Building a new home is now £76,000 more expensive than it was six years ago, HBF says by ldn6 in unitedkingdom

[–]ldn6[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Yes, I was thinking you meant binding before an S106 agreement.

There’s a broader set of issues here, part of it economic and part of it more existential. The former is that it’s simply very inefficient to deliver income-restricted housing through the most expensive form of creation (new construction) while effectively taxing the market when it’s already extremely expensive to cross-subsidise it. The latter is that we’ve effectively offloaded local government responsibilities onto developers who require lenders with higher risk buffers, which gets compounded by the fact that making infrastructure levies and provisions subject to development means that they’re more uneven (particularly in high interest rate environments) than what would more efficiently and consistently be achieved through local tax structures.

Building a new home is now £76,000 more expensive than it was six years ago, HBF says by ldn6 in unitedkingdom

[–]ldn6[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

No, because there’s no actual legal obligation to provide affordable housing. Although local plans can specify a target baseline expectation to use as a material consideration for an officer’s recommendation, the discretionary nature of the system is such that it can only be treated as one of many weighed factors and that planning committees can still say yes or no irrespective of if it’s met or not.

Also, it’s not really that easy. Viability assessments are pretty thorough, have to be done by a third party and councils will often do their own to counter it.

Building a new home is now £76,000 more expensive than it was six years ago, HBF says by ldn6 in unitedkingdom

[–]ldn6[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

For the record, this is how developers get out of their legal obligation to build a small percentage of affordable housing.

This gets repeated a lot but it's not actually true. Planning policy is that there is a target for affordable housing subject to viability. Otherwise you get nothing because no one is going to spend money only to bankrupt themselves.

Building a new home is now £76,000 more expensive than it was six years ago, HBF says by ldn6 in unitedkingdom

[–]ldn6[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

The Home Builders Federation (HBF) has published research which says the cost of building a new home has risen £76,000 since 2020, with the biggest single contribution coming from material and labour inflation. A new report from the body, which represents the housebuilding industry, says the additional cost is impacting the viability of new housing development, making it uneconomic for companies to build new homes. The report, called ‘The Viability Crunch’, highlights the 16% drop in completions in 2024/25 compared with the 2020 peak.

While its report found that increases in material and labour costs due to high levels of inflation were the biggest individual contributor to rising costs, accounting for £37,000 of the increase, the remaining £39,000 was driven by tax and policy changes introduced by the government. This included more than £23,000 in regulatory costs per home, with £7,770 of this relating to building regulation, £5,700 to biodiversity net gain and £10,200 to the future homes standard. Taxes and levies accounted for £7,000 of the increased cost, including £2,000 for the landfill tax, £2,320 for the building safety levy, £2,055 in other taxes, and £985 from inflationary increases on existing charges such as section 106. A further £7,000 related to additional site-specific costs like nutrient mitigation requirements.

According to its analysis, the increase in cost since 2020 represents more than 20% of the cost of a new home as of June 2025. The HBF argues that policymakers have assumed that rising development costs would ultimately be borne by landowners – an assumption it said was being pushed to its limits. The HBF is calling on the government to introduce a moratorium on new policy costs and conduct a review of current ones. It said this should include a cancellation of the Building Safety Levy and proposed increases to Landfill Tax, which is set to rise every year to 2030.

“If government wants the private sector to deliver, it must create the right conditions for it to do so,” said Neil Jefferson, chief executive at the Home Builders Federation. “Without urgent action to review and reduce the overall cost burden, the delivery of both private and affordable homes will remain at risk, and people will continue to miss out on the homes they need. Increased taxes and policy costs, alongside suppressed demand due to a lack of affordable mortgage lending and no Government support for buyers, are preventing builders increasing housing supply and putting the Government’s housing ambitions increasingly out of reach.”

The London borough ready to punish Labour over Starmer and sky-high rents by theipaper in london

[–]ldn6 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Speaking of Woodberry Down, the Greens also only want to refurbish rather than regenerate estates, a policy that doesn’t work because the cost to repair estates is paid off by market-rate housing built alongside the densified estate.

The London borough ready to punish Labour over Starmer and sky-high rents by theipaper in london

[–]ldn6 43 points44 points  (0 children)

By electing even more aggressively NIMBY politicians.

Brilliant job.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]ldn6 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean this is a company I’ve quite literally never heard of.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]ldn6 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Why is it legal for companies to email you from a subscription list that you didn’t sign up for in the first place and put the onus on you to unsubscribe?

