"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Build cost on a small house is £60-100k plus cots of laying in roads
services etc..and the land never comes to anything like that.

Total tripe! The land cost is the major factor.

Its just another Labour bit of spin.

You are brainwashed fool.

Basically a house represents 10% of your working life in (someone's)
labour costs.

Which is ridiculous. An acre of agricultural land can be purchased for
£2,000, a complete eco kit home for £20,000, yet the average price of a
house in the UK is near to £200,000. Obtaining planning permission to erect
a house in the countryside in a country with a land surplus will be near
impossible. Few realise that the high land value is the reason why their
homes are so expensive.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
Huge
wibbled on Friday 30 April 2010 09:57

On 2010-04-30, John wrote:
I was watching the political debate about the need for low cost houses ,
etc, etc. and it struck me that we haven't made much progress in the way
we build houses. I am not advocating 'prefabs' but there must be a way
of
'productionising' the building of houses.

Of course there is. Look at this for a rather upmarket version;

http://www.huf-haus.com/gb/intro.html

I'd cheerfully live in a Huf house.

The problem is that the Brits have been put off such things (and rightly
so in these cases) by the memories of pre-fabs and the vile
"system-built"
housing put up by local authorities in the 60's.


What about:

a) Log cabins - those can be produced in a factory, then assembled on
site.
Slotting on 1 log has to be quicker than laying a row of bricks???

b) "A robot shat my house" system (will find links if asked) - basically a
3D "robot" that extrudes a clay like mix in strips to lay down walls. Site
prep is foundations and concrete slab floors, then put up robot frame and
feed with "clay". Cavity walls are possible of course, as is more
interesting shaped houses - curves are no more difficult than straight
walls. That leaves the roof, internal upper floors and fitting out.

--
Tim Watts


Plastic houses?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8531170.stm

Adam

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 14:03:26 +0100, dennis@home wrote:


"Bruce" wrote in message
...


Our land is ridiculously expensive. It is also the main source of
profit for most large housebuilders. They buy large amounts of land
and hold it for many years as an investment. When the price has risen
sufficiently to make them a good profit, they build on it.

That does not make economic sense.
You want to buy something, increase its value and sell it as soon as
possible so you can get on with the next bit.
Remember that they will have to pay the going rate for their next plot so
the "gain" is eaten up by the next purchase.

But it does help to soak up excess profits without having to pay tax on them.
Then in future years they can realise (i.e. sell or build on) the asset. It's
like shops buying in stock in good times to cushion against lean times.


So making houses cheaper to build will make very little difference to
the final cost. Our houses are already cheaply (and poorly) built
compared with those in many European countries.

Well buy one that isn't cheaply built then.
There are self build plots available now the big builders are struggling.

Any savings are more
likely to go to increase the housebuilders' profit margins.

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 14:21:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
tim.... wrote:
"John" wrote in message
...
I was watching the political debate about the need for low cost houses ,
etc, etc. and it struck me that we haven't made much progress in the way we
build houses. I am not advocating 'prefabs' but there must be a way of
'productionising' the building of houses. When my development was being
built it just seemed that the methods were unchanged and relied upon good
skills and lowish labour costs to get the job done. Wastage was tremendous.

I think the problem is that the reason houses are "unaffordable" is because
of the cost of the land.

Even if we halved the build cost they would still be unaffordable.


absolute rubbish

Build cost on a small house is £60-100k plus cots of laying in roads
services etc..and the land never comes to anything like that.

Au contraire .... very, very contraire.
My 800 sq ft. house is valued at around £300k (difficult to say exactly
as so few houses are selling around here). The property insurance lists
the estimated cost of _clearing_ _the _site_ and rebuilding the house at
just over £100k. The rest of the "value" is the plot it's built on.

On 30 Apr, 13:34, Jules Richardson
wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:36:17 +0100, John wrote:
I was watching the political debate about the need for low cost houses ,
etc, etc. and it struck me that we haven't made much progress in the way
we build houses. I am not advocating 'prefabs' but there must be a way
of 'productionising' the building of houses.

