It's more complicated than that. The big problem for larger schemes is the considerable up-front costs of applying for, then obtaining planning permission, and that there's no guarantee that a permission will be granted. If the landowner is (very) wealthy, they might do it themselves. Often landowners will get no further than promoting their land for designation in the Local Plan for the area as a site to be designated for development, and then seek some kind of agreement with a developer under which the developer agrees to fund and pursue the planning application itself, and either agrees to buy the land conditional upon obtaining the permission within an agreed time limit, or is given the option to buy at something of a discount to reflect the fact that they have put in investment at risk in pursuing a planning application. Quite often the developer will take its agreement at the stage that sites are being selected in the Local Plan, as this process can be protracted and expensive as the plan has to be examined by a planning inspector, for example if the plan is subject to challenge through the courts, or if there are competing sites being put forward and the authority or inspector has to choose between them.

In the last couple of decades a new type of player in the market has emerged. These are land promoters. They use risk capital to promote sites through the local plan and planning application process, and if the whole process is successful, the site is sold and they get a share of the sale price as their reward. This has provided a supply of sites available to build, without the actual builder/developer having to tie up risk capital in promoting the land through these processes with no guarantee of success. The large national housebuilders have different overall business strategies as to how much they invest in what is known as strategic land, and how much they prefer instead to buy (to use the industry term) "oven-ready" sites.

If you are a promoter or well advised landowner going the whole hog and getting a planning permission, you would be well advised to get an outline permission and sell with the benefit of this. Each developer has its own idea of what will sell, its corporate style image and (in most cases) standard house-types that it will want to use, so in most greenfield sites it is a waste of money to approval of the details before a sale. There's a little risk left though at the outline planning stage, as it can take a long time to get those reserved matters approvals needed to start on site.



Correct - this was shortened from 5 years by the Blair regime, just in time for the 2008 crash, which meant that there were a number of sites with no buyers, or buyers with no cash to implement with time running against them. However, all you need do in that time is implement the permission - take  some initial step such as cutting some foundations, to keep the permission alive if you have cleared off all the pre-start conditions and obtained the reserved matters approvals.

But if you have invested all that resource in obtaining the planning and approvals and buying the land, that money is burning a hole in your pocket, so you have every commercial incentive to build and sell at a price and rate the market will bear to get your money back. Closing a site for a volume housebuilder is very much a last resort, not least because re-opening it incurs further expense.

The Paignton scheme is interesting. I see it's a mixed scheme of retail, industrial and warehousing that was granted outline permission in 2016 pursuant to a 2014 application on a major redundant office site. From the planning history it looks like quite a bit of the other elements have been built. The permission seems to have been obtained by a not very substantial company. The residential elements are still up for sale as far as I can see. I assume that approval of reserved matters for a full (in theory) ready-to-build scheme has been obtained to keep the permission alive for the residential part of the scheme. There must be something that has put off the any housebuilding company from buying - it could be any one of a number of things - the party promoting the scheme may have designed something that no-one can make work financially in the local market, the presence of an adjoining busy retail/commercial site might hit sales values, or their due diligence has disclosed technical problems that has scared off buyers.

As the permission in the 2016 permission has been implemented, it is still a live permission, but it's an unusual animal to still be there unbuilt. This is not a housebuilder sitting on a site, it's a landowner, promoter or commercial developer who cannot sell it for development. They might (of course) have already got the money they have spent buying and promoting the site back by building or selling the other elements.

 

 
If outline planning permission with reserved matters 3 years. If you then submit detailed planning permission (reserved matters in the outline) then another 2 years. If you apply for permission with all the details then 3 years.

In big developments land owners or potential landowners apply for outline planning permission, get it, then sell to a builder to actually do the work.

Problems arise when a developer applies for planning permission and don't own all the land in the application.

 
Careful, you'll be declared a MSM keyboard warrior!

Seriously, exactly the sort of problem that I've been referring to.

I thought domestic planning consent was for 5 years before it lapsed, not three?

 
https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threads/paignton-devonshire-park-nortel-part-completed.2273710/?post_id=177309315#post-177309315

This might interest some on here re redevelopment of one site in Paignton where the housing element has not started and the planning permission is about to lapse.

While this has been going on other housing sites predominately on green field sites have been completed and as of now three other green field sites within two miles are under construction.

 
Point made about permissions, so maybe they have to give up the plots as well, by selling them on to a developer that would build. These plots with permission must be built.

