Sites for Labour's New Towns that already have rail connections

[Falcon1200]

Those who would likely benefit the most would be those who brought their home for (say) £22,000 and then sell it 45 years later for £300,000. Their baseline value would be £67,000 and so would have to pay £116,500 in CGT.

But those people would have to buy another property in which to live, the price of which would also have increased hugely over the 45 years! Even if they were downsizing they would not necessarily make a massive profit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But those people would have to buy another property in which to live, the price of which would also have increased hugely over the 45 years! Even if they were downsizing they would not necessarily make a massive profit.

Indeed. If you did apply CGT it would only be sensible to apply it to the part of the money not spent on buying another property.

 

[Topological]

Indeed. If you did apply CGT it would only be sensible to apply it to the part of the money not spent on buying another property.

I suspect some people just want to see homeowners punished.

Even if it is considered acceptable to artificially reduce the value of houses, CGT on the primary residence is a non-starter.

IF a tax absolutely has to be introduced then it needs to be a much smaller percentage than 50.

What people forget here is that those who can will just find ways around the tax (likely employing an accountant to enact), so you are only punishing those who genuinely find themselves in a valuable house on a low income.

IF there was even a sniff of such a law, I expect I would be renting my house from Topological Properties Limited (who would buy from me before said law passed).

(This is probably why no one has proposed such a law)

 

[JonathanH]

I suspect some people just want to see homeowners punished.

Even if it is considered acceptable to artificially reduce the value of houses, CGT on the primary residence is a non-starter.

It isn't that. It is more a view that everyone with reasonable means should be able to afford to buy a suitably sized dwelling, rather than pay someone else rent, as a way of having more security over tenure of that dwelling.

It is very much a generational issue with each generation having to find more money to have that security of tenure.

 

[BrianW]

Council tenants have (or had?) security of tenure- I confess to maybe not being up-to-date on legislation, rights and obligations

Similarly tenants of Housing Association properties.

'Assured tenancies' have their contractual limitations.

Tenancies offer (greater?) opportunity of mobility than selling and buying in 'the market'.

Homeowners, while they are paying a mortgage or have taken out a loan 'secured' on their home, can have it repossessed, or compulsorily purchased.

'Security' and 'assurance' are not absolute; they are relative terms.

Even the 'threat' of a labour government has reduced the number of private residential lets; the removal of ability to end (or not renew) a tenancy in order for the owner to be able to sell will have similar effect. Any change in the economics of housing will have consequences, some of which may be unexpected or unintended or unwelcome.

Future, and current, generations deserve to have a choice from a range of decent homes at different prices and in different locations.

 

[Topological]

It isn't that. It is more a view that everyone with reasonable means should be able to afford to buy a suitably sized dwelling, rather than pay someone else rent, as a way of having more security over tenure of that dwelling.

It is very much a generational issue with each generation having to find more money to have that security of tenure.

The introduction of taxes on home ownership is a punishment, it takes money that presently is not taken and was never planned to be taken. It sounds better the way you say it. Still, there is no doubt that a homeowner who currently expects to pay no CGT, and not to be subject to a government-led deflation of the value of that house, is being punished by either CGT or a government-led artificial deflation.

There are big problems in the housing market, which the new towns go some way to addressing.

It is also worth noting the tax examples on this thread ignore stamp duty, which already serves as a barrier to moving (hence keeping larger properties under ownership of those who may otherwise downsize). Maybe the answer lies in a stamp duty incentive to downsize, rather than tax? (This is where political leanings start to play, and I do not mean between the Blue Tories and the Red Tories)

 

[Meerkat]

The introduction of taxes on home ownership is a punishment, it takes money that presently is not taken and was never planned to be taken. It sounds better the way you say it. Still, there is no doubt that a homeowner who currently expects to pay no CGT, and not to be subject to a government-led deflation of the value of that house, is being punished by either CGT or a government-led artificial deflation.

There are big problems in the housing market, which the new towns go some way to addressing.

It is also worth noting the tax examples on this thread ignore stamp duty, which already serves as a barrier to moving (hence keeping larger properties under ownership of those who may otherwise downsize). Maybe the answer lies in a stamp duty incentive to downsize, rather than tax? (This is where political leanings start to play, and I do not mean between the Blue Tories and the Red Tories)

A certain amount of tax needs to be raised. Why should workers pay more income tax so that homeowners can keep vast amounts of property profit which is pretty much totally unearned?

 

[SynthD]

it takes money that presently is not taken and was never planned to be taken.

