[Brighton] Council imposing double council tax on second homes in Brighton & Hove.

[BLOCK F]

What are these planning laws that need changing? The only ones that the Labour Party have referred to are derelict petrol stations in the Green Belt. This is already allowed under para 154g of the National Planning Policy Framework so it will need something more radical than that, like
1) strategically reviewing Green Belt boundaries, removing sites near public transport hubs (stations)
2) minimum density requirements
3) a national spatial plan to identify cities/ towns for growth / kepping going / decline with regionally set housing targets, trickled down to districts
4) requirements for developers to finish developments within a certain time period with punitive fines if they don't
5) (possibly) relaxing building restrictions in AONBs and National Parks
6) (preferably) increasing restrictions in areas at risk of flooding & coastal erosion.

This is only the housing bit of what needs to happen.

What are these planning laws that need changing? The only ones that the Labour Party have referred to are derelict petrol stations in the Green Belt. This is already allowed under para 154g of the National Planning Policy Framework so it will need something more radical than that, like
1) strategically reviewing Green Belt boundaries, removing sites near public transport hubs (stations)
2) minimum density requirements
3) a national spatial plan to identify cities/ towns for growth / kepping going / decline with regionally set housing targets, trickled down to districts
4) requirements for developers to finish developments within a certain time period with punitive fines if they don't
5) (possibly) relaxing building restrictions in AONBs and National Parks
6) (preferably) increasing restrictions in areas at risk of flooding & coastal erosion.

This is only the housing bit of what needs to happen.

Hi BC,
You appear to be well informed re planning.
My remark re Keir Starmer requiring persistence and strength was really aimed at facing down excessive Nimbyism, where there may well be battles ahead with local activists.
I am not particularly knowledgeable about planning laws, but I am sure that if Labour wish to build the houses the country needs, his ministers and the civil servants will, no doubt, be looking at existing laws to see if they need changing in order for targets to be reached.

 

[rippleman]

About 50% of the population own, or have mortgages on the place they live.

Isn't anything beyond that business and subject to business rules, rates and taxes ? and having run a lot of those businesses I was subject to the exact same.

It's a business, you're a businessman, when you go into business those are the rules, sorry

If fixtures my apologies. Not got through the thread yet but I wanted to correct a misunderstanding regarding rental properties.

A Property Rental Business where leases are granted under a Shorthold Tenancy Agreement are not subject to business rates. Furnished Holiday Letting businesses are liable to business rates as are HMOs.

For most rentals, particularly those under a STA, the tenant is subject to Council Tax (with the landlord paying the relevant Council Tax during any void period ie when the property is empty between tenancies).

There are other differences too. One of which is that tax relief on mortgage interest paid on an investment property is restricted to basic rate.

Anybody thinking of acquiring a BTL property, or letting an existing second property should seek professional advice or contact the NRLA just to check you are doing it right.

Just a couple of other things. If you are letting a property which is currently subject to a mortgage, get the permission of the lender before you start letting or you could potentially default on your mortgage. I've never known a lender refuse to grant permission, but they will no doubt charge for saying "yes".

Also make sure you notify the insurance company for similar reasons.

 

[mikeyjh]

That's a part of it, yes, but there are many people, I know, on relative low income but owning 2, 3 or 4 houses, the market has created many BTL landlords and the financial support encourages them. It's morally wrong to have people renting at £1,500 something that would cost them £1,000 with a mortgage, which is just profit for landlords

I find it hard to believe that many people you know are 'on relative low income but owning 2, 3 or 4 houses'. That would be extremely risky behaviour. There will be months or even years where your expenses will exceed your income on those houses. There will always be periods where a house is unoccupied for various reasons, maintenance costs that are unavoidable etc etc.

For accounting and taxation purposes 'Profit' is not calculated as Renal less mortgage. A landlord will pay tax on income less allowable expenses such as maintenance, agency costs.

 

[BrightonCottager]

Hi BC,
You appear to be well informed re planning.
My remark re Keir Starmer requiring persistence and strength was really aimed at facing down excessive Nimbyism, where there may well be battles ahead with local activists.
I am not particularly knowledgeable about planning laws, but I am sure that if Labour wish to build the houses the country needs, his ministers and the civil servants will, no doubt, be looking at existing laws to see if they need changing in order for targets to be reached.

Dominic Cummings is (in) famous within the planning profession for pushing through the radical deregulation of permitted development rights which have resulted in more homes in stupid places, built to 'future slum' standards.

So a Labour government would have to take a radical approach involving more control and direction and will be very wary of proposing any relaxation of (sacred cow) Green Belt policies because of the backlash from the right wing media. A cynic might suggest they force Conservative controlled councils to take more new housing, in the same way that the 20 biggest (mainly Labour) councils have to take more housing at the moment. So yes, I agree with you about Keir Starmer requiring persistence and strength. Let's see if he has either.

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

What are these planning laws that need changing? The only ones that the Labour Party have referred to are derelict petrol stations in the Green Belt. This is already allowed under para 154g of the National Planning Policy Framework so it will need something more radical than that, like
1) strategically reviewing Green Belt boundaries, removing sites near public transport hubs (stations)
2) minimum density requirements
3) a national spatial plan to identify cities/ towns for growth / kepping going / decline with regionally set housing targets, trickled down to districts
4) requirements for developers to finish developments within a certain time period with punitive fines if they don't
5) (possibly) relaxing building restrictions in AONBs and National Parks
6) (preferably) increasing restrictions in areas at risk of flooding & coastal erosion.

This is only the housing bit of what needs to happen.

I think the first thing I would do is reverse the recent NPPF changes and uphold requirement for Councils to meet nationally derived housing figures.

 

[BLOCK F]

Dominic Cummings is (in) famous within the planning profession for pushing through the radical deregulation of permitted development rights which have resulted in more homes in stupid places, built to 'future slum' standards.

So a Labour government would have to take a radical approach involving more control and direction and will be very wary of proposing any relaxation of (sacred cow) Green Belt policies because of the backlash from the right wing media. A cynic might suggest they force Conservative controlled councils to take more new housing, in the same way that the 20 biggest (mainly Labour) councils have to take more housing at the moment. So yes, I agree with you about Keir Starmer requiring persistence and strength. Let's see if he has either.

I think a relaxation of Green Belt policies will have to be considered, regardless of any adverse press and activism. There are arguments for and against building on GB, but it should be borne in mind that, unlike the perceptions many may hold, not all GB is beautiful countryside
Ah well, there are battles ahead that is for sure.

 

[BrightonCottager]

@deletebeepbeepbeep & @BLOCK F I agree largely. The last Labour Government had introduced regional planning which - although imperfect - at least was a strategic approach addressing regional distribution of housing and infrastructure and also allowed a strategic approach to Green Belt deletion and extension. We need something similar which also encompasses land use as there are now so many more competitors for land (inc energy, biodiversity net gain, nutrient and carbon fixing ...). Government had promised a land use strategy by end of 2023. We're still waiting for NPPF changes on climate change nearly 3 years after they were promised.

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

I find it hard to believe that many people you know are 'on relative low income but owning 2, 3 or 4 houses'. That would be extremely risky behaviour. There will be months or even years where your expenses will exceed your income on those houses. There will always be periods where a house is unoccupied for various reasons, maintenance costs that are unavoidable etc etc.

For accounting and taxation purposes 'Profit' is not calculated as Renal less mortgage. A landlord will pay tax on income less allowable expenses such as maintenance, agency costs.

I know, personally, of three people with combined income of less than £65k, that have a property portfolio that they’ve built over 15+ years