 

It is those who produce such column inches who are the "keyboard warriors" I refer to Chris. And there's no point in rules about giving up planning permissions - they relate to the site, not the developer, so someone would have to confiscate the site as well. If it's part built, what happens to the value of the work in progress, the sums paid for planning gain costs, the uncompleted sales agreements.....

This is not the problem.

 
I agree with your first paragraph - this has to be solved by Government. By paying towards decontamination possibly, giving tax breaks to those that develop - there are ways & means of getting this to happen. People will move if its truly affordable, and transport links are provided.

I do disagree with paragraph 2 - there are frequent column inches in the media concerning land banks with which developers. Planning consents should only be allowed to be racked up to a certain number of dwellings before either being given up for others or actually completed.

I do agree with paragraph 3 - but that's been too long now & to support everything we all want to work properly & well would require, I would estimate, a general taxation of earnings of around 50%. So we need to put brakes on various parts of living until they can be afforded. If that's housing, then immigration, for example.

Oh, and where is Labour going to now find the builders for 1.5million houses a year? Those brakes are going to have to be selective, I reckon.

 

The problems are, firstly the majority are in areas where demand is low, not many are in areas of high population growth (like Wokingham, South Cambs, South Essex, Hertfordshire, North Hants etc, etc.), secondly most buyers who are not first time buyers do not want to live in the areas in which they occur, thirdly brownfield sites usually have high up-front costs in decontaminating the land after previous industrial or similar use, and finally the high-density, high-rise developments that are usually built on such sites are financially risky. You cannot slow the construction rate of a block of flats - you have to finish it externally and then on a floor-by-floor basis asap to get back the money you have spent buying the site, preparing it and building it. The housebuilders had to go along with the regime of high density urban schemes in the early 2000s under the then Government's PPG3 and PPS3 regimes, which could only be shifted by selling many to investors (often funded by the "liar loans" handed out in the lax credit regime of the time), so that when the music stopped in 2008 the industry was almost crippled sitting on lots of work-in-progress tied up in such schemes that could not be sold because the source of such credit for buyers had dried up.

It is also a myth that developers "sit on land". They are in business, they cannot afford to tie up money, they have to sell to recover it, pay their staff, suppliers, shareholders and HMRC and reinvest in the next project. On larger sites they are limited by the private market. Even in the hottest markets (like Cambridge and the surrounding area) you will struggle to achieve over 200 sales (including disposals for social housing) a year. To give a concrete example, at Cambourne new town, the 4250 units in the first stages took from about 1998 to 2020 to build and sell.

The problem is that we are a "something for nothing" society, not prepared to put our hands in our own pockets to pay the taxes necessary to provide housing for those who cannot afford to buy in the market. Housebuilders are in business like any other business to make a profit, which brings employment for their staff and those of their suppliers, funds a considerable tax take for us as taxpayers by way of Corporation Tax, PAYE, the Stamp Duty paid on acquiring the land and levied on their buyers when they buy from them, taxes levied on the owners who have realised the uplift in value from selling to them, to say nothing of the considerable sums paid to fund infrastructure by way of s106 contributions or Community Infrastructure Levy.

Forgive this rant, but I think that they contribute much more to society than the keyboard warrior "experts" who continue to provide ill-informed commentary on the country's housing problems (nothing personal ChrisB).

I'll take my little pink pills now...

 
Here are the data on UK population growth:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/timeseries/ukpop/pop

The growth rate fluctuates from year to year, but in recent times the annual growth is much closer to *half* a million per year than one million per year.

 


And this is the major problem. There are ample non-greenfield sites to build on currently, a lot with planning permission that builders are sat on unwilling to build more than just a few a year, in order that prices remain stable.


Agreed, and if it ever does, you can kiss goodbye to the large areas of parkland/heaths & moors that we have. The population is growing by not far off a million a year (may be more if immigrant numbers continue to increase)
in total. More high-rise, anyone?

 

Some interesting background on population predictions and related issues:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2025/feb/18/europes-population-crisis-see-how-your-country-compares-visualised

No easy answers.

 
Torbay is always in trouble over land supply in not having enough yet they have many sites, some brownfield, where no work has started and the big builders don't seem to want to build more than 150 houses a year to maintain prices and not create a glut. If councils did build more houses then builders will start pulling out or charge more to build them for the council.

Also down here many homes on these new estates seem to be bought by local authorities in the north and moving people down here so that does not help house the locals. I don't know if this is happening in more inland areas. It is a reflection of problems in seaside towns with bed and breakfast accommodation being used by outside local authorities
to house their homeless.

