Square Deal on Housing

By Nick Boles, October 19, 2017

One of the basic promises of Britain’s free society is that anyone who works hard and saves up for a few years should be able buy a decent home at a price they can afford. The greatest scandal of the past two decades is the failure of political leaders to keep this promise. Through cowardice and complacency, we have stood by while the ordinary dream of owning a home has turned into a nightmare.

Origins of an oligopoly

For twenty years it has been clear that Britain has a fundamental problem with its housing market and its housebuilding industry. A market that is prone to price booms and busts is supplied by an industry which is incapable of building enough new homes every year to keep pace with the needs of our growing population. For twenty years we have known that the main victims of this dysfunctional market would be those in the next generation who are not lucky enough to inherit a deposit from their parents and are not paid enough to have any chance of saving up for one by themselves. Nearly two of these generations have now come of age. The vision of home ownership that we laid before them has turned out to be a mirage. For twenty years, successive governments have tinkered with reform but shied away from the policies needed to break the logjam in the land market and change the behaviour of the housebuilding industry. Why? Because they have all been too worried about the reactions of those with vested interests in the existing system: landowners, major housebuilders and those lucky enough to own their own home already. If Britain ends up with a government of the populist left that decides to nationalise the housebuilding industry and levy new taxes on private property, then we know who to blame: those believers in a free society, elected to positions of power, who saw the problem, knew what needed to be done and failed to find the courage to do it.

The root of the low supply and high cost of housing in most parts of the UK is the planning system. As a country, after the war, we decided to nationalise development rights, bringing an end to landowners’ freedom to build what they wanted on the land that they owned. In future, they would have to apply to local planning authorities for permission before they could embark on any new development. By doing this we engineered a dramatic restriction of the amount of land available for development. In areas where the demand for new houses and commercial space was high, the combination of high demand and tightly restricted supply had a predictable result: a massive increase in land prices leading to a similar increase in house prices.

But blaming the planning system for our housing shortage is banal and a bit beside the point. The planning system reflects the fervent desire of the British people to protect the countryside against urban sprawl and avoid the desecration of ancient landscapes by inappropriate building. It is entirely legitimate for people to want to do this. Indeed, I believe they are right to do so. Although it makes the task more complicated, there is no reason why we shouldn’t retain a system of planning controls and still manage to build enough houses to keep house prices stable and meet the needs of our population.  But we need to have a clear understanding of the economic impact of the planning system, if we want to design policies to counteract its most damaging side effects.

The planning system has erected a daunting barrier to entry for new housebuilders. Previously, anyone could buy a plot of land, get an architect to draw up some designs and hire a local builder to build a few houses. The only requirement was the capacity to finance the purchase of the land and the construction of the houses until they could be sold. If house prices in an area went up by much more than inflation, would-be developers would rush into buy up plots of land and build additional houses to satisfy the demand.

This free market in housebuilding no longer exists. To get planning permission to build houses on a plot of land requires expertise on a huge range of subjects and takes a lot of time. The proliferation of rules on the design of footpaths, the protection of newts and the avoidance of flooding – all of them matters of genuine public concern – means that a housebuilder has to have the capacity to fund a much longer, slower and more expensive process, and to tolerate a certain level of failure and rejection, before they can start building a single house. As a result, the number of suppliers of new houses has collapsed. Instead of a free market with a potentially unlimited number of suppliers, we have created an oligopoly, with utterly predictable results. A small number of large housebuilders produce between them far fewer houses of a lower quality and at a much higher cost than the free market would. Sheltered by the planning system from competition by new entrants, they fail to innovate or invest in new, more efficient ways of building houses. And the consumer just has to take what she’s given.

No doubt the planning system can be improved. The Coalition government made a big effort to reform it with the introduction of the National Planning Policy Framework and the expansion of permitted development rights. As one of the ministers responsible, I believe we made the planning system a bit more accessible, predictable and streamlined. The percentage of planning applications that are approved has gone up and more houses are being built each year. But the fundamental truth remains: the modern planning system creates a barrier to entry which has turned the housebuilding industry into a state-sponsored oligopoly. Since we want to keep the planning system in something like its current form, we must find other levers to bust open the oligopoly and boost the supply of new homes.

