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

[Bletchleyite]

You bought an asset, a house, that asset then decreased in value.

Due to a wilful policy decision.

We wouldn't build three-bedroom terraces.
We'd almost certainly be throwing up prefabricated bungalows, given that the value of agricultural land is negligible (the average plot will be around £1k).

Bungalows make incredibly inefficient use of land. Without going to flats (which British people don't like), three-storey terraced townhouses are probably optimum.

The alternative is that everyone spends the next several decades suffering so that people who made vast sums of money out of the house pricing increases of the past three decades can keep their newfound wealth.
Homeowners win, everyone else loses.

You could do something like apply a high rate of Capital Gains Tax to primary residences if you want to deal with that aspect, based on the difference between the house sold and the house purchased (as only those downsizing or selling up completely benefit from the gain, otherwise it is totally theoretical).

Your proposal is to put millions of households into permanent negative equity, wiping out everything they've worked their lives for. That is an unacceptable solution - it's far worse than the status quo, even.

By the way, you mean "...some people spend the next several decades suffering...".

 

[JonathanH]

The alternative is that everyone spends the next several decades suffering so that people who made vast sums of money out of the house pricing increases of the past three decades can keep their newfound wealth.
Homeowners win, everyone else loses.

Reducing house prices isn't the way to deal with that issue though. Capital gains tax is. The problem is the negative equity for recent buyers.

Your aims seem laudable, that as many people have access to owning a dwelling as want one and that it should be secure. However, if prices are to diminish over time rapidly, why would someone buy rather than rent?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Reducing house prices isn't the way to deal with that issue though. Capital gains tax is. The problem is the negative equity for recent buyers.

I don't think it would be at all unreasonable to apply a very high (say 50% or more) CGT rate on primary residences in the event that you didn't purchase another primary residence within say five years, and if the one you purchased was cheaper to apply it to the difference being pocketed. That would deal with that specific issue.

But don't forget that very often homes are sold to pay for care - if we remove the ability to do that, we have to find money from elsewhere to do that.

 

[Meerkat]

I believe Lloyds Bank is now dabbling, but why not lots of big players who would improve customer service and bring prices down via economies of scale?

I’ve often wondered this. I think there may be regulatory issues with pension funds and insurance companies getting involved - they do have fairly strict restrictions on what they can invest in.
I wonder whether it’s an illiquidity issue. Even if they used consortia to spread the risk over regions they are still exposed to the housing market in a lumpy way - see how commercial property fund investors got burnt when the funds start dropping then ban redemptions.
It would be popular - you would have a landlord with a reputational stake in, and the mass to provide, good management and prompt efficient maintenance. And a standardised product - move town and you could move to a near identical property.

 

[Topological]

I’ve often wondered this. I think there may be regulatory issues with pension funds and insurance companies getting involved - they do have fairly strict restrictions on what they can invest in.
I wonder whether it’s an illiquidity issue. Even if they used consortia to spread the risk over regions they are still exposed to the housing market in a lumpy way - see how commercial property fund investors got burnt when the funds start dropping then ban redemptions.
It would be popular - you would have a landlord with a reputational stake in, and the mass to provide, good management and prompt efficient maintenance. And a standardised product - move town and you could move to a near identical property.

I was thinking similar.

I suspect that the margins and expertise are higher in being a mortgage lender rather than using the money directly. The margins on being a landlord are pretty low (no matter how much the rent is higher than the mortgage payment).

There are large margins in being a developer, so we do see developers building houses for letting only (well mostly apartments). However, you do not see banks getting involved there either.

It may be that the numbers move and the permission to build a new town means that there will be an opportunity for a very large landlord to get involved in the market (linking conveniently to the topic)

I don't think it would be at all unreasonable to apply a very high (say 50% or more) CGT rate on primary residences in the event that you didn't purchase another primary residence within say five years, and if the one you purchased was cheaper to apply it to the difference being pocketed. That would deal with that specific issue.

But don't forget that very often homes are sold to pay for care - if we remove the ability to do that, we have to find money from elsewhere to do that.

I do not think this would be good. Secondary houses carrying CGT is fair, but the primary house should never have CGT. As noted, houses are sold for care. I do not know of many other situations where the seller does not buy a house within 5 years (unless moving abroad, but presumably they buy abroad).