It's interesting watching them in countries (such as where I am) making
them from wood - they go up *fast*. Takes very little time to prep the
site, get the foundation/subfloor in, then put the framework up. Trusses
can be pre-assembled elsewhere and brought in if needed, speeding things
up further. It's common for people here to buy some land and just have a
house built on it to their spec, because it's the land that's expensive,
not the house that sits upon it.

Perhaps the key for the UK is to not use brick for the low-cost stuff?
The climate seems OK for it (wood-framed structures are used in plenty of
areas with more extreme climates), and there's no seismic aspect to worry
about.

Over longer timescales there are longevity issues - but it's probably
still good for 100 years *if maintenance is kept up with*, and I'm not
certain that the typical Barratt shed is designed to last much beyod
that, either.

cheers

Jules

Jules, the stereotype US house (from movies etc ;-) is a concrete
basement with a timber house on top. Are the basements still common -
that must take a while with poured concrete etc ?
Simon.

pete gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

Build cost on a small house is £60-100k plus cots of laying in roads
services etc..and the land never comes to anything like that.

Au contraire .... very, very contraire. My 800 sq ft. house is valued at
around £300k (difficult to say exactly as so few houses are selling
around here). The property insurance lists the estimated cost of
_clearing_ _the _site_ and rebuilding the house at just over £100k. The
rest of the "value" is the plot it's built on.

Indeed. Around us, it's far from unknown for (even million quid plus)
perfectly viable houses in good order to be bought, promptly demolished,
and a new house built on the site - rarely are the plots subdivided.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Well said. It's the wholly artificial restriction of supply of
building land that is the root of the problem.
No it is not.

Total ********! You haven't a clue. No wonder he votes Tory.

Take that away and the countryside would vanish,

At only 7.5% settled there is too much to vanish.

along with all our agriculture, and the country become a mass of
unaffordable low rent shacks connected by an inadequate road system to non
existent jobs.

The current developer hoems are little more than shacks with cardboard
eggshell walls clad in brick to hide the fact. The homes are also feet from
each other like battery hutches.

Releasing land will give cheaper land and higher quality homes. Building
regs can assist in ensuring minimum sizes and sound proofing and conforming
to the local vernacular.

There's plenty of suitable land, of limited value for other uses - but
rigid artificial controls result in a 10-20X difference in value.

No, there is not.

He is totally right. You are a NIMBY pillock

The land that is available is all well away from where its of any use to
anyone. Like Scotland.

None of it can be built on. The Lairds even own the land right up to
Inverness and will NOT SELL and no PP can be given.

Bags of space up there, but no one wants to live there.

Plenty would like to live there, but they can't build on the masses of land.
It is that bad people have resorted to live in trailers and it is a way of
getting around the ridiculous planning laws which favour large landowners.
They blot the countryside. So much for protecting it by not letting people
build.

In fact there's a huge government funding opportunity there - buy up
suitable land not currently designated for building, redesignate it
(you're the government, you can do what you like) - sell it, and pay
off masses of the national debt.

Communism and a land grab that even Mugabe only dreamed of.

Communism? he sees reds under the bed all the time. He went to snotty uni
and votes Tory you know. Or implement Land Value Taxation. They own the
land but impose a tax on its "value" an drop income tax and Council tax. If
they can't pay the tax, which is currently untaxed, then they have to sell
to someone who can make productive use of the land.

"pete" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 14:03:26 +0100, dennis@home wrote:


"Bruce" wrote in message
...

Our land is ridiculously expensive. It is also the main source of
profit for most large housebuilders. They buy large amounts of land
and hold it for many years as an investment. When the price has risen
sufficiently to make them a good profit, they build on it.

That does not make economic sense.
You want to buy something, increase its value and sell it as soon as
possible so you can get on with the next bit.
Remember that they will have to pay the going rate for their next plot so
the "gain" is eaten up by the next purchase.

But it does help to soak up excess profits without having to pay tax on
them.
Then in future years they can realise (i.e. sell or build on) the asset.
It's
like shops buying in stock in good times to cushion against lean times.

