Catford Stadium Redevelopment

[Tim Lund]

Swimming pools are different, which is why I have not mentioned them, and am pleased to have been involved in campaigning for them. There are no comparable problems accommodating libraries in more generic buildings. Even with pubs - the space above the Sylvan posts is residential, as it typical in cities worldwide.

My views on planning are hardly unusual, although there are good reasons why they are frequently minority views. This is because when an existing amenity is lost to residential development, all those who benefit from that amenity feel the loss. To each individual the loss may be relatively small, but the numbers feeling such losses may be significant. Against it, the numbers gaining from residential development are relatively few - the developers and those who will be able to live in the new homes - and often they don't live in the area when the development decisions are made. Others in the area will gain, e.g traders from increased vitality, thanks to the spending power of the new residents, but the benefits will not be felt as immediately as the costs. It's why the planning system in many cases disallows objections to developments where the immediate popular feeling is to oppose. As they say, there have to be valid planning grounds.

The big question is whether there are too many valid planning grounds, to answer which question, you need to step back to see the wood for the trees. At a national level, this might be to ask whether we as a nation have failed to build adequate rail infrastructure, or power stations. We have. On the matter of housing, it amounts to whether housing is overpriced - it is.

Michael will reject this, but he is in fact a natural conservative. He won't vote that way until he moves further out, so as long as he and others of his way of thinking are around, local political parties, whatever their colour, will court his vote. This is what I meant when by my thread "There's no such thing as a Tory free zone"

[Tim Lund]

Oh for goodness sake Tim, we aren't against housing people, stop twisting my bloody words to mean something other than they are intended!

The problem is that your intentions on where people should live aren't very clear.

[Tim Lund]

Don't know why they went bust but they were doing housing and had permission to do so. Lewisham did nothing to keep it as a dog track.

It would be interesting to know why then. Does Lewisham attract a particularly incompetent type of developer?

On the matter of dog tracks, there is this rather exaggerated story on the BBC web site Is the end nigh for dog racing? It isn't, but "the number of stadiums has dropped from around 80 to 25 in England over the past 65 years."

[leenewham]

Oh for goodness sake Tim, we aren't against housing people, stop twisting my bloody words to mean something other than they are intended!

The problem is that your intentions on where people should live aren't very clear.

Eh??????

How about in nice communities with great resources, transport and recreational spaces with well designed considered housing with a respect to place and it's past?

I hope that's clear enough!

[Maria]

Yeap-that's clear enough.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[michael]

The big question is whether there are too many valid planning grounds, to answer which question, you need to step back to see the wood for the trees. At a national level, this might be to ask whether we as a nation have failed to build adequate rail infrastructure, or power stations. We have. On the matter of housing, it amounts to whether housing is overpriced - it is.

Michael will reject this, but he is in fact a natural conservative. He won't vote that way until he moves further out, so as long as he and others of his way of thinking are around, local political parties, whatever their colour, will court his vote. This is what I meant when by my thread "There's no such thing as a Tory free zone"

Actually I completely agree that we do not spend enough on vital infrastructure - rail, power, housing, town centres, motorways, super-sewers, and regeneration of northern cities.
Our only difference of opinion is where the majority of new housing should be built, you appear to favour increased densities in existing communities, I prefer building on brown field sites (like Catford Dog Track), sites with low existing densities (like Dagenham), sites that already have planning permission but nothing is happening, and bringing back into use empty properties (where I think you tend to agree with me). Not that I have a complete objection to every new home in the local area, our difference is one of emphasis and preference.

In some ways I am small 'c' conservative, in others I am less so, it really depends on the multitude of issues to discuss. How I vote now and in the future is my business, but I don't vote primarily on the basis of planning issues or who will put the most value on my house. As for moving out of London, I'm sure you would like to get rid of me, but I have no plans at present to move out of Forest Hill. Maybe I will, but until then you really should not be making such sweeping generalisations based on your personal prejudices relating to my lifestyle, or whatever it is that makes you think you know me better than I know myself.

[Tim Lund]

I totally support Liam in his 'grandstanding' as you call it. Good on him, bravo, (Lee waves flag and cheers).

It's what grandstanding is all about.

