Welcome to York Exiles the Poor
(20th July 2003)
House prices in York have doubled over the past five years increasing the wealth of property owners by tens of thousands of pounds a year. A similar pattern can be identified for much of the UK but York is well above average. A modest reversal of this trend is sometimes predicted nationally but the balance between supply and demand will to stop any serious house price crash.The winners in this game of property price inflation are unlikely to loose much of their winnings. Demand will remain high because, backed by government policy,
Incomers to York
York has the extra pressure of net migration. Mostly the incomers are affluent. They are
There are also some less affluent people who come to York and who hang on somehow, perhaps taking social housing.
Natives of York
People who have lived in York all or most of their lives may or may not own property. Property owners have significant assets, which in the long term will turn into cash that can be spent, either by them or their decendents.People who do not own property have increasing hosing costs to face. For those that qualify, social housing may be an option but, while York's planners make a play of pressing property developers to include low-cost housing. But this is lip service. It is a solution that is trying to buck the market - doomed to have a limited impact. But planners and politicians are already siezing on this fig-leaf.
In the medium-term most of the residents of York that do not own property will be priced out.
Without Walls - Consulting the residents of YorkCurrently there are consultation processes and debates in York to advise on policies to shape the future of York. It's terms of reference include
York's Local Strategic Partnership exists to improve the quality of life of York's citizens, now and in the future. (See Without Walls)But their consultation meetings seem comprise the property owning classes. with few people under forty or noticeably poor present. In a report commissioned for Without Walls "A new vision for York" by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation we have
Yet alongside the many positive indicators such as low levels of serious crime, have come the costs of prosperity, which include spiralling house prices, longer and more congested journeys to work, and growing concerns about a ‘twin track’ city in which wealthy incomers enjoy a quality of life which is far beyond the means of most of the residents of the suburbs.
Planning in York seems to be following the prosperous track.
Planning permission on greenfield sites - the payout.
Criticisms of green belt policy can be found below and in housingthekids.greeningthegreenbelt.org.uk. It constrains the supply of land for development, which in turn raises the value of land with planning permission. It is the planning permission that has the value. In the York area changing the value of agricultural land from roughly £10,000 a hectare to £1m to £10m per hectare. The benefit from planning permission usually goes, in the main, to the owners of the land.
But there can be other beneficiaries. If a particular organisation (or individual) has a special relationship with the planning authority, it may get planning permission where others cannot. In this case they can capture some of the planning permission windfall. This bargaining power increases if the organisation could still get planning permission if it were to choose alternative sites. In York, it is probable that the University has such a favoured position.
Greenfield sites and the UniversityIn general York's planners, under the direction of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, (See www.plannersattheodpm.org.uk try to restrict new developments to brownfield sites. One major exception to the rule is the proposed Heslington West Campus proposed by York University, which is planned to occupy 67 hectares of greenfield site. Observers to the recent meeting of the Planning Committee, would almost certainly believe that York Council is minded to approve this application. Currently planning permission for development on greenfield sites in the York area have roughly have the following values (to be updated)
It is probable that, if the University had applied for planning permission on another greenfield site of similar size, they would get similar support from York Council. In essence, the planning permission, (worth hundreds of millions on the open market) is effectively attached to the University.
Prosperity for the prosperous
These large transfers of wealth are, on a national scale, to the middle classes who send their children to University ( See www.guardianreadersrobthepoor.org.uk). These off-balace sheet transfers do bring some form of prosperity to York but, in stimulating the property market further it is in danger of becoming prosperity for the prosperous.Richard Best and Roger Burrows are reported in "A new vision for York" as saying much the same
Richard Best and Roger Burrows’ paper on housing policies leads to the conclusion that a proportion of the future growth will need to be achieved through greater density rather than through major incursions into the greenbelt. More work may be needed to establish the interconnectedness between the city’s existing housing, transport and economic policies. Without a ready supply of affordable housing, there is a danger that York’s existing residents will be gradually priced out of their own city.
This is not a remote danger.
10jul03a: Shop worker: Priced out of York
(This shop worker is described as vibrant and successful by her manager. "I don't know what I'd do without her.")
I can't afford a house in York. So I am trying toget my job transferred to Cardiff. I am also trying to buy a hose or flat in Pontypridd. My mortgate limit is about £60k so there is nowhere in York I could afford. But there are properties in Pontypridd that I can.
I do like York but housing costs are just too expensive.
After school I went to art college in Pontypridd for two years after which I went to do a degree in fashion and textiles at Basingstoke College, part of Portsmouth University. After that I had a job lined up working on the Human Body project at the Millennium Dome but because of the problems with the Dome, the firm I was to join lost its contract and I had to get a job quickly.
I got a job with Next in Basingstoke and I met my partner working at Next. After 7 months we moved to York and I got this job in York. I have been here over two years.
I would like to go into business with my brother who also has a degree in fashion but because I live in rented accommodation and cannot afford business premises and other start-up costs, there is no way I can do this in York. So I plan to move to PDD to start my business.