Stock can deteriorate and go out of fashion. Land doesn't.
Stock needs storing and that costs. Land doesn't.
Buying stock contributes to economic growth. Land doesn't.

Hoarding land creates an artificial land shortage ratcheting up house prices
keeping people from buying homes. Storing stock doesn't.

Big difference. Speculation on land should be stopped. It was responsible
for the 1929 and 2008 crashes.

"pete" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 14:21:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
tim.... wrote:
"John" wrote in message
...
I was watching the political debate about the need for low cost houses
,
etc, etc. and it struck me that we haven't made much progress in the
way we
build houses. I am not advocating 'prefabs' but there must be a way of
'productionising' the building of houses. When my development was being
built it just seemed that the methods were unchanged and relied upon
good
skills and lowish labour costs to get the job done. Wastage was
tremendous.

I think the problem is that the reason houses are "unaffordable" is
because
of the cost of the land.

Even if we halved the build cost they would still be unaffordable.


absolute rubbish

Build cost on a small house is £60-100k plus cots of laying in roads
services etc..and the land never comes to anything like that.

Au contraire .... very, very contraire.
My 800 sq ft. house is valued at around £300k (difficult to say exactly
as so few houses are selling around here). The property insurance lists
the estimated cost of _clearing_ _the _site_ and rebuilding the house at
just over £100k. The rest of the "value" is the plot it's built on.

Yep. About right.Average is 2/3 the land value. It is ridiculous.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

snip

High prices for very small high density homes are the norm in the United
Kingdom. UK house prices are amongst the highest in the world in
comparison to comparable countries. The more land is a greater part of
the total house price the higher house prices become. An acre of
agricultural land can be purchased for £2,000, an attrcative, complete
eco kit home for £20,000, yet the average price of a house in the UK is
near to £200,000. Obtaining planning permission to erect a house in the
countryside in a country with a land surplus will be near impossible.
Few realise that the high land value is the reason why their homes are
so expensive.

Dribble doesn't half post drivel. He can't get even the most basic of
facts right. OK so you can buy agricultural land for £2000 an acre but
not where commuters would want to live. No roads, no schools, no
infrastructure of any kind. According to the latest report on the VOA site:

http://www.voa.gov.uk/publications/p...quipped_vacant

Only hill land can be had for as little as £2000 and in some regions the
average is above that. East and West Midlands, Eastern and South East
Regions have so little hill land that average hill land prices are not
reported. Good farmland in England and Wales averages about £5000 an acre.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

Our land is ridiculously expensive. It is also the main source of
profit for most large housebuilders. They buy large amounts of land
and hold it for many years as an investment. When the price has risen
sufficiently to make them a good profit, they build on it.

That does not make economic sense.

It does. That is whay they do it. They can buy land at say a million
and in 5 years it will be worth 10. Where can you get that return from
doing NOTHING. They pay no tax on that land. Land value Taxation will
cut all that out. Speculators are a curse. hey caused financial crashes.

More downright nonsense from Dribble. It costs money to invest in real
estate. The real gain is in obtaining planning permission otherwise the
rise in value of the land may not keep pace with inflation. Having a
land bank with planning permission may indeed see rapid increases if it
is in the right place at the right time but a developer can't realise
his profits without paying tax on them and tax on trading profits at
that, not capital gains tax.

It might be different for Johnny Foreigner who buys a shooting estate in
Scotland and manages to sell it on at a handsome profit some years later
but even that loophole could have been blocked by now with one of
Brown's stealth taxes. Contrary to Dribble's allegations not all big
land owners are blue blooded. One of the estates I am thinking of was
owned for a time by a member of what has been described as the 'Beerage'
and that certainly passed into foreign hands.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
On 30 Apr, 11:14, Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:43:34 +0100, The Natural Philosopher


Well said. It's the wholly artificial restriction of supply of
building land that is the root of the problem.


No it is not.