[Tim Lund]

Actually I completely agree that we do not spend enough on vital infrastructure - rail, power, housing, town centres, motorways, super-sewers, and regeneration of northern cities.
Our only difference of opinion is where the majority of new housing should be built, you appear to favour increased densities in existing communities, I prefer building on brown field sites (like Catford Dog Track), sites with low existing densities (like Dagenham), sites that already have planning permission but nothing is happening, and bringing back into use empty properties (where I think you tend to agree with me). Not that I have a complete objection to every new home in the local area, our difference is one of emphasis and preference.

So far so good. The question is whether we can find space for enough homes this way. Where homes are proposed also matters. Dagenham isn't as bad as many people might think, but the average price of a semi there £169, 324 over the last year, compared with £309,554 in Sydenham tells you something about where in general people would prefer to live. Requiring more houses to be built there rather than here would widen the price discrepancy further, creating here paper gains for owner occupiers and continuing excessive rents for those not so fortunate.

The problem is that localism is failing to get enough houses built, probably for the electoral reasons I outline. My next paragraph uses text from a blog two days ago on Inside Housing, "Saved by the inspector" which I go onto quote verbatim.

Previously National Planning Policy Frameworks (NPPFs) told local authorities, via 'regional spatial and housing strategies' (RSSs), how many houses should be built in their areas, but these have been abolished. Instead, many local authorities sniffed an opportunity to pander to their nimby voters and downscale their housing targets, even though the new NPPF talked about significantly boosting the supply of housing and a presumption in favour of sustainable development. A recent study by Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners (NLP) looked at the 55 local plans examined or submitted for examination in the year since the NPPF was finalised and found that 55 per cent had proposed reducing their housing targets and only 20 percent proposed an increase. But all is not lost:

the planning inspector stepped in and required nearly half of local authorities to raise their target in order to be found acceptable. Of the total plans submitted, only four local authorities were allowed to get away with a housing target that was lower than the figures in the Regional Spatial Strategy, and of the 18 plans found to be sound following examinations nearly 80 percent had met or exceeded the previous RSS target. It is clear that the inspector is putting significant weight on previous RSS targets even though they have been abolished. This is very good news for housing.

In some ways I am small 'c' conservative, in others I am less so, it really depends on the multitude of issues to discuss. How I vote now and in the future is my business, but I don't vote primarily on the basis of planning issues or who will put the most value on my house. As for moving out of London, I'm sure you would like to get rid of me, but I have no plans at present to move out of Forest Hill. Maybe I will, but until then you really should not be making such sweeping generalisations based on your personal prejudices relating to my lifestyle, or whatever it is that makes you think you know me better than I know myself.

That was a tease, responding to your posting a while about about "Think less and become more conservative".

I don't want to get rid of you, and I know nothing about your lifestyle which should make we want to. Is there something else I should know?

[Tim Lund]

How about in nice communities with great resources, transport and recreational spaces with well designed considered housing with a respect to place and it's past?

I hope that's clear enough!

Yeap-that's clear enough.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Are you being ironic, Maria? No one could disagree with what Lee writes, but it hardly gives a clear answer to where houses should go, what sort of houses they should be, and who is going to build them.

[leenewham]

I'm not sure what semi detached houses sell for £310,00 in Sydenham, it's a lot more than that! Even terrace houses go for more than that now. They have gone up past 2007 levels according to two estate agents I spoke to. And there has been a lot of new building of flats in Sydenham.

If they build more houses in Sydenham, prices wouldn't go down. They would sell for the market level because no-one want the price of their house to go down. Make it difficult to finance the house then prices will go down. I'm not denying more homes need to be built, but I've yet to read or see any evidence that building more homes will push prices down.

Changing the way property is sold or marketed or financed will make a difference.

If you go into a sweet shop and there are 5 Mars Bars or 5000 Mars Bars it wont make any difference to the price. If everyone walking into the shop only had 30p to pay for the mars bar as opposed to 50p, the price would go down. Cost is dictated by ability to pay or profit margins. I think you have this so wrong Tim.

All the new flats in Bell green that have been built haven't pushed house prices down in Lower Sydenham, it didn't happen in Lewisham it doesn't happen anywhere. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult thing to grasp! Ahhhhhh!

As for where they should build new homes, I don't think they should knock down your house and build skyscraper on it or build on your allotment. There are brownfield sites, empty buildings, industrial estates and other places that can be developed like Stratford, Docklands, Greenwich, Kidbroke etc are. That's where they should build homes AND COMMUNITIES.