We need to do three big things. First, we need to increase the amount of land made available for housebuilding each year. Second, we need to twist the arms of the major housebuilders to build out sites more quickly than they would, if left to their own devices. And third, we need to bring in new suppliers of housing – ones which won’t immediately start behaving like members of the oligopoly, and restricting output to keep prices (and the value of their land banks) high.

This land is your land

The government is right to dangle tastier carrots in front of local councils (and prod them with sharper sticks) in the hope that they will then allocate enough land in their local plans to meet their housing needs. But this will not be enough. We should give councils new responsibilities to bring land forward for development and new powers to ensure that development benefits the wider community. Currently, councils play a reactive role. They wait for landowners and developers to propose sites and then respond by granting planning permission subject to a large number of conditions and the negotiation of a Section 106 agreement, which is meant to secure reasonable financial contributions from the developer to the cost of improving local infrastructure. The process is tortuous and expensive. Developers are adept at keeping their financial contributions to a minimum. As a result, necessary improvements to local infrastructure are underfunded and local people become even more hostile to new development.

We should move towards the system that operates in Germany, which I first got to know when, as planning minister, I visited some of the superb new extensions to the city of Freiburg in 2013. There, local councils take the lead in acquiring land for major developments and putting in the necessary basic infrastructure – roads, sewers and utilities as well as parks and schools – before selling off serviced plots so that private developers can start building houses. They have the power to purchase land compulsorily at a value that relates to its current use and not its future use as a development site. As a result, councils are able to capture most of the increase in land value and use the money to fund the infrastructure that unlocks sites for development and offers benefits to the wider community.

To introduce a similar system in England, we will have to change our laws on compulsory purchase, specifically the 1961 Land Compensation Act, and give local councils (and their development corporations) the power to buy land at its ‘current use value’, if it is going to be used to meet the community’s need for housing or other kinds of development. It would be a mistake to restrict the new powers to brownfield sites, as was proposed in the last Conservative manifesto, as large urban extensions will usually involve a mixture of brownfield and greenfield land. Instead we should seek cross-party support for a broad reform to the land market which ensures that the interests of the community in meeting housing need and maintaining high quality infrastructure are balanced against the rights of landowners to receive fair value for their property (1).

Use it or lose it

Getting major housebuilders to build out sites more quickly will require targeted intervention to make delay less attractive to them. Currently, when housebuilders apply for planning permission to build a total of, say, 450 houses on particular site, they will tell the planning authority (the local council) that they will build it out at a rate of 150 houses a year over three years. They know that councils will want the site to be built out quickly so they don’t have to go through the politically painful process of granting planning permission on lots of other sites to meet their housing need. But once planning permission has been granted, most housebuilders will slow down their build-out rate – especially if they get the sense that sale prices are softening. They do so secure in the knowledge that the local authority will usually have no choice but to renew the planning permission and give them more time to complete the development. When all major housebuilders do this – and they all do – the number of houses completed each year falls substantially.

The most powerful way of altering the calculation of housebuilders without unreasonably restricting their ability to manage their businesses would be to introduce a requirement that they offer at book value any plots that they fail to build out on schedule to other builders who are willing to start building immediately. Individual plots with planning permission and small parcels of such plots would offer opportunities to self-builders (individuals and families who want to commission a home of their own) and small, local builders who lack the capital to fund a strategic land bank. The major housebuilders will naturally object to this intervention. But a plot of land with planning permission is the product of the marriage between a private asset (the land) and a public asset (the permission to build.) It is not unreasonable for government to insist on defending the public interest in seeing the plot built out in a timely way. Housebuilders will not be required to make a loss as they will receive book value. If they want to avoid being forced to sell plots to other builders, all they need to do is to build out on the agreed schedule.

Making undeveloped plots available to small builders will increase the speed at which sites with planning permission are built out, and boost the overall number of houses built each year. But it isn’t going to transform the housebuilding industry in the fundamental way that is required. For this we need a new source of supply that is immune to the economic forces that shape the behaviour of the oligopoly.

