have something to do with the price issue; I suspect with retirement and downsizing, or with people buying their first house, there's more of a market for 2 bedroom houses than one might think.

Having three bedrooms instead of two probably adds £40000 or more to the price local to me, minimum.

Same here but the other issue is this excellent marketing ploy of using # of bedrooms instead of square meters as the base size categorisation of properties. Usually the 3rd "bedroom" is more like a walk-in closet but with the other two bedrooms being only marginally larger than prison cells, it is a needed walk-in closet.

[Richard Hakluyt]

We returned to Preston some 15 years or so ago and rented a new "four-bedroomed detached house, with front and rear gardens, en-suite to master, garage etc etc" for a few months.... well the place was ridiculously tiny 

The floor area was more appropriate to a two-bedroom design which would have made the place suitable for a retired  or childless couple. As it was there was nowhere to put bookcases and it was difficult to get a comfortable viewing distance from the TV set. Not a single car in the entire close was parked inside the garages, they were all used for storage 

A little law that could easily be passed would require the square footage of a property to be included in the details.

[Sheilbh]

Same here but the other issue is this excellent marketing ploy of using # of bedrooms instead of square meters as the base size categorisation of properties. Usually the 3rd "bedroom" is more like a walk-in closet but with the other two bedrooms being only marginally larger than prison cells, it is a needed walk-in closet.

I mean what more does the youngest child need?

Needless to say I'm with Tamas and this applies across geogrpahy. The place with least vacant homes is Manchester, I think, where it's at 0.5%. While it's true that Blackpool has, comparatively, quite a lot at 2% they're both still way below the norm for developed economies. There's just not enough housing.

I don't disagree with Jos that you need local solutions within building more housing. My solution there would be allowing councils to build homes if they want to and removing right to buy. Cornwall or the Lakes have huge numbers of second homes owned by people who've accumulated savings far beyond what local workers could (the only bit of France with vacant homes under 5% is Corsica, which has the same issue and it provoked terrorism); parts of London have the attractiveness of a world city and it is likely that local workers will never be able to afford good quality housing given that. Both of those require local solutions which may be different but what they both definitely need is more housing stock - as I say we try to run things too efficiently in the UK. We try to run bits of the economy - say the NHS or housing so we're not wasting anything or, God forbid, building a home that isn't immediately filled. We should aim for a little bit of waste and let the market do its thing. UK government is good at data - the ONS is great, but it does promote a mindset that with that data and a bit of market research we can design systems to produce optimum outputs (project the number of houses, project the growth of x village, allocate it x number of housing requirements on the plan) instead of trusting local/market knowledge.

Separately local people absolutely shouldn't have a say because they are always the worst. Local people will pretend a carpark is a beloved community hub if it stops a development, or allege that they may have seen an endangered bat. I'm barely even joking when I suggest that for every development local people block a random listed building or "historic tree" in the community should be blown up

Were I emperor I'd come down hard on NIMBYs. Not necessarily all of them. But target a few villages with a big fuck you hammer. There's so many small villages with well placed train stations that would be wonderful 21st century new towns...but of course NIMBYs can't be having that.

Fine but surely the reason there's so much demand in cities and why they have the lowest rate of vacant homes is because people want to live in cities, not well connected villages?

Edit: Basically it seems like the housing market has radicalised me and Tamas

[Josquius]

What is your solution mr homeowner then?
Because what I see is I want to visit some insanely overpriced property in Bracknell but in no time there are no more slots available for the open day, and two days after the open day it is marked as sold. How is increased supply NOT going to help that, I can't see.

As I said 'just build more houses' is a human wave attack.
Keep throwing bodies at the machine gun and eventually you'll force a break through.
But....its going to take a hell of a lot of houses coming in a short amount of time to do that. It just doesn't seem practical to win with this blunt force approach. If there were double the amount of these properties in Bracknell available then maybe you could stretch out to three days before they're all sold?
In some areas the demand from investors and other people able to pay huge amounts is just too great to be overcome by simply building more.

As to what is the solution...there's a variety of possible techniques.
The big one is the one the tories have given lip service to of late with zero intention of doing anything; levelling up. Spread more of the economy outside London and demand in London will drop. Remote working helps with this too.

Then there's moves to support locals in buying property. You already see this in some developments albeit not enough. The mis-match between local wages and property prices in scenic parts of the country is just insane beyond even London levels.