They shouldn't overpopulate and destroy existing ones.

[michael]

Dagenham isn't as bad as many people might think, but the average price of a semi there £169, 324 over the last year, compared with £309,554 in Sydenham tells you something about where in general people would prefer to live. Requiring more houses to be built there rather than here would widen the price discrepancy further, creating here paper gains for owner occupiers and continuing excessive rents for those not so fortunate.

It makes perfect sense to build houses and new communities where land prices are cheaper and where people will be more likely to be able to get a foot on the housing ladder. Building new flats in Sydenham, especially to replace existing semis, does not change the value of semis - if it does then the only price movement is likely to be up, not down.

The problem is that localism is failing to get enough houses built, probably for the electoral reasons I outline.

I disagree. It is not localism that is failing, it is national and regional policies that need to create new housing in Dagenham and the like, although they are beginning to do that slowly. The other failure is property developers with land that is worth more on paper than sold off with houses built at today's prices. They will continue to drip feed the market to keep demand above levels of supply, keeping house prices high and maximising their revenues. It makes good business sense to do this while at the same time demanding a relaxed planning system that will allow them to build higher density and in places where property values are already high.

[leenewham]

When they redeveloped Barking (built new flats) prices went up.
Same in Deptford. Same everywhere.

Tim, do you have ANY evidence where building lots of new homes has pushed prices down?

[michael]

Tim, do you have ANY evidence where building lots of new homes has pushed prices down?

Ireland and Spain I think demonstrate what happens when there is massively more house building than demand. But we are so far from that situation. And not all of the price drop in Spain, Ireland, or the UK are due to house building, there are other factors involved.

http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Euro ... ge-5-years

The UK decline in house prices of 7.7% does not reflect the regional differences between the South East and the rest of the UK. Locally we have seen house prices recover to 2007 levels and possibly a bit higher. But building many new cheaper houses in Dagenham is obviously going to move the UK average house price down a little bit (even if the price of a house in Sydenham is unaffected), there will simply be more cheaper houses. It does not necessarily push existing prices down (although it might) but it will move the average.

[Tim Lund]

Tim, do you have ANY evidence where building lots of new homes has pushed prices down?

You must have deleted this email I forwarded you 23rd February

Dear Tim,

Behavioural factors might drive demand and supply decisions (to some extent) but it’s still the interaction of the two that determine prices and quantities.

For the impact of supply constraints on housing:
http://www.spatialeconomics.ac.uk/texto ... dp0119.pdf

Town centre first:
http://www.spatialeconomics.ac.uk/texto ... dp0066.pdf

Effect of stamp duty on mobility:
http://www.spatialeconomics.ac.uk/texto ... dp0115.pdf

Capitalisation:
http://www.spatialeconomics.ac.uk/texto ... dp0091.pdf

All of them demonstrating that demand and supply alive and well in the UK house/land market.

Keep in touch.

Best

Henry

[Tim Lund]

The UK decline in house prices of 7.7% does not reflect the regional differences between the South East and the rest of the UK. Locally we have seen house prices recover to 2007 levels and possibly a bit higher. But building many new cheaper houses in Dagenham is obviously going to move the UK average house price down a little bit (even if the price of a house in Sydenham is unaffected), there will simply be more cheaper houses. It does not necessarily push existing prices down (although it might) but it will move the average.

Well, at least Michael isn't a supply and demand denialist. He supports my assertion that building in Dagenham rather than here will increase the price gap.

[Tim Lund]

The other failure is property developers with land that is worth more on paper than sold off with houses built at today's prices. They will continue to drip feed the market to keep demand above levels of supply, keeping house prices high and maximising their revenues. It makes good business sense to do this while at the same time demanding a relaxed planning system that will allow them to build higher density and in places where property values are already high.

I agree in thinking that there is a problem with the big property developers behaving uncompetitively. But I also think there is a sleight of hand in Michael's reference to 'a relaxed planning system', because it's only relaxed where big developers can persuade local authorities to allow the relaxation they want. In general it is not, so protecting the interests of these big developers. It is a complex area, and businesses involved in such uncompetitive practices generally take care to stay the right side of the law. In the unlikely event that a representative from such a business reads this and contacts me with the faintest suggestion of legal action, I will delete this post immediately.