Grenfell Housing Commission

Central government needs to get into the business of building houses. At the moment, we are in the worst of all worlds: the state has made a massively distorting intervention in the free market by nationalising landowners’ rights to develop their land and introducing the planning system. If we want to maintain this form of state control over land use, and for the most part we do, then we cannot stop there. We have to give government the responsibility for making sure that the land market works properly, and that enough new houses are built every year to meet housing need and prevent property price bubbles.

The Government should relaunch the Homes and Communities Agency as the Grenfell Housing Commission and give it the responsibility of building half a million new homes over the next 10 years. There could be no better memorial to the people who lost their lives in the appalling disaster that engulfed the Grenfell Tower than building 500,000 new affordable homes. The Commission will require deep pockets to fund this. The Treasury should organise a dedicated bond issue (the Grenfell Housing bond), in which savers are offered special tax incentives to invest money over the very long term. The bond issue should be promoted as a patriotic investment in the same way as War Bonds, and marketed with the same gusto as shares in privatised utilities under the Sid campaign.

Government departments should be required by the Treasury to transfer all public-sector land that is not in current operational use to the Commission. Departments that refuse to do this should be denied all capital allocations until they comply. The Commission should be given the responsibility of setting up development corporations in concert with directly elected Mayors and other local councils around the country. Access to the Commission’s funding would be conditional on the commitment of local holdings of public land and the contractual agreement of ambitious targets and timescales for new house building.  As well as pooling the land holdings of central and local government, the new development corporations would be expected to use the new powers of compulsory purchase to buy land at ‘current use value.’ Like the development corporations that built Milton Keynes and the other new towns, they would then take responsibility for driving the process of development: drawing up masterplans, hiring contractors to install basic infrastructure, and tendering building contracts for each plot, in which the delivery timetable is clearly specified and there are severe penalties for delay.

The majority of the new homes built by the Grenfell Housing Commission should be affordable, because it will be decades before house prices have moderated to levels that ordinary working people can afford. But they should all offer an easy route to ownership. The Commission should actively promote experimentation with mixed-tenure models of social housing like shared equity and rent-to-buy as well as new models like starter homes. Community Land Trusts have particular potential because they offer the possibility of home ownership that is insulated from inflation in land values. When someone buys (or part-buys) a house or flat, the Trust retains the ownership of the land and controls further sales so that the property is sold on to people who meet the Trust’s social goals (e.g. supporting young people who grew up in the area and are on modest incomes, or people who fulfil particular roles in the local community or in local public services.) In this way, a single home can help a whole series of people take that first step onto the property ladder.

The Commission would have an initial target of completing 50,000 new homes a year. But the government should explicitly reserve the right to ask the Commission to increase supply if major housebuilders respond by cutting their output below current levels. In this way, the Commission can act as the swing producer in the housebuilding industry, increasing volumes to maintain overall levels of supply and keep prices stable in real terms. Once the Commission and its satellite development corporations have established themselves as consistent suppliers of at least 50,000 new homes a year, the major housebuilders will realise that they can no longer maximise profits by restricting supply. New housebuilders will spring up, having been created to tender for construction contracts with the new development corporations. The major housebuilders will have to confront the reality that they need to behave more like suppliers in a truly free market. We will finally see some innovation in housebuilding and the quality of housing design and construction will improve.

These three measures – reforming councils’ role in land assembly, penalising housebuilders who do not build out sites on schedule and setting up a series of development corporations as major new sources of housing supply – will each make a significant impact on the numbers of new homes that are completed every year. There is one more thing we should do to increase the amount of residential living space and reassure people that we are making maximum use of already developed land and not building on any more open countryside than is necessary.

Passport to Pimlico

England’s cities accommodate relatively few people per hectare compared to cities elsewhere in the world. London accommodates 55 people per hectare on average and 101 people per hectare in inner London. The population density of Bristol is 52 people per hectare, Oxford’s is 35 people per hectare and Peterborough’s is only 5. By contrast, there are 213 people per hectare in inner Paris and 286 people per hectare in central Madrid (2). The relatively low density of English cities stems in part from the welcome presence of large parks in our city centres, but mainly from our greater reliance on two-storey houses rather than the multi-storey apartment buildings that are common on the continent. To maximise the use of already developed land and the associated infrastructure, we should introduce a new permitted development right for any residential property in an urban or suburban area but outside a conservation area. This should allow the addition of one or two storeys up to a maximum of four storeys without the need for planning permission but subject to a design code specifying architectural style and materials so that the character of an area is maintained. Pimlico and Kensington are some of the most desirable and expensive parts of London. They are characterised by four and five storey terraces. There is no reason why building up to this level should blight an area. People could use the new freedom to add bedrooms for a growing family, to build granny flats for elderly relatives or to create separate living space that can be let out to tenants.