My degree was practical as well as developing my creative skills. I think this is so much better than "academic" degrees where you buy the books at the beginning, get pissed for a few years then cram yourself through the exams.
01aug02a: Faxfn.: Few natives go to the statutory consultation.
A recent meeting of the statutory consultation process, Without Walls had just over forty people attending. When asked, two volunteered that they were born in York. At larger meeting at the beginning of the Without Walls consultation, a similar question was put and four were born in York. It is reasonable to assume that under ten percent of the people attending these meetings are natives of York .
02aug02a York native in the corner shop.: Consultation meetings: They ignore what we say.
"I've been to loads of meetings like these but I've stopped going. They may listen to what we say but then they go and ignore what we say."
Some relevant entries from faxfn.org follow.
18mar02a: Geoff Beacon: Planning, Wealth Transfer And Environment
A response to the Green Paper "Planning: Delivering a Fundamental Change"
For the past four decades at least, the planning system in the UK has been responsible for massive transfers of wealth. This is directly attributable to the manipulation of the market in planning permission. In key areas especially, the value of planning permission has increased enormously so that its value far exceeds the cost of buildings (for which planning permission is required) and the land that they occupy. This affects both commercial and residential development. However, here I concentrate on the domestic market.
Currently, in many places, the market value of a house is several times the cost of new build. I currently live in York. In Barton on Humber, a pleasant place 35 miles from York, a new house costs about £70,000. In York a similar house would be three times more expensive. But the undeveloped value of the land (without planning permission) is little different so two thirds of the value of housing in York now resides in the value of the permission for the house to be there.
This is why land near York without planning permission would be valued at about £10,000 per hectare and the value of the same land with planning permission is £1,000,000 per hectare or one hundred times greater.
I, with my fellow homeowners, am a beneficiary of this system. For the past four or five years the value of my house (or rather the permission I have to maintain a house on the land in my street) has risen by a greater amount than my salary after tax. This has established an enormous future transfer of wealth to me from those that will take over this property when I leave. Much the same story is true for most of the homeowners in the UK.
I additionally have an interest in a house in York that is let. I should benefit from this by increases in the value of the "house with land and planning permission". It is, of course, the value of the planning permission that is rising. I will benefit from this by increased rent or by selling, at the expense of people in the rented sector.
By and large, these processes represent an enormous transfer of wealth from poor to rich and from young to old.
This state of affairs has come about under a mechanism of planning that was meant to benefit the whole of the community and the most vulnerable in particular. A particular milestone in the planning system was the Town and Country Planning Act of 1948. Contemporary literature clearly shows what dreams for clean and pleasant living the architects and planners of that day had. The restrictions on uncontrolled development were meant to encourage clearly defined urban areas with open green areas surrounding them. The undeveloped "green belts" around towns and cities were to combat the smog and grime of the city.
The reality has turned out differently. Whilst there was significant improvements in air quality after the smoke control acts brought in after the smogs of the 1950s, there has more recently been a serious degradation of the quality of life in urban areas due to increases in traffic mostly caused by the motor car.
The changes that mass motorcar use has caused may be to the advantage of individuals (e.g. Shorter journey times) but are to the detriment of society as a whole (e.g. Pollution, loss of local shops, loss of public transport, loss of the street as a comfortable public space etc.). We now recognise, of course, other disadvantages of mass car transport such as climate change and asthma in children living in urban areas.
But what has this to do with Green Belts policy? Simply that urban areas are being polluted and damaged by mass car use. Green Belt policy, by restricting the growth of urban areas is thought to be containing the problem. I think this doubtful. The point is that it is the affluent who are the greatest polluters and these are just the group that is being handed vast increases in wealth at the expense of the poor who, by and large, pollute less. This is what economists call moral hazard. It is what I would simply call immoral.
I recognise that to tackle this problem head on is politically unrealistic. Those that pollute most are the affluent majority, but they simply will not admit to the scale of the problem. I wish to suggest a policy of creating of areas of low vehicle use, similar to that which I proposed in the York Inner Ring Road Inquiry of 1973. These would be areas that would have tight restrictions on the pollution they could cause (possibly measured in terms of the emerging concept of "green footprint"). This would mean that the use of private cars would be limited. But these would be areas where local shops, public transport and other facilities appropriate to areas of low vehicle use would be viable.
In 1973, I envisaged that these low vehicle use areas would be fashioned from the inner urban areas. I now recognise that this is politically unrealistic. Even at that time it was unrealistic. As Alderman Burke, a very experienced Labour councillor, pointed out, "You can't tell a man in a terrace house he cannot have a car". But I fall back on the alternative I presented then "This [designating inner urban low vehicle use areas], however, should not preclude the building of new housing accommodation designed for a low level of car ownership for those who preferred to spend their money on good housing rather than cars."
This policy could be successful, particularly if the land allocated to "low green footprint" housing were many times the total demand so that the value of the planning permission was kept low. I would make a rule something like this. "If you are intending to build a settlement which has a green footprint which is one third of the national average, you can build almost anywhere you like."
