[djmobley]

> The London green belt is so far away from the city center that you'd be better of living in Birmigham and taking the train than trying to get in from there.

Utter nonsense. Vast swathes of the green belt around London are within walking -- or a short bus journey -- distance of rail stations providing very reasonable commute times into central London.

You mention the failure of private builders to meet demand for new houses. Why do you think that is?

Do you think it might be something to do with inflated land prices and onerous planning restrictions? The green belt, for example?

[lhopki01]

> You mention the failure of private builders to meet demand for new houses. Why do you think that is?

No I don't think that's true. If you look at the number of privately built units of housing it has been remarkably consistent at about 200,000 units a year since the second world war. Now are you going to tell me that the regulatory regime has been the same the entire time?

I'd have more sympathy for your arguments if the biggest complaint from councils about new housing was that they give planning permissions and then developers just sit on the land and send in further speculative planning applications.

[Lazare]

> If you look at the number of privately built units of housing it has been remarkably consistent at about 200,000 units a year

Between 2006 and 20015, planning permission was awarded in England for 2,035,835 housing units. That is an average of 204,000 per year.

> I'd have more sympathy for your arguments if the biggest complaint from councils about new housing was that they give planning permissions and then developers just sit on the land and send in further speculative planning applications.

That is something they complain about. The data does not support it.

[lhopki01]

> Between 2006 and 20015, planning permission was awarded in England for 2,035,835 housing units. That is an average of 204,000 per year.

You've completely missed my point. The private sector has been building 200,000 units a year since the second world war. So if the planning regime is holding them back it's been doing it since the second world war. But we haven't had a housing crisis since the second world war because we used to build enough houses. The difference is that in addition to the 200,000 privately built housing units we used to have 200,000 units of government built housing a year. That stopped at the end of the 70s and we're paying the price of 30 years of shortfalls. There's only so many living rooms that can be turned into bedrooms before it comes to a head. What I want is for councils to be given the money to build housing again. They used to do this but then the funding was cut in the very early 80s.

> That is something they complain about. The data does not support it.

http://www.local.gov.uk/documents/10180/11831/Unimplemented+... This report from local governments shows that around 50% of granted planning permissions are still waiting to be built. Additionally it says that councils approve 9/10 planning permissions really suggesting that the planning process is not at fault here.

[Lazare]

> The private sector has been building 200,000 units a year [...] we used to build enough houses. The difference is that in addition to the 200,000 privately built housing units we used to have 200,000 units of government built housing a year.

Right, so government stopped building public housing, but didn't allow private sources to fill the gap. That seems clear enough.

> This report from local governments shows that around 50% of granted planning permissions are still waiting to be built.

That's not at all what that report says. Again, in the past 10 years permission has been granted to build over 2 million homes; the overwhelming majority have been built. Planning permissions are the most critical input in the house building process; of course builders keep an inventory on hand. That inventory ballooned a bit during the crisis; as your own link notes, it's now falling again, and only amounts to about a 12 month supply.

> Additionally it says that councils approve 9/10 planning permissions

The existing rules are pretty clear, and obviously people don't apply for permissions which they know will not be granted. I mean, this entire thread is on the context of loosening restrictions; you're surely not claiming that 90% of applications to build in the greenbelt would be granted?

What would be relevant - and what is crucially NOT in your link - is evidence that there are building sites for which planning permission would be granted, if anyone applied, but for which no one is applying. But what seems to be the current status (and which your link supports) is that the supply of building sites for which permission can be obtained is about 200k/year, of which the overwhelming majority are 1) applied for and 2) built upon.

[lhopki01]

Or that the private sector only caters to the top end of the market and will never cater to the the lower ends. Where do you get that the government didn't allow them to make up the shortfall? What you're claiming is that the planning permissions were tightened just enough so that despite twice the demand there was no real increase in housing built?

Housing is something that is too important to leave to just market forces because it isn't really a market. Land is scarce and you can't import to make up the shortfall. Additionally the government has committed to providing housing for the less fortunate which means that they now have to pay market rents further inflating prices. Everyone is better off if they just go back to building houses.

Just saying build in the green belt will not achieve much. It'll divert developers from building on brownfield and lead to even more of a sprawl than there currently is in cities like London.

[Lazare]

> Where do you get that the government didn't allow them to make up the shortfall?

Planning permission is a thing. Again, do you have evidence that there is a significant number of planning permissions going begging that no one is applying for?

> What you're claiming is that the planning permissions were tightened just enough so that despite twice the demand there was no real increase in housing built?

Yes? I mean, it's pretty obvious that's what happened, right? It's right there in black and right when you graph it. There has been no radical increase in the granting of planning permissions.

> Housing is something that is too important to leave to just market forces because it isn't really a market.

Given the hash of it the government is making, I think there's a much stronger argument that it's too important not to leave it to the market. Something which, moreover, hasn't been tried; there's no functioning market due to the planning permission system.

Again, if you pass a law saying that needed houses cannot be built (which has been done), and then the houses aren't built (which they are not) how can you point fingers at anything except the law?

> they now have to pay market rents further inflating prices.

Only because they've choked off the supply. We don't complain about welfare inflating food prices, because we don't pass laws stopping farmers from growing food. Food is cheaper now than ever before, not despite the fact that food is supplied by market forces, but because of it.

> Everyone is better off if they just go back to building houses.

Or they could just let other people build houses. You know, like how every single country without a housing crisis does?

> Just saying build in the green belt will not achieve much. It'll divert developers from building on brownfield and lead to even more of a sprawl than there currently is in cities like London.

The government building houses will add to the sprawl too, of course.

But what really matters isn't who builds it or where, it's that units are built. And that means identifying restrictions and removing them.