Home ownership was never meant to be a way to become rich. A necessity has become a hoarded asset.

 

[Topological]

A certain amount of tax needs to be raised. Why should workers pay more income tax so that homeowners can keep vast amounts of property profit which is pretty much totally unearned?

This is a thread about new towns as part of a Labour intervention in housing supply.

Whilst reducing demand does reduce price, it also reduces quantity (which is probably the opposite of what people are trying to achieve). Reducing demand for home ownership means more people need rental property (to keep total quantity the same) which means you are going to need a larger social housing sector (meaning more tax) and so you pressurise both the tax take on "profit" from home ownership and income.

Probably, the economics is why no party has suggested such a plan and the focus remains on supply side interventions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A certain amount of tax needs to be raised. Why should workers pay more income tax so that homeowners can keep vast amounts of property profit which is pretty much totally unearned?

It's paper money, it has no actual value.

 

[The Ham]

But those people would have to buy another property in which to live, the price of which would also have increased hugely over the 45 years! Even if they were downsizing they would not necessarily make a massive profit.

The point I was making was that there shouldn't be a straight you bought it for x so that's your allowance when you sell.

I could have used the inflation calculator which would have set it at £105,000 and so their tax would be £97,500.

However it does also highlight just how much house prices have risen over the years and how there's an inability for those who brought their first home more than 20 years (some could even argue 10 years) ago (with it getting worse the further you go back) to understand how different the experience is for first time buyers.

I suspect that is house prices had go to (say) £155,000 and the tax bill was £25,000 then there would be less issue over such a tax.

 

[Magdalia]

This is a thread about new towns as part of a Labour intervention in housing supply.

Indeed. I contributed to the discussion when it was first started earlier this year, but, until now, I haven't commented since it was revived after the General Election. I have watched with amazement the discussion disappearing down rabbit holes about urban design and taxation, without addressing the fundamental issue.

The new government has now been in place for 2 weeks, and set out its legislative programme in the King's Speech. There is lots of detail that we still don't know, but what has struck me is the potential part to be played by Metro Mayors in driving housebuilding forward, particularly new towns.

One "quick win" on the supply side that I think should be looked at is throwing a small amount of money at probate to clear the backlog that has built up since covid. There are lots of empty houses not coming to market because of delays getting probate. Maybe that will be in an autumn budget?

 

[Snow1964]

There are about 29.9m homes in UK
Adding 1.5m homes is roughly 5% increase.

Whilst completely new towns are logical, even building 15 towns of 50,000 is only half number required (and most UK town are nearer only 10,000 homes). Might have been better to also say every town, village, hamlet has to add at least 3% to number of homes and anyone blocking a site within the 3% has to put forward an alternative site.

But let's get away from off topic discussion about tax

 

[Meerkat]

There are about 29.9m homes in UK
Adding 1.5m homes is roughly 5% increase.

Whilst completely new towns are logical, even building 15 towns of 50,000 is only half number required (and most UK town are nearer only 10,000 homes). Might have been better to also say every town, village, hamlet has to add at least 3% to number of homes and anyone blocking a site within the 3% has to put forward an alternative site.

But let's get away from off topic discussion about tax

I’ve often thought that - every settlement has to add units.
Complications would include…
Some have geographical issues
Some just have no demand
Need to be fair to those that have already added large numbers in recent years.

It could work if control is local enough. Sure I read that when neighbourhood plans were put together by local communities they tended to actually allocate MORE units than the council targets, rather than be the NIMBYs you might expect.

 

[The Ham]

There are about 29.9m homes in UK
Adding 1.5m homes is roughly 5% increase.

Whilst completely new towns are logical, even building 15 towns of 50,000 is only half number required (and most UK town are nearer only 10,000 homes). Might have been better to also say every town, village, hamlet has to add at least 3% to number of homes and anyone blocking a site within the 3% has to put forward an alternative site.

But let's get away from off topic discussion about tax

The thing is there's already a number of homes in the pipeline, let's say that's 200,000 per year, then you're about 1 million over the next 5 years.

Some areas have areas that could be brought forward, from their expected delivery timeframe, let's say you could bring forwards anything from year 6, that's 1.2 million (average of 240,000 per year).

Allowing stuff an easier path through planning isn't likely to make much difference this parliament, however could allow the delivery of (say) 320,000 per year over the following 5 years. That would get us to an average of 320,000 per year.

We could probably add new towns to that, at 5,000 homes per town (population of 12,000), you'd need 40 new towns over the next decade to reach the average of 300,000 per year. That would average at slightly more than one per county council (there's 29 county councils and 6 metropolitan counties).