Take that away and the countryside would vanish, along with all our
agriculture, and the country become a mass of unaffordable low rent
shacks connected by an inadequate road system to non existent jobs.


There's plenty of suitable land, of limited value for other uses -
but rigid artificial controls result in a 10-20X difference in value.


No, there is not.

The land that is available is all well away from where its of any use
to anyone. Like Scotland.

Bags of space up there, but no one wants to live there. No jobs, crap
climate etc.

I'm with Drivel here. You're talking unbelievable rot.

There are huge expanses of land sat on by the big home builders, who act in
a very similar way to De Beers do with diamonds.

Scotland doesn't have a subsidised transport system in the same way the
South East does. It's a long way from Industrialised Europe. Why do you
think getting planning consent in Scotland is so much easier than in Kent?

Germany and Austria are countries with practical planning policies to ensure
land is made available with demand, and hence haven't had the same wild
fluctuation in house prices as seen in the UK.

wrote:
Only 7.5% of the UK is settled.

I thought it was 5%.

Whichever - it's small.


It is MASSIVE

Compared with say the USA.

These figures are completely meaningless. You cant say 'only 7% is
settled' when you need the rest for airports, roads, farmland, parks and
the like: A better comparison is to look at density in terms of people
per square kilometer.

If you look at England, and leave out Scotland and Wales and Ireland,
you will find that it is probably the most densely populated country in
Europe, if not the world.



The UK now produces 80% of it's own food - much of the remainder being
stuff that can't realistically be produced here.


*Much* less than that. And even less if you build houses all over farmland.

(Domestic food production was 50% in wartime - modern farming methods
produce more food with 10% of the workforce).


You seem to know as little about farming as anything else. Typical left
wing townie. WE grow very few crops of any note whatsoever. average
quality wheat, barley for brewing anmd animal feed, a little otas and
rye. Most of our bread is made from imported Durm wheat,which we cantt
grow here. All maize is imported. We do grow potatoes, and some other
veghetables, but e bulk are imported from elsewhere.

We are pretty self sufficient in meat, and other proteins, its true.



In fact there's plenty of space left - if it seems overcrowded, it's
because were not building the infrastructure needed.

We could *double* the amount of the country that's built on, whilst
only reducing the available agricultural land by 5%.


Er, no. Most of the land is NOT agricultural. Its basically wilderness
that no one wants.

Tale a look with google earth, at scotland, the pennines, the welsh
mountains etc.

And ask yourself why, when there is so much empty land that no one is
using for ANYthing, no one has built on it already..

As usual, you have fallen for the simple lies that people make
statistics tell, and lack the ability to think the true solution through.

On Apr 30, 10:22*am, sm_jamieson wrote:
On 30 Apr, 09:36, "John" wrote:

I was watching the political debate about the need for low cost houses ,
etc, etc. and it struck me that we haven't made much progress in the way we
build houses. I am not advocating 'prefabs' but there must be a way of
'productionising' the building of houses. When my development was being
built it just seemed that the methods were unchanged and relied upon good
skills and lowish labour costs to get the job done. Wastage was tremendous.

Surely we could use some of the methods that are used in commercial
buildings - sheet materials, steel frames, etc and get away from the concept
of building a house out of items that a man can hold in his hand *(bricks,
tiles, etc). At the same time insulation could be improved. Wiring could be
pre- assembled - as could parts of the plumbing system.

I think the mortage and insurance companies are part of the problem.
They look unfavorably on anything non-standard. Also, system-built
houses in this country do not have a good reputation. And most houses/
plots are too small to allow thick ultra-insulated walls. Interior
size is always at a premium.

And its well known that planning departments often get in the way of
new types of build which look different.

As an aside, the method of waterproofing houses always seems strange
to me. Make the outer skin out of something porous and then think how
to deal with the damp that comes through !
Why not clad the whole outside in huge plastic panels - they could be
made with a nice finish.

Simon.

That's a common misunderstanding. The net movment of water vapour is
from inside to out, not the other way round. Wrap a porous building in
plastic and you get a damp problem.