Torquay has some of the most expensive properties in the UK up there with Sandbanks and Salcombe, and also some of the most poorest.

Just a rant as housing supply is never going to keep up with the relentless population rise.

 

Correct - even here in Wiltshire where we have a lower proportion of holiday homes and Melksham where I don't know of any (there are some lets), we have planning analysis in what's needed in new housing build and it includes a heavy propotion of "affordable" housing - though people laugh at the word "affordable".    Which does not totally deal with the problem ... and in any case there is still a housing shortage.

 

But that's just the problem - if there's a demand for affordable housing, it should be provided in new-purpose built housing under the planning regime, funded if required in whole or part by the public purse. It's a problem we simply have not addressed adequately in our society.

 
Notwithstanding the issue that I think this post would be better elsewhere, people need to be careful. With the elimination of the C2, D and E attractions, Flambards, Dairyland and Open top buses, tourism revenue from every available resource including those using Holiday homes and Lets must not be restricted. Cornwall needs the income, and I dismiss summarily the argument that it doesn't stay in the Duchy, from all sources. It needs to cultivate upper quartile tourism greatly going forwards. Further taxation won't help this.

 
No more than if it were a home for a local (family)

 

But - they will spend money in the local economy. I have no idea how the expenditure of the one matches the expenditure of the other. I'd guess they spend more overall out of the peak season, less by way of weekly paid employment (possibly mostly only on part-timers to check and clean their houses), but more by way of local tradesmen in repairing and maintaining their houses. They are (I'd guess) more likely to spend more when they eat out, but not eat out so often. They are also a source of custom for local attractions.

 
Hmmm. Second home owners do not act like tourists..

 

They also seem to forget that many more of us would be without work if we didn’t have our Tourists. A poor 2024 for tourists has seen several attractions closed for 2025 including the Lands open top buses.

 
Our company solicitor bought a property near St Ives some years ago to use as a second home and still regularly (however less so now that he's been around a while, and spends roughly 50% of his time there) gets the (mostly lighthearted but with a bit of an edge) "bloody incomer" abuse from some of the locals.

He has pointed out that he was only be able to become an "incomer" because a local was happy to sell the house to him at an enormous profit, rather than accepting a much lower offer from one of the natives.

The Cornish tend to go a bit quiet when you mention that they have a choice over who they sell their houses to.

 
I’m in support of tourist tax as long as the proceeds are used correctly and potentially reduce locals council tax bills.

We pay it abroad a few euros a night without complaint, so why not charge it here too

 
I see in today's i-newspaper that one of the Welsh councils has a 150% council tax surcharge on holiday homes and letss. It is in the paper because of a 17% fall in house prices. Might be good for locals trying to get on the housing ladder, not so good for current owners.

 
All very well pricing out second home-owners, but would a local move in or would it just stay empty as lack of local employment means no-one needs to live there anyway?  Holiday lets are a bit different.  Arguably holidaymakers bring in more income to the area than a permanent resident would spend each week, plus there's employment for cleaners, tradespeople etc (in my experience they're generally maintained to a higher standard than a family home so provide regular work, and often that work will be off-season).  I've also often felt that the holiday homes I've stayed in are no longer realistic for living in permanently; a bijou (or if you're not a letting agent, cramped) cottage with little storage space, hidden up a steep narrow alley with parking 5 minutes walk away and few local services is fine for a week but many aspects would become less appealing over time.

All part of a bigger and complicated picture that I doubt will ever be fully addressed.

 

500% would certainly be the final nail in the coffin for the family house that we have cherished for half a century.  I am happy to pay the forthcoming the 200% rate until I'm in a position to make it our main home again.

 
Second homes aren't used by tourists....these should need planning permission & frankly 500% council tax wouldn't be too much.

Holiday lets are a different proposition. planning permission to prevent long-term occupation & holiday lets only to a max of say, 3 weeks at a time.

 
From The BBC


I understand the motivations - but is it going to also reduce the number of visitors and have a net negative effect on the economy of the area?

The news is from Wales - should similar action be taken in Cornwall and / or Devon?   Would extra taxes to put off a glut of tourists results in antagonism toward those who still came, and result is resentment at extra charges and higher prices levied on the grockles?  Would a drop in tourist make in more difficult to sustain a good public transport network in what is primarily  tourist areas?  Would it leave space on the trains (even IETs) for surfboards to Newquay?