6 thoughts on ““Take on the NIMBYs”: IEA expert responds to planning reform proposals”

  1. Posted 10/05/2021 at 20:54 | Permalink

    This oversimplifies the problem? Land is the main barrier to any progress on the accessibility to housing issue.

    Govt should be building only public housing, plus disincentivising the rampant demand for land speculation (of corporate landlords, foreign investment, multiple home owners). The disincentives will lower prices of current houses (or rather the land that the houses sit on) and redistribute homes via the market to those who currently can’t afford them, with public housing helping those at the bottom.

  2. Posted 10/05/2021 at 21:22 | Permalink

    One can hope so.

  3. Posted 11/05/2021 at 10:49 | Permalink

    If developers actually played fairly within the rules there would probably be less objections made my local residents. It is the twisting of the truth and bending of the rules to suit the developers that certainly causes friction within our area. Not opposed to development but opposed to poor development choices and the manner in which developers pay for Consultants to distort the truth.

  4. Posted 11/05/2021 at 19:03 | Permalink

    Isn’t this a simplification of the housing problem? One of the main issues, in fact probably the main driver of escalating prices, is the speculation on land – vast demand side pressure.

    We’ve seen net migration fall in 2020, we’re on the precipice of a huge recession – yet house prices continue to rise. Some of this is due to the stamp duty holiday, which essentially increased asking prices by the average amount saved in tax, and the rest I’d argue is the constant of land speculation (which will increase when money printing increases, and interest rates stay low).

    Answer: build only public housing & disincentivise land price speculation simultaneously. The current housing stock will then be redistributed through the market (music to the ears of IEA) as it becomes more affordable, and we’ll realise there are more than enough homes to go round.

  5. Posted 12/05/2021 at 13:48 | Permalink

    Developers have over a million consents but are land banking and these are not built out / delivered. If this was addressed there would not be be a need to even consider building on farmland.
    Unfortunately developers or proposers have significant budgets and can select the evidence / reports that suit their aims and councils are not checking the “evidence” presented.
    Communities need more of a voice not less! We are not all NIMBYs!

  6. Posted 22/06/2021 at 10:15 | Permalink

    The Labour idea of taxing land occupied rather than the property is worth pursuing. Land use in the UK – 1% housing, 4% gardens. Thus to produce the “brownfield” sites needed we demolish the swathes of 1920s and 30s suburbia and early council housing and post war council estates with generous gardens and redevelop them to modern density standards.

    Those hogging valuable land (many of the NIMBYs?) seem to be the problem.

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published.