NT

On 30 Apr, 18:28, NT wrote:
On Apr 30, 10:22 am, sm_jamieson wrote:



On 30 Apr, 09:36, "John" wrote:

I was watching the political debate about the need for low cost houses ,
etc, etc. and it struck me that we haven't made much progress in the way we
build houses. I am not advocating 'prefabs' but there must be a way of
'productionising' the building of houses. When my development was being
built it just seemed that the methods were unchanged and relied upon good
skills and lowish labour costs to get the job done. Wastage was tremendous.

Surely we could use some of the methods that are used in commercial
buildings - sheet materials, steel frames, etc and get away from the concept
of building a house out of items that a man can hold in his hand (bricks,
tiles, etc). At the same time insulation could be improved. Wiring could be
pre- assembled - as could parts of the plumbing system.

I think the mortage and insurance companies are part of the problem.
They look unfavorably on anything non-standard. Also, system-built
houses in this country do not have a good reputation. And most houses/
plots are too small to allow thick ultra-insulated walls. Interior
size is always at a premium.

And its well known that planning departments often get in the way of
new types of build which look different.

As an aside, the method of waterproofing houses always seems strange
to me. Make the outer skin out of something porous and then think how
to deal with the damp that comes through !
Why not clad the whole outside in huge plastic panels - they could be
made with a nice finish.

Simon.

That's a common misunderstanding. The net movment of water vapour is
from inside to out, not the other way round. Wrap a porous building in
plastic and you get a damp problem.

NT

shurely water vapour will always move from areas of high humidity to
areas of low humidity be they inside or outside?

as long as you controlled the humidity buildup inside via *another
way* there would be no issues.....

JimK

Tim Streater wrote:

And, you planning permission does not last forever. If you don't
actually start construction within some time frame (typically 5 years),
then it expires.

That probably isn't too much of a problem. Renewing planning permission
is usually routine and may be automatic if got in time for all I know.
The other point I would make is that land is zoned for certain types of
development so outline PP within the right zone is a walkover and
translating that into detailed PP is less of a problem for a developer
who will cut his suit to please the the planners than for a private
developer with very definite views on what *he* wants to live in.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
tim.... wrote:
"John" wrote in message
...
I was watching the political debate about the need for low cost houses ,
etc, etc. and it struck me that we haven't made much progress in the way
we build houses. I am not advocating 'prefabs' but there must be a way
of 'productionising' the building of houses. When my development was
being built it just seemed that the methods were unchanged and relied
upon good skills and lowish labour costs to get the job done. Wastage
was tremendous.

I think the problem is that the reason houses are "unaffordable" is
because of the cost of the land.

Even if we halved the build cost they would still be unaffordable.


absolute rubbish

Build cost on a small house is £60-100k plus cots of laying in roads
services etc..and the land never comes to anything like that.

On current build costs the land is usually about 35% of the overall cost,
with another 35% being the build cost (including the costs of providing
utilities) with the final 30% being the financing costs and profit.

If the build costs were halved (which I reckon is going to be impossible
however efficient you make the process because the builder can't do anything
to reducing the cost of utilities) you are going to save 17.5%. This will
reduce a house from 250K to 205. IMHO this is still unaffordable to someone
of 25K pa

tim

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Build cost on a small house is £60-100k plus cots of laying in roads
services etc..and the land never comes to anything like that.

Total tripe! The land cost is the major factor.

Its just another Labour bit of spin.

You are brainwashed fool.

Basically a house represents 10% of your working life in (someone's)
labour costs.

Which is ridiculous. An acre of agricultural land can be purchased for
£2,000,

You cannot build on agricultural land without getting PP for building
dwellings. And once you have done that it becomes worth 200K.

No-one in possession of agi land is going to sell it to a builder without
first making sure that he is the one to reap the reward of getting the PP.

(You could argue that it is the planning restriction are the reason for high
Land Prices and if they were removed then houses could be built cheaply.
But that wouldn't work as the effect of removing planning restrictions would
see the price of ALL suitable agi land jumping up to the price now commanded
by land with PP for dwellings.)

tim

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Build cost on a small house is £60-100k plus cots of laying in roads
services etc..and the land never comes to anything like that.