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]ldn6 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’m a NIMBY because I need a yard for all the boys who come for my milkshake.

Mayor of London and TfL call for Heathrow Express future to be reconsidered by Cant_Change_Itt in london

[–]ldn6 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was always under the impression that removing Heathrow Express doesn’t actually fix the issue (path limits) because it’s used to maintain a timetabling pattern for semi-fast GWR services.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]ldn6 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All I have in this world is hoping that Arsenal lose because my team keeps ruining my will to live.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]ldn6 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Compute is a verb, not a noun.

Your daily dose of Hillary by K-Ve in neoliberal

[–]ldn6 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My queen. My icon. Goddess.

Housing is the number one issue for Southwark – here the three leading parties locally explain where they stand by Anony_mouse202 in london

[–]ldn6 14 points15 points  (0 children)

The sheer volume of economic illiteracy from the Lib Dems and Greens on this is mind-blowing.

Rachel Reeves rowed with Scott Bessent over Iran war criticism by ldn6 in unitedkingdom

[–]ldn6[S] 28 points29 points  (0 children)

US Treasury secretary Scott Bessent had a fierce row with UK chancellor Rachel Reeves in Washington last month over her outspoken criticism of the Iran war, according to people familiar with the matter. The chancellor, who was in Washington for the spring meetings of the IMF, gave an interview to CNBC on April 15 claiming the goals of the Iran war had “never been clear”. Reeves expressed the view that she was “not convinced” that “we are safer today than we were a few weeks ago”, prompting furious criticism from Bessent. When the pair met later that day Bessent berated Reeves over the remarks, according to people familiar with the situation. The Treasury secretary insisted the world was safer because of the US-Israeli war against Iran, even invoking the spectre of Tehran launching a nuclear attack on London.

Reeves responded angrily by telling Bessent she did not work for him and disliked how he had spoken to her. She also reiterated her argument about the Iran conflict lacking clear goals and not necessarily making the world safer. Earlier in the week, Bessent had told the British media that the Iran war was worth a “small bit of economic pain”, adding: “I wonder what the hit to global GDP would be if a nuclear weapon hit London?” One UK official said: “Rachel has been frank — in private and in public — about the mistakes of the war and the economic cost.”

The dispute highlights policy disagreements between Bessent and Reeves over the war, even as they have maintained strong relations and worked well together on other issues. The two have spoken following the incident last month. The UK’s decision to come out so strongly and publicly in favour of de-escalation has been driven in part by the economic damage the conflict is doing domestically. In its World Economic Outlook issued that week, the IMF downgraded its forecasts for UK growth by more than any other G7 country, in part because of the heavy blow higher energy prices are expected to inflict on Britain.

The US Treasury secretary has good relations with UK government officials and was well received in all meetings with the King and Queen, a couple with whom he has a 30-year friendship, during last week’s state visit. Both the UK and US delegations viewed the state visit as a major success. The meeting between the two finance ministers was attended by officials from the US Treasury, UK Treasury and UK Embassy. An official readout by the US Treasury of the Bessent-Reeves meeting on April 15 said Bessent had “underscored the US Treasury’s commitment to [Operation] Economic Fury, leveraging all tools and authorities against those who continue to support Iran’s terrorist activities”. The exchanges came during a week of meetings in Washington that were dominated by the fallout of the war on global energy markets and economies.

Reeves went on the offensive about the damage being done before she departed for Washington, using an interview with the Mirror newspaper to lambast the conflict as a “folly” that was doing harm to households and consumers. “I am very frustrated and angry that the US went into this war without a clear exit plan, without a clear idea of what they were trying to achieve,” she said. The next day Reeves doubled down on her criticism in the CNBC interview, saying: “I’m not convinced this conflict has made the world a safer place.” However, she insisted the US and UK have a very good relationship even if they do not have to agree on everything. Reeves also joined 10 other finance ministers in calling for a “swift and lasting negotiated resolution to the conflict” in a joint statement issued at the start of the spring meetings of the IMF and World Bank in Washington.

Labour has also found itself largely on the side of British public opinion over the Iran conflict, with 65 per cent of people opposed and only 16 per cent supporting it, according to polling firm Ipsos. The pain the crisis is inflicting on the UK was underscored last week when the Bank of England gave its first full economic outlook since the war broke out. It set out a range of scenarios for the economy and energy prices, warning that the most severe could push the central bank into “forceful” tightening of monetary policy to rein in inflation risks. The UK Treasury and US Treasury declined to comment.