 

[BrianW]

I was thinking similar.

I suspect that the margins and expertise are higher in being a mortgage lender rather than using the money directly. The margins on being a landlord are pretty low (no matter how much the rent is higher than the mortgage payment).

There are large margins in being a developer, so we do see developers building houses for letting only (well mostly apartments). However, you do not see banks getting involved there either.

It may be that the numbers move and the permission to build a new town means that there will be an opportunity for a very large landlord to get involved in the market (linking conveniently to the topic)


I do not think this would be good. Secondary houses carrying CGT is fair, but the primary house should never have CGT. As noted, houses are sold for care. I do not know of many other situations where the seller does not buy a house within 5 years (unless moving abroad, but presumably they buy abroad).

Rents need to be higher than mortgage payments- there are management and maintenance costs as well as the land and construction costs (and interest thereon) that need to be financed, and their risks covered. 'Normally' Councils have been able to afford these more readily than other organisations that can cover the risks less well, and in the case of private firms also expect to make a profit.

At present however many Councils are bankrupt, or nearly so, due to poor risk-taking on commercial enterprises, like shopping centres or energy companies for which they have inadequate expertise. They may therefore feel less well able to take on financial investment and related risks.

 

[Topological]

Rents need to be higher than mortgage payments- there are management and maintenance costs as well as the land and construction costs (and interest thereon) that need to be financed, and their risks covered. 'Normally' Councils have been able to afford these more readily than other organisations that can cover the risks less well, and in the case of private firms also expect to make a profit.

At present however many Councils are bankrupt, or nearly so, due to poor risk-taking on commercial enterprises, like shopping centres or energy companies for which they have inadequate expertise. They may therefore feel less well able to take on financial investment and related risks.

Indeed, and since the interest relief was removed the tax on rental income is also very high. So there needs to be a massive gap between rent and mortgage payments if private landlords are to stay in the game.

I do understand the calls for private landlords to sell up, but then there is the question of who fills the void. Some private landlords are bad, but others are much better than larger landlord firms. It can be a case of being careful what you wish for there.

Those who are able to handle the construction and maintenance side are at an advantage, so this has favoured councils who have a wider housing stock and obtain economies of scale. I likewise cannot see how other firms could come in and obtain the same advantages from the outset.

Supporting failing business has taken up too much money, though it is clear why policy makers have interest in certain firms. For politicians there are votes to be had. As you say though, that has led to some big mistakes being made and the real opportunities to invest for impact being missed. Here national level policy may support local authorities to feel they can invest more in their housing stock.

In so many ways, new towns present opportunities to get things right. I worry that those opportunities will not be taken.

 

[JLH4AC]

We wouldn't build three-bedroom terraces.
We'd almost certainly be throwing up prefabricated bungalows, given that the value of agricultural land is negligible (the average plot will be around £1k).

Bungalows are an inefficient use of land especially if want a house more than a single person/couple comfortably, also they are not what the average renter/homebuyer wants most people want multi-story homes. Bungalows are only a good idea for the elderly or disabled and in many a well built ground floor flat with an adequate level of soundproofing and insulation built as part of a maisonette is often the better choice. Semi-detached and terraced housing including some built as maisonettes would be the most efficient in terms of use of land, cost of building/land acquisition and meeting the needs/demands of renters/homebuyers, and it is stated Labour policy that new homes will be semi-detached and terraced housing. Labour's stated policy of only allowing attractive homes and no more identikit homes would not work with prefabricated homes.

 

[BrianW]

Indeed, and since the interest relief was removed the tax on rental income is also very high. So there needs to be a massive gap between rent and mortgage payments if private landlords are to stay in the game.

I do understand the calls for private landlords to sell up, but then there is the question of who fills the void. Some private landlords are bad, but others are much better than larger landlord firms. It can be a case of being careful what you wish for there.

Those who are able to handle the construction and maintenance side are at an advantage, so this has favoured councils who have a wider housing stock and obtain economies of scale. I likewise cannot see how other firms could come in and obtain the same advantages from the outset.

Supporting failing business has taken up too much money, though it is clear why policy makers have interest in certain firms. For politicians there are votes to be had. As you say though, that has led to some big mistakes being made and the real opportunities to invest for impact being missed. Here national level policy may support local authorities to feel they can invest more in their housing stock.