Total tripe! The land cost is the major factor.

There were some self build plots sold near me recently.. they were around
£25k,
So by your reckoning the house is going to cost about 10k to build.


Its just another Labour bit of spin.

You are brainwashed fool.

Basically a house represents 10% of your working life in (someone's)
labour costs.

Which is ridiculous. An acre of agricultural land can be purchased for
£2,000, a complete eco kit home for £20,000, yet the average price of a
house in the UK is near to £200,000. Obtaining planning permission to
erect a house in the countryside in a country with a land surplus will be
near impossible. Few realise that the high land value is the reason why
their homes are so expensive.

Homes are expensive because people are prepared to pay for them.
If people weren't paying the price they wouldn't be expensive.

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 06:37:15 -0700, sm_jamieson wrote:
Jules, the stereotype US house (from movies etc ;-) is a concrete
basement with a timber house on top. Are the basements still common -
that must take a while with poured concrete etc ? Simon.

I don't think they're nearly as common as they were. I don't think I've
seen a place built prior to the 80's here that *doesn't* have a basement
- but I believe lots of new builds just have crawlspaces beneath the
ground floors now. I think in some areas (although not around here)
whether there's a basement or not can affect property taxes and insurance
prices quite a bit.

cheers

Jules

sm_jamieson wrote:

I realize this is not your point, but some housebuilders are using
fibreglass chimneys. They are far enough away from most viewpoints to
look like brick.
Simon.

Surely if the chimney is inside the structure it doesn't matter what it
looks like? A pair of concentric stainless pipes, some insulation, and
a Tudor-style pot on the roof and you are away!

Andy

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And that's why Gordon Brown needs to be hung for telling a woman she is
a bigot, when immigration of EVERY sort has trebled under Labour, and
all the 'new jobs' created by labour have gone to educated immigrants on
account of Brits being too stupid, badly educated and lazy to do them,
when the dole is simply a better option.


And of course much immigration is from EU countries, and controlled (!)
by Brussels not Westminster.

Andy

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

wrote:
Only 7.5% of the UK is settled.
I thought it was 5%.

Whichever - it's small.

It is MASSIVE

Compared with say the USA.

These figures are completely meaningless. You cant say 'only 7% is
settled' when you need the rest for airports, roads, farmland, parks and
the like: A better comparison is to look at density in terms of people
per square kilometer.

If you look at England, and leave out Scotland and Wales and Ireland,
you will find that it is probably the most densely populated country in
Europe, if not the world.

Yes. England is 990/sq mile. Netherlands is higher and Belgium pretty
close.

France is under 300, Germany about 600, Italy about 500, Poland about
300, Spain about 250.


SE region of England (the official region, as in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_East_England
appears to have a density of about 1070 per square mile. Slightly
higher than the Netherlands, but nowhere near Bangladesh (or a bunch of
smaller countries)

Andy

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 21:20:34 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:
SE region of England (the official region, as in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_East_England appears to have a
density of about 1070 per square mile.

Ouch! I was going to ask if anyone knew what the lowest was, but I
suppose there must be lots of spots where it's zero :-)

Jules Richardson wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 21:20:34 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:
SE region of England (the official region, as in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_East_England appears to have a
density of about 1070 per square mile.

Ouch! I was going to ask if anyone knew what the lowest was, but I
suppose there must be lots of spots where it's zero :-)

Here's one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruinard_Island

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Our land is ridiculously expensive. It is also the main source of
profit for most large housebuilders. They buy large amounts of land
and hold it for many years as an investment. When the price has risen
sufficiently to make them a good profit, they build on it.

That does not make economic sense.

It does. That is whay they do it. They can buy land at say a million and
in 5 years it will be worth 10. Where can you get that return from doing
NOTHING. They pay no tax on that land. Land value Taxation will cut all
that out. Speculators are a curse. hey caused financial crashes.

More

We are talking about land you stupid ****!

