Randomly Selected Article or Link

Whenever there’s some new planning consultation we are indebted to the CPRE for explaining its supposed consequences.

But I’m slightly confused at what appears an hysterical reaction whatever the Deputy PM’s office says. Which bits of the following do the CPRE disagree with:

That “this…paper discusses how planning delivers housing at the local level, and the new mechanisms involved…not…issues concerned with the overall level of housing growth and how it is determined…” or perhaps the core policy aim “that everyone should have the opportunity of a decent home?”

Do groups such as CPRE and the Green Belt Alliance have policy about the level of need in Oxfordshire and how to meet it? Or doesn’t it matter so long as the land values of their own homes hold up and they have somewhere to walk the gundogs? Is squalor, extortion and overcrowding for some a price worth paying for that? He mentions building for incomers while the available data suggests that 95% of Oxfordshire’s household growth is local demand.

I share their view that Green Belt development is not yet necessary, but at least some propose possible solutions, such as Land Value Tax (NOT Development Land Tax which the government is imposing and will more likely stifle development completely) or Community Land Trusts putting control of development into the hands of local communities.

We only seem to hear the “BANANA” (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything) option from such groups. They cannot be completely blind to some need – probably affecting some of their friends, colleagues and families – children whose only “affordable” option seems to become a constituent of Mr Prescott?

This consultation is about promoting planning authorities working together to identify need and plan for it across local housing markets, instead of passing the buck to their neighbours. It may even help places like Oxford actually understand the market so they can look for other ways of responding to need than simply extending the city.

But let’s not let the reality get in the way of a really good piece of scaremongering.

For a while now I've been displaying that red banner in the top right hand corner of this site showing that my blog is not available to readers in China, as if they would ever want to read it!

So I am intrigued to find the following entry in my logs today:

58.251.18.36 (whois, map)
reverse.gdsz.cncnet.net
China
Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)
Win XP
MSIE 6
Referrer: Google: housing price and money supply
Path
1 2007-11-26 08:48:41 0 seconds /money_supply_house_prices_stocks_exchange_assets_prices

So, hello China! Shall I remove the "not available" banner now?

There's lots of stuff in the weekend press about the government's plans to tackle housing shortages. The Observer runs with "It's housing, housing, housing as Brown builds a new vision" and is typical of the genre...

"The new Prime Minister has signalled his intent by kick-starting what could be the biggest building programme for 30 years, writes Nick Mathiason

"Sunday July 15, 2007
"The Observer

"Since 2000 Labour has promised a major change in the number of new homes. Headline-grabbing announcements from ministers came and went. But though Britain is now in the midst of the most prolonged housing price boom ever seen, the number of homes built annually has hardly shifted from 80-year lows of about 185,000 a year. Meanwhile, whole swathes of the population have been priced off the housing ladder.

"To remedy a chronic supply shortage, last week Gordon Brown unveiled plans to build 3 million homes by 2020. While it is easy to dismiss his announcements as yet more froth, Whitehall officials, housebuilders and regeneration specialists say radical reform and even action is in the air."

Yet, as Tristram Hunt points out in his defense of nice views for the haves against housing for the have-nots (the BANANA argument), we are told by other government figures that there are at least 65,000 hectares of derelict or underused brownfield type sites in urban areas (which is space for 2.6 million of the three million Gordon wants to see built at current urban density guidelines of forty per hectare). While Anne Ashworth, in Friday's Times, reported that the PropertyFinder website claims that 420,000 homes stand empty in disrepair in England - enough, you will notice, with the underused urban land figure, to complete Gordon's 3 million properties without putting a single JCB into the greenbelt.

Low density	High density
Which would you prefer?

But also, we have to realize that there are not 1.5 million households (the council house waiting list) out on the streets. They are mostly living somewhere - often in overcrowded and/or unaffordable conditions. Whilst research also suggests that up to 46% of all housing is "underoccupied" - with 2 or more unused bedrooms, and that contrary to the usual cris du coeur that people should be allowed to stay in their family home regardless of how empty it is, 45% of households aged 50+ say they are open to the idea of downsizing before or after retirement - though most don't and cite a lack of suitable local properties to which to downsize into as the main factor.

All of this suggests that the better way to address current housing needs is not in fact to build net new units on virgin land at all, but to promote policies that bring empty homes into use, derelict land into bloom, and remodelling of existing communities so that the needs of different ages, for downsizing as well as for growing families, can better be accommodated without chucking anyone out to the farthest flung edges of a new suburban edge of city sprawl.

But, as the TV development programs tell us, location, location, location is what matters. We are a small island. It doesn't take long to get practically anywhere. We also need mechanisms to promote natural population movement to areas that are now economically down at heel and suffering from blight - since it would probably be a good guess that most of the empty homes and a high proportion of the unused urban land is in such areas.

And here it is not just land use policy that could make a huge difference. Many international inward investors want to be near to their global markets - which means proximity to ports and airports; much of the concentration of high tech businesses in the "western arc" of the South East region is put down to proximity to Heathrow - they are competing not with Hull, but with Silicon Valley or Osaka. A proper market in landing slots encompassing all airports in the UK could make a big difference to the viability of international traffic into regional airports, and so also attractiveness for international businesses to set up around those regional airports instead of around the London ones and bring employment, and therefore housing demand, out of the South East to those airport hosting regions.

But in the final analysis, the only measure that could achieve all of these in one, together with providing a replacement revenue stream for both local and national government, and recovering government and community financial inputs to localities from the beneficiaries who see their property values rise with regeneration money and so on (Sarah Beeney et al will explain it no doubt - it is fact not conjecture), is Land Value Tax.

All other things being equal, if your corporate tax bill (or even your competitor's) in, I don't know, Bolton, is a quarter what it would be in Bracknell, and your wage costs are a quarter less because your employees don't have to pay as much for that most basic of life's needs, a home, given the chance, wouldn't you, or rather your shareholders, jump at the chance for that extra post-tax profit? And, on top of that, your investment in that low value area would be far better for that area than continuing welfare payments because of a lack of economic opportunity for the people who live there - saving huge amounts of current government redistribution welfare payments.

Land values are by nature unearned by the occupier. They are created by the growth (or decline) in the popularity of a location, the expenditure of others, including government, that goes into the services and infrastructure that creates that popularity, and the effective monopoly current occupiers have in a location. Property values are also a "false" kind of wealth - for most people, those who live in their one and only property, they only really matter in relation to their next desired home. Those land values then, are a supremely appropriate thing on which to base a tax. And the non-doms, currently the fashionable whipping boys of the property market, cannot escape them to boot.

Who could possibly ignore an idea that claims to be able to achieve all of this with one simple reform. No more forcing urban expansions where people don't want them. Lower welfare transfer payments because of a more balanced regional economic outlook. Recovering money spent on an area from the people who benefit most from that expenditure. Lower housing costs. More efficient use of the housing we've got. And encouraging redevelopment of blighted areas or underused land. It's win-win. A no-brainer. A one size really does suit all package.

Technorati Tags: affordable housing, house building review, land value tax