Stopping right to buy is a must.

Reforming council taxes to fall upon landlords more than residents and other increased taxes on for profit landlords.

Increased council taxes on second homes; already being done in Wales.

More investment in transport and tie housing development closely together with this.

Building smarter will have more impact than building more.

Insisting on building 3 and 4 bedroom homes all the time may have something to do with the price issue; I suspect with retirement and downsizing, or with people buying their first house, there's more of a market for 2 bedroom houses than one might think.

Having three bedrooms instead of two probably adds £40000 or more to the price local to me, minimum.

In Newcastle this was a huge problem 20 years ago.
Huge numbers of good family homes were being bought up and subdivided into HMOs, most infamously going to the student market but also heavily hitting young professionals too. Getting your own place as someone living alone without earning way over the local average just wasn't practical. Everyone had to share whether they liked it or not.
Over the years since there's been a huge amount of development of purpose built student flats near the city centre which has really helped the formerly HMO dominated areas move back towards being nice family areas.

Ironically this has not proved popular with populist types who are incapable of thinking beyond immediate cause and effect, its a frequent moan you see that loads of student housing has been built. People are dumb.

With people increasingly being single for longer, living healthily for longer, smaller families, etc... there really should be far more incentive to build a larger quantity of small properties as  leaving it to the market just leads to a focus on higher end larger properties (largely shit ones that would be better off as 2 bedrooms as said...)

[Josquius]

Separately local people absolutely shouldn't have a say because they are always the worst. Local people will pretend a carpark is a beloved community hub if it stops a development, or allege that they may have seen an endangered bat. I'm barely even joking when I suggest that for every development local people block a random listed building or "historic tree" in the community should be blown up

Yes.
But how many protests do you get about car park redevelopments vs. the amount of people who live within 10 minutes drive of the thing? Its usually an absolutly pitiful amount. Most aren't even aware anything is being built unless one of the big mouths has a mate at the local paper.

Define local too.
I want to build a housing estate in the village of Littleberg, population 100. The villagers don't like that idea.... but what about the town of Bigby a mile away? Odds are good the locals there quite like the idea if you seek them out and tell them about it. And they are local. The voice of the person who can see the site from their window shouldn't matter that much more than other voices in the area. 

Yet these days with the way things are setup all it would take would be a petition from 60 Littlebergers and its not happening no matter how desperately needed it is.

Were I emperor I'd come down hard on NIMBYs. Not necessarily all of them. But target a few villages with a big fuck you hammer. There's so many small villages with well placed train stations that would be wonderful 21st century new towns...but of course NIMBYs can't be having that.

Fine but surely the reason there's so much demand in cities and why they have the lowest rate of vacant homes is because people want to live in cities, not well connected villages?

Edit: Basically it seems like the housing market has radicalised me and Tamas
[/quote]

Thats not what I see at all. House prices in well connected towns within easy reach of the city tend to be far higher than in cities- unconnected towns are bottom of the pile of course.

Assuming what you said was correct though, thats still no reason not to build outside of the really in demand city. I want to live in a nice house overlooking the beach... but if I can't afford that I'll take something 10 minutes away.
Consider too how many would move out of your city if they could but for various reasons haven't been able to yet. Give them an alternative and you're releasing pressure for those who want to be there.
It takes all sorts and everyone wants something different. Better serve every group rather than just throwing more resources at one and everyone will be better off.

[Jacob]

Fine but surely the reason there's so much demand in cities and why they have the lowest rate of vacant homes is because people want to live in cities, not well connected villages?

If people are given a real choice between living in the city in appartments and living in well connected villages with more space and yards and things like that, then I expect there'd be demand for both. Lots of folks are willing to trade a certain amount of commuting time and distance from the downtown action for more spece. IMO, good housing policy should increase stock in both types of areas and improve transport infrastructure so folks can make choices that suit them.

[Sheilbh]

Define local too.
I want to build a housing estate in the village of Littleberg, population 100. The villagers don't like that idea.... but what about the town of Bigby a mile away? Odds are good the locals there quite like the idea if you seek them out and tell them about it. And they are local. The voice of the person who can see the site from their window shouldn't matter that much more than other voices in the area.

Yet these days with the way things are setup all it would take would be a petition from 60 Littlebergers and its not happening no matter how desperately needed it is.

Yeah - if the people Bigby want that development then they need to organise. I can't think of every coming across an actual YIMBY push by people.