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

And, you planning permission
does not last forever.

Speculators hold any, land. It always rises in price. If you get PP all the
better.

"tim...." wrote in message
...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Build cost on a small house is £60-100k plus cots of laying in roads
services etc..and the land never comes to anything like that.

Total tripe! The land cost is the major factor.

Its just another Labour bit of spin.

You are brainwashed fool.

Basically a house represents 10% of your working life in (someone's)
labour costs.

Which is ridiculous. An acre of agricultural land can be purchased for
£2,000,

You cannot build on agricultural land without getting PP for building
dwellings. And once you have done that it becomes worth 200K.#

You don't say. Get the point.

No-one in possession of agi land is going to sell it to a builder without
first making sure that he is the one to reap the reward of getting the PP.

If he knows its a builder of course. Which again is besides the point.

(You could argue that it is the planning restriction are the reason for
high Land Prices

You could and it would be very correct. Also the absence of Land Valuation
Tax is another.

and if they were removed then houses could be built cheaply. But that
wouldn't work as the effect of removing planning restrictions would see
the price of ALL suitable agi land jumping up to the price now commanded
by land with PP for dwellings.)

As only 7.5% of the land settled, if PP is dropped on all land, prices will
drop as there is just to much land to build on. Do some sums.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Build cost on a small house is £60-100k plus cots of laying in roads
services etc..and the land never comes to anything like that.

Total tripe! The land cost is the major factor.

There were some self build plots sold near me recently.. they were around
£25k,
So by your reckoning the house is going to cost about 10k to build.

Where? They would be snapped up in 10 seconds.

Its just another Labour bit of spin.

You are brainwashed fool.

Basically a house represents 10% of your working life in (someone's)
labour costs.

Which is ridiculous. An acre of agricultural land can be purchased for
£2,000, a complete eco kit home for £20,000, yet the average price of a
house in the UK is near to £200,000. Obtaining planning permission to
erect a house in the countryside in a country with a land surplus will be
near impossible. Few realise that the high land value is the reason why
their homes are so expensive.

Homes are expensive because people are prepared to pay for them.
If people weren't paying the price they wouldn't be expensive.

This forum is full of fools.

People have Hobson's choice. Again....
"Few realise that the high land value is the reason why their homes are so
expensive." Understand that.

"tim...." wrote in message
...

On current build costs the land is usually about 35% of the overall cost,
with another 35% being the build cost

Uh!

2/3 of the total value of hosue on average is the cost of the land. In
London it is off the scale. In Chelsea a former 2 up 2 down can fetch 2
million, with rebuild costs £100K.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Only 7.5% of the UK is settled.

I thought it was 5%.

Whichever - it's small.


It is MASSIVE

It's tiny you silly Tory voting pillock.

Compared with say the USA.

Which is small to Siberia, which small to Saturn. Duh!

A better comparison is to look at density in terms of people per square
kilometer.

It isn't.

If you look at England, and leave out Scotland and Wales and Ireland, you
will find that it is probably the most densely populated country in
Europe, if not the world.

Total tripe!!!

snip drivel

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

wrote:
Only 7.5% of the UK is settled.

I thought it was 5%.

Whichever - it's small.


It is MASSIVE

Compared with say the USA.

These figures are completely meaningless. You cant say 'only 7% is
settled' when you need the rest for airports, roads, farmland, parks and
the like: A better comparison is to look at density in terms of people
per square kilometer.

If you look at England, and leave out Scotland and Wales and Ireland,
you will find that it is probably the most densely populated country in
Europe, if not the world.

Yes. England is 990/sq mile.

The country ids the UK. There isn't much land at the bottom of my street
either.

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
news
Doctor Drivel wrote:

snip

High prices for very small high density homes are the norm in the United
Kingdom. UK house prices are amongst the highest in the world in
comparison to comparable countries. The more land is a greater part of
the total house price the higher house prices become. An acre of
agricultural land can be purchased for £2,000, an attrcative, complete
eco kit home for £20,000, yet the average price of a house in the UK is
near to £200,000. Obtaining planning permission to erect a house in the
countryside in a country with a land surplus will be near impossible. Few
realise that the high land value is the reason why their homes are so
expensive.

snip drivel

OK so you can buy agricultural land for £2000 an acre

Thank you.