Fixing the housing crisis in England will take decades. There is nothing any government can do to make homes dramatically more affordable in the space of a single parliamentary term. But the government that finally grapples with the housebuilding oligopoly and ensures that we build at least 250,000 new homes every year has a chance of persuading people in their 20s, 30s and 40s that somebody cares about their future, that they too will eventually get to own a home of their own.


(1) Bentley D. Civitas. 2017 The Land Question: fixing the dysfunction at the root of the housing crisis. Available at: http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/thelandquestion.pdf

(2) London First. 2015. Redefining Density: making the best use of London’s land to build more and better homes. Available at: http://londonfirst.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Redefining-Density-0915.pdf

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. Cllr Colin Dingwall says:

    Much to agree with and desperately needed reform. I make the following observations
    1. Councils sold their housing infrastructure to HA’s it would save admin costs and be quicker if councils shared services and outsourced house building to HA’s
    2. HA’s have £150 billion borrowing capacity but only build 50k homes pa because they are risk averse and don’t take on whole strategic sites.
    If they did they could use the profit from the commercial element of sites to subsidise social housing reducing the level of government grant required which would be cheaper for the taxpayer than councils borrowing and developing.
    3. We could adopt Belgian and Dutch models where a strategic site is agreed no one builder is allowed to purchase more than 20 plots at a time which increases the opportunity for SME’s and self builders to return to the market it also increases competition reduces prices and improves quality.
    4. In West Oxfordshire District Council we are concluding a new model with an institutional landowner who will develop their own site retaining ownership of the land while offering lower than HA rents but still making significantly higher returns by cutting out the promoter and developers profits. An added incentive to this model is they keep their land as security In perpetuity. What institutions really want is income they don’t really want to sell land and this model achieves just that.

  2. Gary Loveman says:

    Interesting article Sir, but I must take issue with your comment, “This Land is Your Land”.
    No it is not, the land belongs to the landowner. Whether it is 1,000 acres, 4 acres or a garden with space to build another house or two.
    We do not live in a pure Socialist State, so why should or would any landowner submit their land for development unless they were duly recompensed?
    The first of the, “Three big things” you mention are needed i.e “need to increase the amount of land made available for housebuilding each year” is hardly likely to happen if you are advocating compulsory purchase of the one finite item, i.e. land.
    If I were a landowner in a sought after area I would be very cautious about submitting it for development in the current climate.
    Like all the reports I have read by “Planning experts” your article is full of idealistic suggestions but the truth is that the main driving force for increased housebuilding, where wanted and needed, remains firmly in the hands of the Large Builders; so don’t bash them or the landowners, you need them.


    The report goes over ground covered many times before. There is nothing radical or innovative and like all good intentions on paper it is more difficult to expedite in practice.
    It is easy to find fault in anything and your efforts and energy to find solutions is what is needed to address an ever increasing shortage in housing.
    Honesty and best practice are always a good indicator of a policy that is about to be debated and possibly introduced. Life goes on but we are also about to leave the EU in order to take back control of immigration for one. In order to build double the units necessary migrant workers will be needed in their thousands as the industry is already experiencing massive skilled shortages. Make sure you inform the public of the need for a mass migrant construction work force. I am a leaver and want to see this problem solved with UK workers.
    There are numerous elements that would need to be addressed that are not included in your report but which are fundamentally needed in order to make a success of this policy.