In so many ways, new towns present opportunities to get things right. I worry that those opportunities will not be taken.

IIRC, the post-war New Towns were set up with Development Corporations apart from Local Authorities (and local politics and NIMByism) and without local democratic control.

Mrs Thatcher warmed to the idea of Enterprise Zones, like in London's Docklands, similarly stripped of democratic accountability; more recent manifestations have included Lord Houchen's Teesside domain in Rishi Sunak's backyard.

There may be scope for developments more akin to Howard's and Unwin's Garden Cities if they can be progressed 'at pace', a necessary dimension in the current political climate. Modern Methods of Construction (aka Modular or Prefabricated Housing), maybe rationalised versions of Ecohomes and/or Hufhaus could find backing for rapid rollout with architectural merit. Bring on Lord Kevin McCloud?

 

[HSTEd]

Bungalows are an inefficient use of land especially if want a house more than a single person/couple comfortably, also they are not what the average renter/homebuyer wants most people want multi-story homes.

The question is how much those people are willing to pay (or how long they wish to wait) for that extra story.
Single story bungalow type houses can economise on site labour to an enormous degree.

Bungalows are only a good idea for the elderly or disabled and in many a well built ground floor flat with an adequate level of soundproofing and insulation built as part of a maisonette is often the better choice. Semi-detached and terraced housing including some built as maisonettes would be the most efficient in terms of use of land, cost of building/land acquisition

The cost of land is in almost all cases negligible, it wil lbe in the hundreds to very low thousands of pounds per plot, again absent deliberate Government attempts to inflate the price through artificial scarcity.
Multiple story homes will be substantially harder to construct in the numbers required using available industrial or technical resources.

Additionally by far the fastest growing demographic group in the UK over the next several decades will be the elderly......

and meeting the needs/demands of renters/homebuyers, and it is stated Labour policy that new homes will be semi-detached and terraced housing. Labour's stated policy of only allowing attractive homes and no more identikit homes would not work with prefabricated homes.

It is doubtful that sufficient industrial resources for the programme they envisage to be progressed without major use of modular and prefabricated construction techniques.
The UK does not possess the housebuilding infrastructure that existed the last time it exceeded 300,000 housing units completed (1978). Traditional stick building has fallen off dramatically given its essential extinction in the commercial and industrial sectors.
You might be able to stretch bricklayers with things like Porotherm but that will fall into this "attractive" housing trap once again.

Any attempt to construct a new town as proposed will inevitably have to make major use of prefabrication and modular design elements, or it simply won't be able to advance at the rates required.

Personally, between plentiful, "unattractive" housing and scarce, "attractive" housing I will take the former every time.
All that truly matters is (safe) units built per day.


EDITED to make the post more succinct.

 

[JLH4AC]

The question is how much those people are willing to pay (or how long they wish to wait) for that extra story.
Single story bungalow type houses can economise on site labour to an enormous degree.

Given that the current housing market is mostly semi-detached and detached homes I would say having an extra story calls for enough of a premium to justify them being built at such a scale. Be able to economise on-site labour does not matter if the wrong type of housing is being built.

The cost of land is in almost all cases negligible, it wil lbe in the hundreds to very low thousands of pounds per plot, again absent deliberate Government attempts to inflate the price through artificial scarcity.
Multiple story homes will be substantially harder to construct in the numbers required using available industrial or technical resources.

When building over 300,000 homes per year even seemingly negligible savings can add up to significantly reduced costs so yes land cost is likely not a significant factor but it is still one that can affect the profitability of the project. Multi-story homes will be harder to construct but if that is the type of housing that is needed/wanted then the housing builders should work out how to build it all at the scale needed.

Additionally by far the fastest growing demographic group in the UK over the next several decades will be the elderly......

Provision should be made for the elderly among the new housing stock but even if the amount of elderly who need to move to bungalows doubles they will still be significantly outnumbered by people living in overcrowded houses, also due to issues such as loneliness, falls and care provision there are questions if standalone bungalows are actually the best choice for housing the elderly who are losing mobility or suffering from other health issues or if supported retirement housing developments will be better for them.