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
news
sm_jamieson wrote:

I realize this is not your point, but some housebuilders are using
fibreglass chimneys. They are far enough away from most viewpoints to
look like brick.
Simon.

Surely if the chimney is inside the structure it doesn't matter what it
looks like? A pair of concentric stainless pipes, some insulation, and a
Tudor-style pot on the roof and you are away!

Must avoid metal.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Doctor Drivel"
saying something like:

The Celtic Tiger fell flat on its arse. Those homes will be occupied in
time. That is not a problem.

The Irish govt is seriously considering demolishing many of them.
Criminal waste, imo.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

And, you planning permission
does not last forever.

Speculators hold any, land. It always rises in price. If you get PP all
the better.


Inflation tends in only one direction but if Dribble's Idol Henry George
was right about agricultural land in the USA changing hands at $1000 an
acre in the 1870s the return on agricultural land has been **** poor
between then and now (and probably has regardless of George's or
Dribble's delusions).

Unlike entropy intrinsic values can go down as well as up and there are
plenty of corners around the country where land is worth significantly
less now than it once was.

John Rumm wrote:
Jules Richardson wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 21:20:34 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:
SE region of England (the official region, as in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_East_England appears to have a
density of about 1070 per square mile.

Ouch! I was going to ask if anyone knew what the lowest was, but I
suppose there must be lots of spots where it's zero :-)

Top ones world wide are places lie Macau at 48330, Monaco at 43450. Of
the decent sized places, then Singapore and Hong kong are high (c. 17K)

These are all effectively city states and, in the case of Macau and Hong
Kong definitely not independent.

Closer to home, Gibralta at 11170, and Malta 3340 are fairly high.

If Greater London was taken in isolation that would slot in above Gibraltar.


Lowest, possibly Greenland at 0.07

I can't see Antarctica on the list. :-)

Doctor Drivel wrote:

Our land is ridiculously expensive. It is also the main source of
profit for most large housebuilders. They buy large amounts of land
and hold it for many years as an investment. When the price has risen
sufficiently to make them a good profit, they build on it.

That does not make economic sense.

It does. That is whay they do it. They can buy land at say a million
and in 5 years it will be worth 10. Where can you get that return
from doing NOTHING. They pay no tax on that land. Land value
Taxation will cut all that out. Speculators are a curse. hey caused
financial crashes.

More

Dribble almost always snips the pertinent part of the reply he is
ranting about. The two paragraphs below are those he cut in a vain
attempt to mislead the casual observer.

More downright nonsense from Dribble. It costs money to invest in real
estate. The real gain is in obtaining planning permission otherwise the
rise in value of the land may not keep pace with inflation. Having a
land bank with planning permission may indeed see rapid increases if it
is in the right place at the right time but a developer can't realise
his profits without paying tax on them and tax on trading profits at
that, not capital gains tax.

It might be different for Johnny Foreigner who buys a shooting estate in
Scotland and manages to sell it on at a handsome profit some years later
but even that loophole could have been blocked by now with one of
Brown's stealth taxes. Contrary to Dribble's allegations not all big
land owners are blue blooded. One of the estates I am thinking of was
owned for a time by a member of what has been described as the 'Beerage'
and that certainly passed into foreign hands.

We are talking about land you stupid ****!

So what do you think is the basis of "real Estate" and "shooting estate"?

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Doctor Drivel"
saying something like:

The Celtic Tiger fell flat on its arse. Those homes will be occupied in
time. That is not a problem.

The Irish govt is seriously considering demolishing many of them.
Criminal waste, imo.

If they are half built then they may have no option.

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

And, you planning permission
does not last forever.

Speculators hold any, land. It always rises in price. If you get PP all
the better.


Inflation tends

No tax on land

snip drivel