    Your 3 main points:-

    The agenda should also consider:-

    1) LABOUR- a successful company that makes a mistake evolves by not repeating its errors.
    Governments do the opposite. Cameron pushed forward a programme to train 3 million apprentices in 2015. The industry was devastated in 2007 and thousands of experienced tradesmen left to work in other jobs never to return. That is when the scheme should have automatically started regardless of government or party policy. It takes at least 5 years to train and then become efficient at a skill. The industry lost thousands of experienced people and 5 years of austerity before the penny dropped. NHS and Education are ring fenced so should labour shortages and training be when it least needs it in order to prepare for when it does.
    2)ACCOUNTABILITY – Major contractors do not carry their own workforce. They are predominantly management contractors who employ smaller specialised subcontractors to expedite their houses. They therefore pass the responsibility of build to others and oversee it with their own management and their forms of contract. There have been numerous reports at committee then Acts of Parliament in order to protect the interests of all associated with the Industry. The big problem is all the legislation in the world will not be enough for a small contractor to challenge a multi national builder and they know it. The number of times I have been fleeced by corrupt avoidance practices is too many to mention because it costs too much in time and money for the very people who you need to build houses.
    3)RETENTION – This archaic practice of retaining money needs to stop
    Contractors already use the subcontractor and his cash to build an element of a job before paying him. He then takes a further 5% to cover himself against the contract as described in the report above. If anyone who runs a business knows cash flow is the single most important thing especially for a small subcontractor. The subcontractor uses his cash to build the houses before being paid then is penalised further with retention. All it needs is a Contractor to withhold payments which they do often for that professional small subcontractor to be in trouble. They then wait 2 years normally and have to fight for the 5% retention.
    An insurance bond in place would placate all this, give the subcontractor that added 5% of cash to build with assurances of build quality and practice in place with the bond. Contractors will fight tooth and nail to stop retention being changed. We have a major builder who has chosen not to retain monies from us and it is so much better.
    There are Chartered Institutes for many construction bodies like Builders, Civil Engineers etc but not for the group of thousands of small companies that expedite the majority of the work. There needs to be a recognised body responsible for overseeing all subcontractors independent of main Contractors. This body would have independent auditors who would be able to challenge any company employing subcontractors over the way in which it conducts itself and over how and when it pays its suppliers.It would be subscription based to pay for it and all contractors would be forced by law to accept the auditing and compliance reccomendations an auditor reported and act upon those instructions. Powers to Fine and/or revoke licenses would be possible. All reports would be subject to law and accountability to government office.
    Having an Institute would increase the professionalism of many smaller companies and also force out the companies practicing poor standards.
    The Institute would also be able to identify rogue main Contractors through its auditing procedures. The Institute would be totally separate and devoid of any association with the Main contractor.
    5)SHORT TERM POLICIES – Manufactured buildings will need to be considered in the short term. Along the similar lines of student pod construction and external cladding with masonry or concrete curtain walling for affordable homes.
    Labour to build on site insitu construction is going to be one of the biggest hurdles to overcome. One consideration would be prioritising the workforce currently in the UK who are working on non housing projects. How important are those jobs and could that labour be deployed in housing in the short term away from contract and moved to residential developments.

    The construction industry has not evolved much over the last 20 years but it has improved immeasurably with regards to health and safety.
    It needs to be more professional and the people who actually build the houses need to be recognised and protected properly by an external agency overseeing good practice.

  4. Kayruss says:

    No mention has been made of the difficulty in obtaining or increasing mortgage loans for buyers.
    If properties are for rent, the majority of people seem to prefer the security of being under the umbrella of local council or housing association ownership as they should be about providing a service rather than making a profit as private landlords do.

  5. I don’t believe that planning is such a big issue, it is the national house builders holding huge land banks and using them for investment purposes that contributes to the shortage of housing. However, the three major issues have not been addressed:-
    (1) We don’t have the skilled resources to build anymore traditionally built houses and the Eastern Europeans are flooding back home due to Brexit.
    (2) The quality of current construction apprenticeships is dire and FE Colleges are by and large not fit for purpose, hence we cannot attract young people into the sector.
    (3)!The quality of housing built by national contractors is dreadful. Far too expensive, poorly insulated and bad value for money. We must not expect the construction sector to solve this problem because they will not change their lucrative model. The answer is modular off site construction creating an engineered product with low maintenance costs in new factories where the demand is greatest and in the process creating a new semi skilled workforce.