It is doubtful that sufficient industrial resources for the programme they envisage to be progressed without major use of modular and prefabricated construction techniques.
The UK does not possess the housebuilding infrastructure that existed the last time it exceeded 300,000 housing units completed (1978). Traditional stick building has fallen off dramatically given its essential extinction in the commercial and industrial sectors.
You might be able to stretch bricklayers with things like Porotherm but that will fall into this "attractive" housing trap once again.

Any attempt to construct a new town as proposed will inevitably have to make major use of prefabrication and modular design elements, or it simply won't be able to advance at the rates required.

Personally, between plentiful, "unattractive" housing and scarce, "attractive" housing I will take the former every time.
All that truly matters is (safe) units built per day.

The housing experts that I have read all say the concerns of the Labour housing plan are the lack of incentivisation for housebuilders to flood the market with new homes, the lack of planers and the lack of labour across the whole construction industry which affects all trades (Not just those related traditional construction techniques, it likely that pre-fab construction would be harder hit by labour shortages as welders, electricians, concrete workers and machinery operators will be in especially high demand due to all the new electrical grid and electricity generation projects that Labour has planned.), and many project management positions. There was nothing about traditional construction techniques being too slow or expensive to build over 300,000 homes per year.

Some commercial buildings are still stick built out of bricks, some commercial developers value aesthetics/traditional construction techniques over cost effectiveness. What truly matters is housing is built to meet the needs and wants of the people who are going to live there. It is no good rushing to build homes that people will reluctantly live in when most people affected by the housing crisis are currently housed but in far from ideal accommodation and there are 260,000 long-term empty homes in England many of which can be bought back into use through the local council working with the owners, developers, police and charities. That is not to say local councils/central government shouldn't source mobile homes or other similar prefabricated structures to use as temporary accommodation for those who can't wait (Those who are homeless, stuck living with an ex-partner or living in accommodation that is unsafe for any reason.) for proper housing to be built.

 

[SynthD]

Single story bungalow type houses can economise on site labour to an enormous degree.

On the site of the house yes, but it makes the whole town bigger, more car dependant, more resource heavy.

 

[Meerkat]

There are large margins in being a developer, so we do see developers building houses for letting only (well mostly apartments). However, you do not see banks getting involved there either.

Presumably the banks are funding the developers though?

I do not think this would be good. Secondary houses carrying CGT is fair, but the primary house should never have CGT. As noted, houses are sold for care. I do not know of many other situations where the seller does not buy a house within 5 years (unless moving abroad, but presumably they buy abroad).

Why should an unearned profit (it’s the market, not anything the householder has done) not suffer CGT? Not to do so speeds up inequality.
Houses are also sold to downsize - anytime there is cashing out there should be a tax on the profit.
The complication will be on extensions etc and what expenses can be set off As they enhanced the value.
A massive privately developed housebuilding programme needs to be spread across a large number of sites - developers won’t dump a huge supply into a particular local market as it will collapse the selling prices (hence the slow rollout of some very large developments). Is there any way around this problem for new towns?

 

[gg1]

Why should an unearned profit (it’s the market, not anything the householder has done) not suffer CGT? Not to do so speeds up inequality.
Houses are also sold to downsize - anytime there is cashing out there should be a tax on the profit.

You've touched on a major downside of applying CGT on a primary/sole home, it would be a strong disincentive to downsize, something which should surely be encouraged where you have (for example) an older couple living alone in a 4 bedroom house.

 

[Meerkat]

You've touched on a major downside of applying CGT on a primary/sole home, it would be a strong disincentive to downsize, something which should surely be encouraged where you have (for example) an older couple living alone in a 4 bedroom house.

It just reduces the cash out, not removes it.
if it doesn’t budge them then maybe we need council tax to go up for empty bedrooms……..

 

[bspahh]

The latest episode of the Jam Tomorrow podcast is on the green belt.

From 28 minutes 45 seconds into the podcast there is a comment from Paul Cheshire of the LSE that in the Greater London green belt, there is land to build 1 million houses within 800m of an existing rail station. He discussed this in a 2019 report.

 

[Nottingham59]

The latest episode of the Jam Tomorrow podcast is on the green belt.

From 28 minutes 45 seconds into the podcast there is a comment from Paul Cheshire of the LSE that in the Greater London green belt, there is land to build 1 million houses within 800m of an existing rail station. This was discussed in a 2019 report from Paul Cheshire.