[michael]

Well, at least Michael isn't a supply and demand denialist. He supports my assertion that building in Dagenham rather than here will increase the price gap.

Building more houses that cost less does not increase the price gap. It just provides a better solution to the housing problem. The price gap is far less of a problem than the gap between those who can afford to buy property and those who can't, this is the gap that has been widening over a generation.
Expensive flats in Sydenham do not solve this problem, cheap flats and houses in Dagenham or North Greenwich will help to solve this problem.

[leenewham]

Yes, I got those Tim, but you have sent me over 100 pages of longwinded bumf that doesn't seem to get to the point and after 10 minutes of scanning them I can't find any points that say anything about more housing will drive down costs.

Here are some links for you Tim:
THE FT:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/7556d39a-4183 ... z2Sk4Jb1UK
people are very reluctant to sell at a loss. This means more than just trying to get as much money as possible – most sellers want that. It means being unwilling to compromise, and being willing to lose the sale, if the proposed sale price is below the not-very-meaningful level of “what I paid for it”.
If sellers do behave like this, it would mean house prices would fall only with great reluctance.

MONEYWEEK
http://www.moneyweek.com/investments/pr ... nomy-23300
Sellers don’t have to drop prices, because most aren’t being forced to move. And buyers can’t afford to raise their bids, because mortgage finance is short. So there’s still a stalemate in many areas.

So far, there’s little sign of a rising supply of properties, on the scale that might trigger a full-blown crash. Average stock levels per surveyor have not changed much during the last year.

Cheap money, mortgage forbearance schemes and government meddling are keeping lots of distressed borrowers in their homes for now. This can continue for as long as interest prices are low.

Michael makes far more sense. Build cheap homes where land is cheap and sell them below the market rate to help people get on the housing ladder.

And my favourite :
http://www.positivemoney.org/consequences/house-prices/

[Tim Lund]

Yes, I got those Tim, but you have sent me over 100 pages of longwinded bumf that doesn't seem to get to the point and after 10 minutes of scanning them I can't find any points that say anything about more housing will drive down costs.

And this from the man who thinks you should have a PhD in Economics to be Chancellor

Here are some links for you Tim:
THE FT:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/7556d39a-4183 ... z2Sk4Jb1UK
people are very reluctant to sell at a loss. This means more than just trying to get as much money as possible – most sellers want that. It means being unwilling to compromise, and being willing to lose the sale, if the proposed sale price is below the not-very-meaningful level of “what I paid for it”.
If sellers do behave like this, it would mean house prices would fall only with great reluctance.

MONEYWEEK
http://www.moneyweek.com/investments/pr ... nomy-23300
Sellers don’t have to drop prices, because most aren’t being forced to move. And buyers can’t afford to raise their bids, because mortgage finance is short. So there’s still a stalemate in many areas.

In the jargon, it's called being sticky downwards, and it means fewer transactions get done. It's a type of market failure, but eventually, people have to bite the bullet, or historically, in the case of house prices, inflation gets people off the hook.

So far, there’s little sign of a rising supply of properties, on the scale that might trigger a full-blown crash. Average stock levels per surveyor have not changed much during the last year.

Thank you. So if we did have more supply, prices would indeed come down, but we don't. That is exactly what I hope you would agree.

I'm not twisting your words, just straightening out the knots you are tying yourself in.

Cheap money, mortgage forbearance schemes and government meddling are keeping lots of distressed borrowers in their homes for now. This can continue for as long as interest prices are low.

The current low interest policy is indeed keeping people in their homes, and making it harder for them to move to new jobs. Essentially it is a continuation of the post 2008 policy of propping up banks which made ill judged loans on property.

Michael makes far more sense. Build cheap homes where land is cheap and sell them below the market rate to help people get on the housing ladder.

For many people now, the housing ladder feels more like a treadmill. Should we really be encouraging people on to it? Delightful as Dagenham is, or sublime as is Stoke on Trent, if someone doesn't have an economic reason to work there, are these aesthetic factors enough to justify moving to these exotic locations? And why misdirect economic resources into such building when there are other locations where there are significant numbers of empty properties, and prices are low (it's supply and demand, y'know). It makes no sense at all, although it seems it does to Michael and you.

[leenewham]

Sigh...

Ok, I give up. I'm out of this pointless nonsense. Time to concentrate on stuff that can actually make a difference or be done.