Time to get developers to deliver on existing permissions for homes on brownfield sites - Andy Brown

On the face of it that seems like a very good idea and a thoroughly decent thing to try to do.

There is just one problem with the idea. It cuts against the harsh logic of the rules of supply and demand and costs a lot of money to achieve absolutely nothing of overall benefit.

Every pound that is spent helping buyers increases the amount that they can offer to buy a house or a flat.

That automatically pushes up prices and quickly defeats the original purpose of the policy.

The main beneficiaries from home buyer subsidies are those who already own a property who see prices increase.

If you are not convinced by this logic then consider for a minute what has happened as a result of the efforts of building societies and banks to ‘help’ first time buyers by increasing the multiple of their income that they can borrow.

The stated aim has been to make it easier to buy. The outcome has been the exact opposite.

Letting people borrow more simply pushed up prices and forced even greater loan bills onto buyers. Generations have been faced with intimidatingly high house prices as a consequence.

When I bought a small flat in London in the 1980s I was able to do so by borrowing three times a basic teachers salary. Properties were available at that kind of price because that is what people were allowed to borrow.

Because people are now allowed to borrow more it costs more to buy. On average it now costs 7.9 times the average salary to buy a home in England.

In the Craven area where I live the average house costs £188,731. The average salary is £28,720. Those who have to rely entirely on their own efforts are facing crippling mortgage payments.

Increasing supply is the only reliable method of enabling more people to have a decent home either of their own or via the rental market.

That doesn’t mean that the current government’s efforts to weaken planning rules is likely to help much.

It makes not one jot of difference to supply if house builders gobble up fields in the green belt to construct executive homes that sell to those who already have equity and are moving to retire to the countryside.

What is needed are measures that will rapidly increase supply of genuinely affordable homes.

The quickest ways to do this don’t require new money from the government. They do require the government to stand up to the lobby groups that developers employ and to legislate for radical change.

The first thing that is necessary is to increase taxes fiercely on any land that already has planning permission but where nothing is being built.

In 2024, there were existing permissions to develop 772,013 homes on brownfield sites. Much of that land is sitting undeveloped because it is easier to book increases in land values than to take the risk of actually building.

If high taxes made it uneconomic to leave land with an approval undeveloped, there would be a rapid increase in supply without the need to take the risk of weakening planning rules.

Something very similar needs to be done about second homes. Much of the reason why it is not easy for someone working in the hospitality industry in our tourist locations to find somewhere to live is because a lot of the homes are empty for much of the year.

They are only used for the odd weekend when it is nice for the second home owner to arrive and enjoy spending a little time in their investment property.

Increasing charges on such properties would push more of these properties back on the market and the money raised from extra taxes could fund construction of the council houses and care homes that we need. Something which also needs to happen to properties that remain empty for a long time.

There are therefore well over a million homes that could quickly be brought onto the market at zero costs whilst increasing tax revenues.

Instead of doing that the government is wasting money on headline grabbing subsidies for first time buyers which won’t work. Why?

Andy Brown is the Green Party councillor for Aire Valley.