Only a million? that seems very few given the size of the green belt land. I wonder how many if you included sites that could feasibly build a new station on an existing railway line?

 

[JonathanH]

if it doesn’t budge them then maybe we need council tax to go up for empty bedrooms……..

Certainly an interesting idea that single people can only live in one bedroom houses and flats unless they pay higher council tax. I reckon the extra tax would still be cheaper than having to put visitors up in hotels.

 

[Topological]

Certainly an interesting idea that single people can only live in one bedroom houses and flats unless they pay higher council tax. I reckon the extra tax would still be cheaper than having to put visitors up in hotels.

Drifting a long way from the topic here.

However, I find the idea that you throw people out of their family home because they find themselves alone to be morally wrong. At what point is a room "spare"? Tax is already based on valuation, so a higher valued house means more tax (whilst bedrooms and value are not directly linked, they are correlated).

There are many, many, ways to solve the housing crisis without having to penalise current home owners.

 

[Recessio]

The latest episode of the Jam Tomorrow podcast is on the green belt.

From 28 minutes 45 seconds into the podcast there is a comment from Paul Cheshire of the LSE that in the Greater London green belt, there is land to build 1 million houses within 800m of an existing rail station. He discussed this in a 2019 report.

An extremely good report. I've always thought it ridiculous that huge chunks of the Central and Metropolitan lines provide empty fields with the type of fast and frequent services that many large towns and cities in the rest of the country would dream of having.

TfL did realise this a bit with chopping the Ongar branch, as there was no prospect of house building there. I'd love to see new housing on the outer reaches of the lines, and increasing gentle density in the swathes of Metroland low density semi-detacheds (eg the recent development in Stamford Hill of adding an extra storey to a house, provided it keeps in style).

Increasing density would allow Labour to build a lot of homes without having to commit nearly as much in new infrastructure.

 

[Meerkat]

The latest episode of the Jam Tomorrow podcast is on the green belt.

From 28 minutes 45 seconds into the podcast there is a comment from Paul Cheshire of the LSE that in the Greater London green belt, there is land to build 1 million houses within 800m of an existing rail station. He discussed this in a 2019 report.

I’m pretty wary about that report. The Board of Trustees seems developer heavy and they are mainly funded by Lord Sainsbury (also a massive funder of the Labour party’s election campaign - coincidence eh!)
it also seems rather extreme, if not Stalinist! Force the rail companies to be funded by how much development they can do, after taking the land off the owners at low prices and keeping the profits, with planning agreement from the city region rather than local democratic control. It also counts woodland as buildable.

 

[SynthD]

it also seems rather extreme, if not Stalinist! Force the rail companies to be funded by how much development they can do, after taking the land off the owners at low prices and keeping the profits, with planning agreement from the city region rather than local democratic control. It also counts woodland as buildable.

That’s not accurate at all. The rail companies just run the trains, don’t do development. The compulsory purchases are at a premium over market rate. I don’t know about planning control but I suspect you’ve misread. In a Stalinist system, the profit would go to the state, not a developer.

 

[Meerkat]

That’s not accurate at all. The rail companies just run the trains, don’t do development. The compulsory purchases are at a premium over market rate. I don’t know about planning control but I suspect you’ve misread. In a Stalinist system, the profit would go to the state, not a developer.

It proposes the rail companies get the development rights and the profits. The land is compulsorily purchased at just above agricultural value, not market value.
Planning control is by development corporations like Docklands, but at city region level, so way divorced from local towns and county councils.

 

[DarloRich]

The obvious areas near me are a number of sites along the Marston Vale line, along the E-W line ( Winslow perhaps ) and perhaps around Cheddington.

All would result in a vast nimby army of complaints! The Marston Vale option also has easy access to the M1/A1.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The obvious areas near me are a number of sites along the Marston Vale line, along the E-W line ( Winslow perhaps ) and perhaps around Cheddington.

All would result in a vast nimby army of complaints! The Marston Vale option also has easy access to the M1/A1.

Coupled with a Denbigh Hall Chord (which is on Network Rail's agenda and not just my idea) the Marston Vale could go from a backwater to an urban "metro" if you created a few ecovillages along it (albeit not at metro frequencies, more like the east Manchester local services). If there's no direct service to MKC people won't use it, though.