If this spoils the view of the middle class, home owning, car-driving polluter, I would happily say, "so be it". But that is not politically realistic. It could be pointed out, however, that a low green footprint settlement has much more chance of being less obtrusive.
This would be somewhat of a departure from our plan-led system. If you can build anywhere, you don't need a plan. But the plan led system is responsible for much of the inequity in our society. We need to completely rethink it and the way it interacts with our market economy.
The present Green Paper proposals for changing the structure of the planning process can be seen as reducing its democratic content. Frankly, this concerns me little. It is so hard to keep up with the current system. It is complicated and it is increasingly manipulated by officers so that elected officials cannot keep up. Transparency is only available to those with the skills of the private investigator and enough time to crack the case.
What matters more is the results. What we have at the moment is worsening social conditions, an increasing impact on the local and global environment and an enormous transfer of wealth from the have-nots to the haves. By allowing sufficient supply of planning permission for low green footprint developments, we not only create the possibility of market-led, good quality low-cost housing for those who choose to restrict their impact on their surroundings but we also give some mechanism for dampening down the house price scramble in adjacent areas.
Clearly a coordinated approach to public transport is required, particularly when such a policy is applied to our major conurbations. But it is to be remembered that housing and public transport have been seen, in the past, as tandem developments.
From www.ltmuseum.co.uk we see
Geoff Beacon firstname.lastname@example.org
If the world were populated by York people we'd need three Earth's
A recent report compiled by John Barratt of the Stockholm Institute for Planet York says that an average York resident has an individual green footprint of 6.91 hectares. This report gives a "fair earthshare" footprint as 2.1 hectares so if everybody on Earth lived as the residents of York, we would need three planets like Earth.
(An individual's green footprint is the area of the Earth required to grow food, absorb waste and provide raw materials for consumption. One of the largest elements in the green footprints of the affluent world is the area of land required to absorb greenhouse gasses, particularly Carbon Dioxide from energy generated for heating and cooling buildings, transport and manufacturing products for consumption. See Pippa Langford Introduction to green footprints. (www.townplan.org))The rich need more - the poor need less
Planet York's brochure for the launch of this green footprint report shows that some individuals have bigger footprints than others. Some people are the sort that could fit on one planet Earth, others would require five or more planet Earths.
There is, of course, an obvious connection between affluence and consumption so, in general, the rich and affluent are the more polluting.The Green Belt gives to the affluent and powerful
Property prices are rising in York at over one thousand million pounds a year. This value gives those, who already have their feet on the ladder, an enormous store of wealth, which sooner or later they will spend. Most of this is directly attributable to the manipulation of the market in planning permission by Green Belt policy.
The obvious backers of Green Belt policy are the NIMBYs who gain so much wealth through their houses and some pleasure in driving their cars through the Green Belt. But there are more powerful and well organised interests that benefit from the allocation of planning permission: land owners, property developers and, of course, the University.Regulating the price. Distributing the spoils
It may not be York Council's intention, but the slow release of planning permission regulates the price of development land more effectively than OPEC regulates the price of oil. The small amounts released keep the value of the NIMBYs' assets rising. This strategy also bestows enormous benefits on those organised enough to understand the system or lucky enough to be able to mask commercial development under the guise of education.Planning and pollution
It is, of course, one of the objectives of our current planning system to regulate development in order to reduce pollution. Indeed, the Green Belt policy itself is thought of as a "green" policy. But it is clear that this is not the case because it gives wealth to people so that they can increase their consumption and so increase their pollution and green footprint.
A recent "Analysis" program on Radio 4, "Home Economics" made part of the link:
Andrew Henley, Professor of economics, Aberystwyth University said "There is now this phenomenom of housing equity withdrawal that people, ... may well be withdrawing equity to spend on other things. That may typically be to buy new consumer durables - carpets, curtains, furniture - for the next house... Some of it goes into overseas holidays and new cars."
If anyone does know of any economist (or anyone) who has done any studies on the demographics of pollution please let us know. But the main point is, of course, obvious: House owners pollute more as their assets inflate. We fly away to our holiday in the sun. We consume more fruit and vegetables flown halway round the world and we buy bigger cars.Stealing from the young and the poor.
The rise in house (or planning permission) values has established an enormous transfer of wealth to householders from those that buy their houses in the future.
Additionally, with the increase of "buy to let", property owners are now benefiting from increases in the value of the "houses with land and planning permission". It is, of course, the value of the planning permission that is rising. The benefit is in the form of increased rental values, at the expense of people in the rented sector.
The ones that loose out are typically the young and the poor and increasingly the not-so-poor as a recent report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has highlighted ("Land for Housing: Current Practice and Future Options", March 2002, James Barlow).See also Planning, Wealth Transfer And Environment above. The answers?
See Part 2 in September.
Data for this graph comes from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center cdiac.esd.ornl.gov.
CO2 concentration and temperature
To see the correlation between CO2 concentration and average surface temperature at Vostok over the past 450,000 years see
Challenges of a Changing Earth Conference