12,000 is about the size of Bodmin, Haslemere, Henley, Bolsover, Littleborough, Thorne and the like. As such, not large places, but still quite significant in a location which may not have all that many people currently.

However, are of a size that most facilities could be delivered within their boundaries, meaning that (except for perhaps collage) most school and extra curricular activities could be undertaken without having to travel beyond the new town, which would reduce the impact on the existing road network. Obviously this would still take a lot of travel for work, although some of that could also be internalised (such as school teachers, shop staff, leisure centre staff, restaurants staff and the like).

 

[Recessio]

What about the rest of the North Downs Line? I already mentioned the proposed Guildford East and Guildford West stations, but is there scope for any of the existing stations to be expanded upon? I think a lot of them are in AONBs or National Parks, so there won't be any new houses built there.

 

[The exile]

Anyone have any idea how much potential accommodation sits empty or hardly used above shops in town centres? That should be got back into use as soon as possible - even it means derogations from the most modern "ideal" standards.

 

[HSTEd]

12,000 is about the size of Bodmin, Haslemere, Henley, Bolsover, Littleborough, Thorne and the like. As such, not large places, but still quite significant in a location which may not have all that many people currently.

However, are of a size that most facilities could be delivered within their boundaries, meaning that (except for perhaps collage) most school and extra curricular activities could be undertaken without having to travel beyond the new town, which would reduce the impact on the existing road network. Obviously this would still take a lot of travel for work, although some of that could also be internalised (such as school teachers, shop staff, leisure centre staff, restaurants staff and the like).

12,000 may struggle to maintain a wide range of amenities.
It will be on the lower end of settlements that can sustain a full service leisure centre (in 2019 there were only ~3170 swimming pool equipped sites in the UK, with just over 4000 total pools).
It probably won't have a truly "active" high street and will not have a wide range of entertainment and food establishments.

There are about 29.9m homes in UK
Adding 1.5m homes is roughly 5% increase.

Whilst completely new towns are logical, even building 15 towns of 50,000 is only half number required (and most UK town are nearer only 10,000 homes). Might have been better to also say every town, village, hamlet has to add at least 3% to number of homes and anyone blocking a site within the 3% has to put forward an alternative site.

But let's get away from off topic discussion about tax

The problem with the "all settlements must add units" approach is that you end up having to fight everyone.
It will burn political capital at a prodigious rate.
The nice thing about concentrating the housing construction in smaller, larger, blocks is that you can utilise "divide and conquer" to offset the power of the anti-development lobby.

Anyone have any idea how much potential accommodation sits empty or hardly used above shops in town centres? That should be got back into use as soon as possible - even it means derogations from the most modern "ideal" standards.

In terms of actual housing units? Not much at all. There are only a couple hundred thousand empty housing units total.

Much of that unused space is typically used as storage for the shop and the shops would have to be scrapped to unlock it for housing.
Given the constant "revive the high street" rhetoric, such a decision seems very unlikely.

 

[Magdalia]

Anyone have any idea how much potential accommodation sits empty or hardly used above shops in town centres? That should be got back into use as soon as possible - even it means derogations from the most modern "ideal" standards.

In terms of actual housing units? Not much at all. There are only a couple hundred thousand empty housing units total.

Much of that unused space is typically used as storage for the shop and the shops would have to be scrapped to unlock it for housing.
Given the constant "revive the high street" rhetoric, such a decision seems very unlikely.

I am more optimistic that this can make a useful contribution, especially in market towns and city suburbs.

Lots of shops in these places are actually converted houses, sometimes with an unsightly flat roof single storey extension onto what used to be the front garden.

The way to "revive the High Street" is to concentrate it into a smaller space, keeping the shops located in the centre and converting those on the periphery back to residential.

 

[I'm here now]

The latter part is where this all falls down - Bedfordshire must be getting very close to the point where the road network actually cannot cope with the level of demand, and much as we may well talk about enhanced rail services the unfortunate reality is that most journeys are and will be made by car.

Just as I write this, the A1 is screwed around the Stevenage area because of yet another accident. There just isn’t the infrastructure to support all these houses, and there doesn’t seem to be any plan to provide it.

Maybe a lack of parking and congestion charging coupled with some more frequent (feeder to train station, etc) bus services could go some way to fix this. Small, dense development rather than suburban sprawl. If you make it practical, more people will use the service.

 

[Topological]

All this talk of shops makes me think...