Ultimately we have this issue because we're a democracy with a discretionary planning system and most people don't want new houses built near them. And there's always a reason, but I think it basically just boils down to people not wanting new houses near them.

Thats not what I see at all. House prices in well connected towns within easy reach of the city tend to be far higher than in cities- unconnected towns are bottom of the pile of course.

Assuming what you said was correct though, thats still no reason not to build outside of the really in demand city. I want to live in a nice house overlooking the beach... but if I can't afford that I'll take something 10 minutes away.
Consider too how many would move out of your city if they could but for various reasons haven't been able to yet. Give them an alternative and you're releasing pressure for those who want to be there.
It takes all sorts and everyone wants something different. Better serve every group rather than just throwing more resources at one and everyone will be better off.

Sure I suppose my point is this is why I think we need a human wave approach.

We are already trying to micro-manage housing developments. I don't think we also then need to do it around wider economic goals. We need to build more housing everywhere. We should aim for a surplus and to do that will probably mean building proportionally more housing than cities - because they're basically all at under 1% vacant homes. But even non-urban towns have very low levels of vacancies compared to the rest of the world.

I don't think the solution to a failure of micro-management is build a set of new towns which is just a different type of planned micro-management. I think we need the human wave and let the market drive it, which is likely to mean more building in cities where there is higher demand and a lower stock of vacant housing.

I mean for poor Tamas in the South-East I think economists have estimated that more than half of the cost of houses in the South-East is driven by scarcity - and again I think housing explains so many of our problems because I think that's directly linked to productivity issues and other wider economic issues. I think even the human wave approach would not make a massive difference to house prices for a long time because the shortage has been so bad for so long.

If people are given a real choice between living in the city in appartments and living in well connected villages with more space and yards and things like that, then I expect there'd be demand for both. Lots of folks are willing to trade a certain amount of commuting time and distance from the downtown action for more spece. IMO, good housing policy should increase stock in both types of areas and improve transport infrastructure so folks can make choices that suit them.

Yeah - absolutely. My view is very much build everything everywhere and in terms of housing let the market decide but we set a target for vacant housing (like the French model). Rather than using data to model where we think growth will be and building a "housing plan" etc.

I also just think there is something incredibly, distressingly British about the attitude of "well the cities have already done well enough so let's put an artificial pause on their growth, while we try to build new towns." It's very tall poppy syndrome (and not unlike the way post-war governments suppressed growth in the Midlands because it was getting out of hand compared to the rest of the country) - let the cities grow and build new towns, I think that's part of allowing different approaches in different places as determined by locals and the market.

Edit: And it is broadly the French model which I think sounds sensible - but I'd be happy to adopt the Dutch or German as well as they also seem to work better.

Edit: Practically I also think "yes I support development in principle but not this type of development" is basically soft NIMBYism It's a big issue in my area which is very developed but still has people opposing any other developments for various reasons. And I just don't think it deals with the reality that we have - for about 20 years - been building 100,000 too few homes to keep up with population growth and we're now right at the edge of that and going to feel the impact soon.

[Jacob]

I know nothing about the French model, except what you just wrote. Are they not experiencing the massive growth in housing prices and lack of availability we've seen in many other places?

[Josquius]

Yeah - if the people Bigby want that development then they need to organise. I can't think of every coming across an actual YIMBY push by people.

Ultimately we have this issue because we're a democracy with a discretionary planning system and most people don't want new houses built near them. And there's always a reason, but I think it basically just boils down to people not wanting new houses near them.

The trouble with how it works now though is only Littlebergers would be counted as local. The Bigby people wouldn't be.
And even once they were... It's a lot easier to whip up negative feelings about developments than positive ones - and even there they usually only get a few sad retired people on top of the literal nimbys.

It's less YIMBY I'm calling for here and more Yes In My Area.
Maybe that means they're still NIMBYs. They want it but not in a way that personally impedes them. And this is sad but it's human nature. However the onus here should then be on the Nimby to show a better option than their back yard rather than just fight any development.
The broader community has decided 1000 houses are needed - so you tell us where if not on the field where you walk your dog.

Sure I suppose my point is this is why I think we need a human wave approach.

We are already trying to micro-manage housing developments. I don't think we also then need to do it around wider economic goals. We need to build more housing everywhere.

