TBH I don't see why sugar needs to be a problem. It can be cut down slowly and people would scarcely notice / get used to it and also get more aware of levels of it.
However it is also a preservative.
Congratulations sir kier
- Thread starter motorbiking
- Start date
However it is also a preservative.
I think price wise there is another reason that makes new more expensive. The price is set by current housing stock + some as they are new. This means that savings on building costs needn't be passed on. Estate agents are always testing the market in an upward direction. Supply and demand can heavily increase that. Fact of life in many areas.
This to my mind will be one of Labours problems. however they have found 3 areas at least that are stuck in planning. That means some company is interested in building them.
A "builders" it wont work, grey belt. Not enough profit in it due to infrastructure needed. That seems to relate to this
The rent is then calculated by taking similar properties in the area and working out the 80% of the average rent. This is done using a Royal Institute of Charted Surveryors (RICS) method to ensure that the rent level is considered accurate.
In real term this really depends on existing roads. Labour are rather keen on job availability which limits were builds can be built. People in the area move around. SE, well more go there, more jobs? higher pay but they will need that.
Fact is compromise has to be the name of the game with all of the complications otherwise we wont get any,
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
We only have snippets emerging and to be fair this is day 2 of their reign. But I can see a problem with setting house building targets, but at the same time asking private companies to build them.
Typically businesses don't invest money building things that are not in high demand and are potentially falling in value. So they have to strong arm the builders, either taxing their undeveloped land or compulsory purchasing. Setting Local government mandatory targets for building is going to result in some leverage for the building firms.
The house builders will control the market and dictate the terms.
Typically businesses don't invest money building things that are not in high demand and are potentially falling in value. So they have to strong arm the builders, either taxing their undeveloped land or compulsory purchasing. Setting Local government mandatory targets for building is going to result in some leverage for the building firms.
The house builders will control the market and dictate the terms.
What else can they do and that in practice has been a fact going way way back. Maintainance on council houses being a bit different. That is now put out to private companies. Probably what private land lords do or do you also pay the people who are needed to do it?
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,562
- Reaction score
- 644
- Country
I remember Reeves saying something along the lines of, "you can't keep saying "no" ", towards nimby councils.
If she were a senior manager in a company, she could tell junior managers to manage in order to get the required result, or they'd be replaced..
It'll be hard enough with the Labour councils, the others will be even more revolting. Even then, none of them can tell housebuilders what to build where.
Nosenothing will say change the housebuilders, but reality tends to prevail.
Persimmon, Vistry and maybe Crest Nicholson should fare well. Some of the others are hobbled by cladding problems.
If she were a senior manager in a company, she could tell junior managers to manage in order to get the required result, or they'd be replaced..
It'll be hard enough with the Labour councils, the others will be even more revolting. Even then, none of them can tell housebuilders what to build where.
Nosenothing will say change the housebuilders, but reality tends to prevail.
Persimmon, Vistry and maybe Crest Nicholson should fare well. Some of the others are hobbled by cladding problems.
Last edited:
Very firmly. What is not entirely clear is Rayner's powers in this area. It may be convener mode. Hard to tell. All the gov need do in some respects is select the builder and get it through planning.
Ninbys is a general term. The basic argument is that in a general sense they have prevented decisions purely for political reasons. That is the council, gov aspect. LOL I am glad to see they have gained a name and hope the media push it. They probably came up with it. Reeves - I don't think she used the term but may have smiled a bit when one of the press used it.
Clean power - that looks like it is entirely different and may need the police. Same on housing next? Depends on what powers Rayner actually has.
This lot have always been pretty good at it
Birmingham reveals ten year housing plan | Birmingham City Council
Birmingham reveals ten year housing plan - Birmingham reveals ten year housing plan
www.birmingham.gov.uk
The Kings Norton one might be thought of as grey belt. I see the progress on that one now and again. It didn't take long. I'd be inclined to think match boxes but they threw in an Aldi for shopping. That draws more in from surrounding areas.
Downside. More traffic on an arterial road but it has problems with people coming in from Reditch etc. To fix this sort of thing in most cities would mean knocking the lot down and starting again.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
Can I check this is what you are trying to say?
What else can they do? Not withstanding maintenance on council houses, this is something they've had to do for many years. Is it any different to a private Landlord? Do you outsource the work to external firms or hire your own?
Last edited:
You've clearly understood it so why bother?
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
Because at least half the time, people generally have absolutely no idea of the point you trying to make. So really the question falls back to you. Why would you bother to post something that nobody can understand?
To answer the question:
- The more you outsource, the higher the cost, the less you control, the more the supplier controls and the less flexibility you have.
- If you suddenly and massively grow the market, costs go through the roof, because the power shifts from demand to supply
Just look at the building trade - post covid.
To answer the question:
- The more you outsource, the higher the cost, the less you control, the more the supplier controls and the less flexibility you have.
- If you suddenly and massively grow the market, costs go through the roof, because the power shifts from demand to supply
Just look at the building trade - post covid.
The devil is in the detail, your suggestion of taxing undeveloped land banks is a good way of nudging the market. Are you a closet socialist?
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
I was guessing their approach, not endorsing the strategy. It's easy to predict what would happen. It will result in smaller, more densely built developments at higher (pSqrM) cost, that will be unpopular with home owners, and therefore get rented back to the council.
It would be better to offer tax breaks to house builders who help them meet their targets. But that is more of a capitalist approach.
It would be better to offer tax breaks to house builders who help them meet their targets. But that is more of a capitalist approach.
When my mate sold his MoT station for development, no private developers were interested as a certain percentage of the flats would have to be 'affordable'. I don't think that people paying top dollar for a property want to pay top dollar to live next door to someone paying bottom dollar or no dollar! In the end, it was bought by a housing association. I think this happens a lot.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
I have a related question..
A 6 year old BMW X1 car which has 30,000 miles on it has MOT advisories of front suspension arm pin or bush worn but no play. Dealer will fix it, but I was surprised they'd be a problem on such a low mileage car?
A 6 year old BMW X1 car which has 30,000 miles on it has MOT advisories of front suspension arm pin or bush worn but no play. Dealer will fix it, but I was surprised they'd be a problem on such a low mileage car?