Large supermarkets struggle badly for planning permission in areas where they have a larger middle class market. The most recent solution was next to main commuter roads on the pretence of supporting the local communities to get cheaper fruit and vegetables. That particular rouse got seen through when it also became very apparent the same supermarkets were also offering cheaper unhealthy food too. Hence, the supermarkets need another solution.

Planning permission for supermarkets with a large residential offering on top. It is not a design that features a lot in the UK, but there are plenty of examples in other countries.

 

[Meerkat]

The problem with the "all settlements must add units" approach is that you end up having to fight everyone.

Lots of small, winnable fights. If the locals have been brought into the process properly then the people who want houses in their home village/town for themselves and/or their kids will outnumber the NIMBYs

Much of that unused space is typically used as storage for the shop and the shops would have to be scrapped to unlock it for housing.
Given the constant "revive the high street" rhetoric, such a decision seems very unlikely.

The world has changed, the high street needs to shrink. Re zone the fringes and build on top of the middle and you have homes that don’t need cars, and customers for whom the shops are easier than the internet.

Planning permission for supermarkets with a large residential offering on top. It is not a design that features a lot in the UK, but there are plenty of examples in other countries.

Build the schools on top of the supermarkets. Structurally easier, heat the school with the AC/fridge heat, public transport nodes combined, and the car park reduces school run chaos.

 

[renegademaster]

The way to "revive the High Street" is to concentrate it into a smaller space

Why would forcing retail into small zones help revive it when the main reasons it is dieing is that Amazon and food delivery offers zero travel times?

 

[HSTEd]

Lots of small, winnable fights. If the locals have been brought into the process properly then the people who want houses in their home village/town for themselves and/or their kids will outnumber the NIMBYs

I'm extremely skeptical of this.
The number of people with children who are close to wanting to move out but at the same time have not already long moved to a major city or other urban area will be quite small.
The population of NIMBYs, however, is directly related to the number of owner-occupiers.

I am skeptical that the former will ever outnumber the latter in any significant settlement - which is how we got here in the first place.

 

[renegademaster]

Build the schools on top of the supermarkets

Safeguarding mess. Schools have strict rules about ensuring everyone on site is properly cleared, and having to share your grounds with a Tesco is going to make that very hard

 

[Bletchleyite]

The way to "revive the High Street" is to concentrate it into a smaller space, keeping the shops located in the centre and converting those on the periphery back to residential.

I disagree. The future of the high street to me is of a mixed-tenure area (residential and business) prioritising small, boutique type business, hospitality and generally making it a nice place to live and spend time. This more reflects the much more successful town centres of places in mainland Europe where les hypermarches and the likes took most of the big business a long time before the same thing happened in the UK.

If we see kids playing daily in our town centres (rather than scallies trying to scare people out of them) we've succeeded. It's the norm in most of Europe.

FWIW you're in Cambridge aren't you - isn't that almost like how Cambridge (which feels thriving) is? Though the residents are mostly students, there's also the residential by the station, which if I had the money I'd love to live in?

Safeguarding mess. Schools have strict rules about ensuring everyone on site is properly cleared, and having to share your grounds with a Tesco is going to make that very hard

That makes no sense; it's perfectly easy for them to have separate entrances.

 

[HSTEd]

Safeguarding mess. Schools have strict rules about ensuring everyone on site is properly cleared, and having to share your grounds with a Tesco is going to make that very hard

Unless people in the Tesco are going to try and dig through the concrete slab that would be above the ceiling of the supermarket, they may as well be two separate buildings.

 

[renegademaster]

That makes no sense; it's perfectly easy for them to have separate entrances.

It would make it hard to have any outside facilities without making access for the supermarket akward, either for the customers or for deliveries. Their is inner London schools with everything in one building and a playground on the roof but that's going to be a hard sell anywhere else in the country

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would make it hard to have any outside facilities without making access for the supermarket akward, either for the customers or for deliveries.

No, it wouldn't.

Their is inner London schools with everything in one building and a playground on the roof but that's going to be a hard sell anywhere else in the country

This is exactly what we're talking about here - build up rather than out. But high fences are hardly new tech, and most supermarkets are only accessible from one side anyway, the side with the car park.

 

[renegademaster]

only accessible from one side anyway, the side with the car park.

Theirs also the delivery bays , usually at the rear. Additionally you'll need fire escape routes that don't evacuate children into public areas.
If you really want to plop a compact urban school in Bedfordshire it would just be easier to build a 5 story school and a supermarket + flats next door, rather than awkwardly trying to merge the two.