As for Winslow I'd say a Bicester style expansion (mostly for Oxford/MK commuters rather than London ones) is near certain. Bicester was a smallish town when I first went there 20 years ago, it's now more like a mini MK.

 

[bramling]

The obvious areas near me are a number of sites along the Marston Vale line, along the E-W line ( Winslow perhaps ) and perhaps around Cheddington.

All would result in a vast nimby army of complaints! The Marston Vale option also has easy access to the M1/A1.

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.

 

[DarloRich]

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.

The A421 ( the link between MK > M1 > Bedford > A1) runs well. It will run even better when the Black Cat roundabout is sorted out. The A1 will be better once the silly bit through Wyboston/ Buckden is diverted. The M1 is often slow but that is mainly the bloomin 50 mph sections!

I would be more concerned about local facilities than roads in this area. more schools, doctors, shops etc will be needed.

Coupled with a Denbigh Hall Chord (which is on Network Rail's agenda and not just my idea) the Marston Vale could go from a backwater to an urban "metro" if you created a few ecovillages along it (albeit not at metro frequencies, more like the east Manchester local services). If there's no direct service to MKC people won't use it, though.

Agreed, but the train isn't the only transport option to consider. ( hereacy for this board i know). People will also use the trains if they connect to London trains at each end of the line.

Separately the MV > WCML North facing connection wont be cheap or easy. I know experts here dismiss the area as "just a few warehouses" but there is much more to it than that

As for Winslow I'd say a Bicester style expansion

agreed - but it will have to be very carefully done. NIMBY land and all that!

 

[frodshamfella]

Rather then building new towns for commuters to the South East, I'd suggest a new town program in the North West and South West, with an industrial subsidy scheme (similar to the original new town programs) to relocate companies away from the South East.

North West:

Firstly, I'd propose a new town joining Rishton (which already has a station), Clayton-le-Moors and Great Harwood.
Land is cheap in the area, there is good motorway access, and you could link a tram system using the old Great Harwood loop alignment of the East Lancs line for the most part to serve the new developments with links into Blackburn and Burnley.
If the new town released additional transport-related funding, I'd electrify the east Lancs from the WCML to Colne and run the Preston - Colne stopper up to every 30 mins, if possible. This would link the new town into long distance services at Preston and services to Manchester/Leeds/Clitheroe/Blackpool at Blackburn/Burnley/Accrington.

Secondly, I'd select Acton Bridge in Cheshire as another potential site - the WCML station has good links to Liverpool and Birmingham, with stations at Cuddington and Greenbank close by towards Manchester and Chester.
Land is flat and not massively expensive in that area of Cheshire, and if you build towards Cuddington from Acton Bridge station, you're building away from the river Weaver and so avoid flooding issues in the area.
You also have the larger amenities a town of around 40 to 50k would need in Northwich or Runcorn, which are both reasonably nearby.



For the SW towns, I'd suggest St Germans as an initial development.
Good links into Plymouth/St Austell/Exeter by train, space to the west of the existing village to build on and establishing large industrial estates in the area would provide more much-needed jobs in a quite deprived county.

There's also potential to build a second station in the Liskeard direction, near Trerulefoot, to serve additional extensions if needed.

It is also a very desirable area to build in, with the picturesque Lynher valley to the east. Recreational infrastructure including hiking trails and parks could be developed along this area, as an eastern buffer to the large development.

The next place I'd consider would be Yeoford in Mid Devon. Regular services into Exeter on the Tarka line, and potential of more if small upgrades were made for the Okehampton service to be able to stop here.
Plenty of land is available in the area, it is relatively close to the A30, and being in the Yeo valley, land is reasonably flat.
The traditional agricultural economy in this part of Devon is currently struggling (partly due to the rising costs of farming), especially since some of the area supplements income via small-scale tourist enterprises.
As we've just seen for the last few years, the tourism and hospitality industry is not bulletproof, and the new town development could provide more secure employment for locals, as well as a nearby source of labour for the agricultural industry.
Again, there's potential for another station towards Okehampton/Barnstaple, if the new town was to build future extensions in the direction of Colebrooke/Penstone.