  6. Kevin Moss says:

    Terrific stuff – like a breath a fresh air over a stagnant swamp. It has always been unfair that a landowner should “win the jackpot” just because their land suddenly receives planning permission. Landowners will of course hate this, but they’ll hate Jeremy Corbyn just as much . Local government can currently borrow for commercial development but not housing – my 20-something children find this absolutely unbelievable. People of my (older) generation are just going to have to cast off our “Nimby” tendencies and stop bleating about schools and doctors every time a housing development is proposed. As someone who naturally favours free markets and sound economics I agree totally that unless dramatic developments are made in housing, pay inequalities and corporate greed there will be just too many people who see free-market capitalism as something that has delivered them nothing.

  7. Mark Porter says:

    There are a host of good points and aims in the original article, and the above responses. The great majority of them are worth pursuing; the German system seems a good basis for changes (unless you are lucky enough to be one of the few people who own land in this country)

    Much of the drive now is for ‘affordable’ housing. This means dwellings which are much smaller than most people would like to live in, squeezed in on the plot so that they are almost touching, and not built to a very high standard of finish.

    Twenty or thirty years ago, it was possible to buy a good-sized house, with a decent-sized garden and rooms, for a multiple of two years salary in an average job. The same house now is a minimum of 10 years salary, or even 20 years.

    We need ways of going back to this system. In my view, one of the most important ways of obtaining this is to restrict both multiple and foreign ownership of properties in this country. These have both been major factors in the rise of house prices and reduced supply. If there is a shortage of housing in a country, it seems like lunacy to allow foreign investors to purchase. This has two immediate and negative effects: it restricts the number of homes available to purchase for people already living, working and paying taxes here; and it condemns someone who wants to live in that property to paying rent to do so; rent, moreover, which is money taken out of the British economy, except for periodic maintenance (which is another subject requiring debate where rented properties are concerned)

    Then we come to the fact that it is possible for wealthier, or sometimes better placed or motivated people, but generally the former nowadays, to acquire (or inherit) multiple properties and rent them out for an income. This directly benefits very few people, and places all those thereby condemned to rent to a lifetime of payments and uncertainty over tenure.

    Why should it be a given that a relatively small group of people can own many properties, and thereby make a living from the money that other people earn, whilst at the same time denying their tenants the right to own their own dwelling. To own one’s own home seems to me to be one of the most laudable aims of any person, and should be encouraged by governments and officials.

    Multiple and foreign ownership of properties should be tightly restricted, or completely banned. Anyone trying to get around this by parcelling out properties to others persons or entities should face the threat of having those properties confiscated without compensation.

    At the end of the day, why should a landlord have a right to a comfortable living or retirement, by denying these same things to other individuals in perpetuity. This is not FAIR. Not unless we have all been given equal opportunities to acquire property in the beginning. And that is patently not so.

  8. Dar says:

    We need to remember that if we do not control (and by that I mean hold steady or decrease) the rise in UK population then ultimately we will run out of building land eventually (unless we surrender all agriculture land and who would be that crazy?). I suppose we could always build higher or down further if that happened!

    But the rise in marriage failures and single person occupancy / single parent families, combined with rising net immigration since 97 from an average 7-9k a year to the gigantic 300k+ a year we now see means that not only will we run out of brown belt land soon enough (we are down to single % figures I read recently), but we will never have the labour to build enough houses to supply this demand anyway. Unless of course we import tens of thousands more immigrants with construction skills……

    But don’t we then have a dog chasing tale scenario?

  9. John Polkinghorne says:

    Affordability and quantity seem to be the only criteria needed here.How about quality? We surely are not intent on building more and more houses that do not take into account the major changes taking place in our energy industries. Changes that are bringing about new challenges and the need for new skills and approaches from architects, builders and planning officers.Failure to recognise this will lead to yet another generation of houses that will not match up to the demands of modern energy supplies.

  10. arrow says:

    I do not even know the wɑy I finished up here, but I thought this publish
    was once ɡood. I don’t realize who you’re but certainly yߋu are going to
    a well-known blogger when you aren’t alreadʏ. Cheeгs!