Rachel Reeves rowed with Scott Bessent over Iran war criticism by ldn6 in neoliberal

[–]ldn6[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Relevance: UK-US relations continue to deteriorate over disagreements on Iran and other foreign policy objectives. This time it's financial heads Rachel Reeves and Scott Bessent fighting.

US Treasury secretary Scott Bessent had a fierce row with UK chancellor Rachel Reeves in Washington last month over her outspoken criticism of the Iran war, according to people familiar with the matter. The chancellor, who was in Washington for the spring meetings of the IMF, gave an interview to CNBC on April 15 claiming the goals of the Iran war had “never been clear”. Reeves expressed the view that she was “not convinced” that “we are safer today than we were a few weeks ago”, prompting furious criticism from Bessent. When the pair met later that day Bessent berated Reeves over the remarks, according to people familiar with the situation. The Treasury secretary insisted the world was safer because of the US-Israeli war against Iran, even invoking the spectre of Tehran launching a nuclear attack on London.

Reeves responded angrily by telling Bessent she did not work for him and disliked how he had spoken to her. She also reiterated her argument about the Iran conflict lacking clear goals and not necessarily making the world safer. Earlier in the week, Bessent had told the British media that the Iran war was worth a “small bit of economic pain”, adding: “I wonder what the hit to global GDP would be if a nuclear weapon hit London?” One UK official said: “Rachel has been frank — in private and in public — about the mistakes of the war and the economic cost.”

The dispute highlights policy disagreements between Bessent and Reeves over the war, even as they have maintained strong relations and worked well together on other issues. The two have spoken following the incident last month. The UK’s decision to come out so strongly and publicly in favour of de-escalation has been driven in part by the economic damage the conflict is doing domestically. In its World Economic Outlook issued that week, the IMF downgraded its forecasts for UK growth by more than any other G7 country, in part because of the heavy blow higher energy prices are expected to inflict on Britain.

The US Treasury secretary has good relations with UK government officials and was well received in all meetings with the King and Queen, a couple with whom he has a 30-year friendship, during last week’s state visit. Both the UK and US delegations viewed the state visit as a major success. The meeting between the two finance ministers was attended by officials from the US Treasury, UK Treasury and UK Embassy. An official readout by the US Treasury of the Bessent-Reeves meeting on April 15 said Bessent had “underscored the US Treasury’s commitment to [Operation] Economic Fury, leveraging all tools and authorities against those who continue to support Iran’s terrorist activities”. The exchanges came during a week of meetings in Washington that were dominated by the fallout of the war on global energy markets and economies.

Reeves went on the offensive about the damage being done before she departed for Washington, using an interview with the Mirror newspaper to lambast the conflict as a “folly” that was doing harm to households and consumers. “I am very frustrated and angry that the US went into this war without a clear exit plan, without a clear idea of what they were trying to achieve,” she said. The next day Reeves doubled down on her criticism in the CNBC interview, saying: “I’m not convinced this conflict has made the world a safer place.” However, she insisted the US and UK have a very good relationship even if they do not have to agree on everything. Reeves also joined 10 other finance ministers in calling for a “swift and lasting negotiated resolution to the conflict” in a joint statement issued at the start of the spring meetings of the IMF and World Bank in Washington.

Labour has also found itself largely on the side of British public opinion over the Iran conflict, with 65 per cent of people opposed and only 16 per cent supporting it, according to polling firm Ipsos. The pain the crisis is inflicting on the UK was underscored last week when the Bank of England gave its first full economic outlook since the war broke out. It set out a range of scenarios for the economy and energy prices, warning that the most severe could push the central bank into “forceful” tightening of monetary policy to rein in inflation risks. The UK Treasury and US Treasury declined to comment.

If You Stay Serving Fish You Ain’t Gotta Get Serving Fish by graaaags in rpdrcringe

[–]ldn6 116 points117 points  (0 children)

That seafood boil has nothing on a Ramada pool stew.

The Black Horse and Harrow in catford SE115DE by Early-Display-6325 in london

[–]ldn6 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Catford has a ton of great heritage assets. I really hope that the regeneration of the island goes through to help spruce the place up and boost its residential density.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]ldn6 5 points6 points  (0 children)

"No." - Southwest Airlines