Before you do anything at Acton Bridge, the station car parking needs to be greatly extended, its woefully inadequate . Acton Bridge is a quite an expensive area to live id also add.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Before you do anything at Acton Bridge, the station car parking needs to be greatly extended, its woefully inadequate . Acton Bridge is a quite an expensive area to live id also add.

Yes, the expansion of parking at any station with a new town would probably be inevitable - I can only think of very few stations on the network with a significant overprovision of parking.

Action Bridge may be an expensive area to live in now, but the lower land values around that portion of Cheshire lend themselves to provision of facilities to reduce the cost directly and indirectly.

 

[The Ham]

House price collapse due to mass housing construction is highly unlikely to cause mass homelessness.
Given that kicking people out of housing would just lead to obtaining no money rather than some.

In any case, depending on inflation to achieve a house price 30% of now would take a very long time. The current policy of the state is to control inflation to ~2% per annum.
So if house prices were controlled to remain entirely nominally stagnant, the number of years that it would take to achieve this can be calculated.
0.3 = 0.98^n -> n= 59 years.

Sure, some level of correction would be achieved comparatively quickly, but we wouldn't see the economy pick up as a result for decades. In essence you might solve the problem, but for two generations from now!
In the mean time, the distortions will continue to eat the real economy.

EDIT:

Realised a better calculation is
0.3 x 1.02^n = 1 -> n= 60.8 years.

So essentially the same value.

I would suggest that given that if you are renting and paying (say) £1,200 a month and seeing nothing from that if you've got a house that's worth £300,000 and you see it's value fall by £100 a month (so after 20 years it'll be worth £276,000) for a lot of people that'll be acceptable. With inflation at 2% per year after 20 years the real term value of that house would be £185,000 and so much more affordable.

Yes that's still 20 years, but that's still a lot faster than just relying on inflation.

With the yearly fall in value being less than 0.5%, prices are fairly stagnant and aren't reliant on noticeable falls. Which shouldn't scare people off from buying, especially given their other option is renting. Likewise almost no-one would be in negative equity (unless they have a loan of greater than 99.5% of the value of their home).

It’s only 1% of the total per year, whilst the Population keeps rocketing up…….

That’s sort of my point. I think the holding and renting of homes is a massive bubble. I’m thinking that a clear signal that you want to drive them out the market could quickly produce a rush to sell, leading to a significant price collapse.
So I’m wondering how you judge how to make that a gradual process.

What rate of growth is the population growing at? If it's less than 1% then the extra homes would mean that we were actually increasing the housing stock.

The rate is population growth between 2011 and 2021 was 5.96%, if we had increased our housing stock at 1% per year for that 10 years there would be 10.46% more gone than there was at the start of those 10 years.

As such, the population is growing slower than 1% per a year and so not really rocketing up.

You've touched on a major downside of applying CGT on a primary/sole home, it would be a strong disincentive to downsize, something which should surely be encouraged where you have (for example) an older couple living alone in a 4 bedroom house.

Depends on how you apply it.

I but a house for £200,000 and sell it 10 years later for £400,000 I'd pay £100,000 in CGT but it'd still have an extra £100,000.

However, you could apply a "reasonable growth factor" to ensure that your investment wasn't impacted too much by inflation. If this was set at (say) 2.5% per year rather than the baseline value being £200,000 it would be £256,000 and so the tax paid would be £72,000.

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.

The A421 ( the link between MK > M1 > Bedford > A1) runs well. It will run even better when the Black Cat roundabout is sorted out. The A1 will be better once the silly bit through Wyboston/ Buckden is diverted. The M1 is often slow but that is mainly the bloomin 50 mph sections!

I would be more concerned about local facilities than roads in this area. more schools, doctors, shops etc will be needed.


Agreed, but the train isn't the only transport option to consider. ( hereacy for this board i know). People will also use the trains if they connect to London trains at each end of the line.

Separately the MV > WCML North facing connection wont be cheap or easy. I know experts here dismiss the area as "just a few warehouses" but there is much more to it than that


agreed - but it will have to be very carefully done. NIMBY land and all that!

All new developments have to provide funding for new schools, healthcare and the like. It's also not uncommon for larger developments to build shops with flats over, community buildings, and even (if they are large enough) have to set aside land for development as employment use.