  11. robert says:

    Wow, is this really the same Mr Boles who, several years ago, I tried to get interested in building a few workshop units in the villages? All I got was 15 minutes of earache about why it couldn’t be done, and compulsory purchase at agricultural prices was possible the greatest. Here we are, many years on, and what has the author, or government done? As is usual, nothing.

    Why not factory build houses? The outer skin is insulated aluminium processed to look like bricks, stone, rotten wood or what have you. The inner skin is timber frame as used in Milton Keynes. All the wiring, doors, windows etc are in place, it is a simple bolt together job to erect. Even the roof could be steel roofing and assembled in one or two pieces.

    As to the investment problem, why not make an understanding that when the house is sold, the maximum price is simple the paid price plus CPI? Irrespective of any upgrades or extensions. It is STARTER homes that we want, once established then people can go on to buy anything they really want, many will be quite content.

    As for this idea of the landowner keeping the freehold, NO NO NO! Greedy b****** already have hundreds of acres, why do they need to screw the little people. On the other hand if the inheritance taxes were changed so that landed estates were taxed like normal assets then they would be only too glad to shift some land, look at the 1930’s.

  12. johnf says:

    Great article and many good comments – particularly agree that Housing Associations could be more active in new building.
    My own experience is that the Planning System is awash with regulations, some from National Govt and some from the EU and many of these regulations are of questionable value. I actually feel sympathy for Planning Officers having to deal with such complexity. However these regulations exist and there is not much realistically can be done in the short-term.
    However one thing we can do is deal with the bias in the system. If an objector raises a concern about the impact of a development on wildlife, traffic, landscape, etc then the builder has to show beyond reasonable doubt that the impact is negligible. It is difficult to prove negatives. My suggestion would be to either lower the burden of proof from “beyond reasonable doubt” to “balance of probability” or flip it so that the burden of proof is on the objector. I think this change would have a huge impact.

  13. Andrew Ferguson says:

    Again, good see you opening up the public debate and don’t disagree with much of what you say Nick. However I think you skip to lightly round one of the key issues of demand, dramatic increase in immigration, but perhaps that’s for another day.
    One area I think you have missed out is the number of empty houses, I have seen reports of 200k to 1.4m properties standing empty, this has to be a key area to address. As a small scale developer I am targeting such properties to purchase and repair, and get back into circulation. There is little or no support from the government to do this and I am only too aware of larger developers sitting on large projects year after year.
    A quick win that does not effect the green belt, need relaxation of planing rules…..something to really push I suggest.

  14. Dar says:

    @ Andrew F.

    Yes, totally agreed on empty houses. But also what about converting back to housing the empty retail properties that we are now awash with? Look at Bourne for example, how many empty shop premises are there now? A lot. They will never all be occupied again in this age of supermarkets and internet shopping. I read from local historian Rex Needle that most of the high street was originally housing anyway, so why not convert it back again?

  15. Eric Robinson says:

    Population increase from 55million to at least 65million (and rising) doesn’t play any part in this then ?
    Net migration of over 300million per year, year after year…. where do all these people live ?

  16. Stephen Burnett says:

    This is a massive issue, and the “German” solution you mention, along with some of the comments of Mr Sallabank, make good sense. We live in a house built by one of the large housebuilders in 2000. The construction quality is appalling, which I now understand having read Mr Sallabank’s contribution. This is the same housebuilder which has received much recent publicity over its >£100m reward to senior directors for achieving targets agreed-to by the board and shareholders. Your political guiding-light, Theodore Roosevelt, would spin in his grave at such a travesty.

    At the start of this chapter, you mention that politicians have successively side-stepped the house-building quagmire. What likelihood is there that we will find the politicians with the courage and energy to fix it? The two-party system in Britain is broken. These kinds of issues, housing, transport etc. really need non-party experts with long term horizons to develop solutions. I never thought I would find myself saying this (I am an entrepreneur who tends to think on my feet) but I think we need to find technocrats who will staff institutions tasked with fixing these issues. They need tight deadlines, and they MUST avoid too much public consultation (like London airport runways etc.) to come up with a plan that breaks the logjam. They will undoubtedly make some mistakes, but progress with some mistakes would be far superior to where we are today.

What do you think?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Show Buttons
Hide Buttons
Font Resize