Yes. I'm not opposed to more flats in cities.
However resources are finite and we should make best use of all the resources we have to get the most efficient use out of them.
I don't think this lies in just blindly building more everywhere until we run out of money,builders, political capital, etc...

[Sheilbh]

I know nothing about the French model, except what you just wrote. Are they not experiencing the massive growth in housing prices and lack of availability we've seen in many other places?

I think - from that chart earlier - that lack of availability is significantly more extreme in England. France isn't even that high on that chart it's just a nearby neighbour - similar size population (though we're far more densely populated so it would probably be worth looking at the Dutch who are great at building new housing). I think it's also a bit of a provocation - especially for the centre-right - that actually our system is based on almost central planning while the French rely on market forces

But in England 0.9% of homes are long-term vacant, in France it's 8.2%; in London it's 0.7%, in Paris it's 6.5%. Paris is building homes to get to a target of 8% vacant by 2035 because they think 6.5% is too tight. Housing cost as a proportion of income in France is lower significantly than in the UK (especially for people on lower incomes) - I think part of that is supply and that we don't have much empty housing stock.

There's definitely a low interest rate/financialisation side of it too looking for reliable assets which I think is global and I think possibly an issue with global capital flows.

Yes. I'm not opposed to more flats in cities.
However resources are finite and we should make best use of all the resources we have to get the most efficient use out of them.
I don't think this lies in just blindly building more everywhere until we run out of money,builders, political capital, etc...

Resources are finite but I think the bigger issue here is our entire discretionary planning system. Every proposal needs to obtain planning permission, local councils vote on decisions by planning officers, central government can call decisions above a certain size in for review (Gups would actually know about this - I do not). But the entire system is set up so permission is what requires action and the default is nothing can be built. I think we probably need to reverse that - while obviously protecting genuine green belt and community assets etc - so the default is that you can build (if you meet minimum standards which councils should set) and it takes action to reject it.

In terms of blindly building everywhere that's where I think the market and local needs comes in - that is the best way of working out where there's demand not government modelling household growth and allocating each region a requirement to grant x hundred thousand permissions as part of a strategic plan. I also think it's where getting rid of right-to-buy would help because it'd allow local councils to invest again (and they should be allowed to borrow to do it). I'm fairly relaxed on the risk of running out of money (in general), but on this particularly because I think lack of housing really holds our economy back and also means we are spending more of our income on housing than almost anyone (I think in the OECD it's higher only in Chile and New Zealand).

[Sheilbh]

Police preparing to hand out first tranche of fines over covid breaches in Downing Street:

Robert Peston
@Peston
The Cabinet Office has been told that an initial tranche of approximately 20 officials will be fined in next day or so for partying in breach of Covid19 restrictions. These are the "easiest cases", the "low hanging fruit" according to a source...
Importantly they are just the first wave. There are many Downing St events with cake and/or wine on which the Met has not yet reached a definitive decision. It's thought no decision has yet been made on whether Boris Johnson will be fined. And as for Sue Gray's report into...
so-called Partygate, it won't be published till all fines are levied, and that's thought still to be weeks or even months away. Expect confirmation on some of this from Met tomorrow

Edit: Feels like it's not great if the fines for wrongdoing have to come in tranches

[Admiral Yi]

Sorry if I've asked this before.

Is fly tipping as big a thing as youtube makes it appear?  If so, is it because of outrageous dumping fees?

[Josquius]

In terms of blindly building everywhere that's where I think the market and local needs comes in - that is the best way of working out where there's demand not government modelling household growth and allocating each region a requirement to grant x hundred thousand permissions as part of a strategic plan.

There you again run into the problem of how local is local. These days it tends to be much too local.

There's also a big problem with leaving things up to local authorities in that everyone wants to be the same thing. Nobody wants to be the place full of low income housing. They're all going to pursue more upmarket housing.

Sorry if I've asked this before.

Is fly tipping as big a thing as youtube makes it appear?  If so, is it because of outrageous dumping fees?

I've no idea what you've been seeing on youtube.
It does happen. And it's dumb as public tips don't charge. It tends to be very localised with some spots getting a lot of it whilst wealthier people might never see it.

[mongers]

Sorry if I've asked this before.

Is fly tipping as big a thing as youtube makes it appear?  If so, is it because of outrageous dumping fees?

Yes it's quite bad in rural areas close conurbations, say upto 5 miles from the built up area.