House prices rise to 15 times an average wage

It is becoming increasingly difficult to get on the property ladder

It is becoming increasingly difficult to get on the property ladder

First published in News Oxford Mail: Photograph of the Author by

RUNAWAY house prices in the south of the county are 15 times the average wage, making it one of the least affordable spots in the UK.

The average cost of a home in South Oxfordshire has reached £372,632, against an average wage of £24,107, according to the National Housing Federation.

It says the countryside is more expensive to live in than many towns, and workers in some rural areas would need to see pay packets rise by 150 per cent to afford a home.

James Edwards, 24, is a software engineer at Culham Science Centre, near Abingdon.

Despite earning £25,000-£30,000 he cannot afford to buy in the area and pays £330 a month to share a rented house with four others in Abingdon.

He said: “A few months ago I started looking at properties but the prices are extremely high and it seems a bit mad.

“Houses under £250,000 either needed a lot of work doing or were so tiny you could hardly swing a cat, and for a semi-detached you were looking at £300,000.

“In terms of prices compared to wages, South Oxfordshire is worse than London for cost, which is because Oxfordshire is easy for commuting to London.

“I know quite a few others who want to buy but can’t because they haven’t got enough cash.”

James Hellem solved the problem of not being able to afford a place of his own by using a shared ownership scheme.

He moved into a two-bedroom terraced house in Chilton Dene, near Didcot, in April last year.

Under the scheme he bought a half-share of the £230,000 home, while the remainder is still owned by housing association Soha Housing.

Repayments on a mortgage of just under £100,000 are £480, and he pays £300 to rent the share of the house belonging to the housing association.

That adds up to £750-800 per month, but he has a lodger in his second bedroom to help meet the cost.

The 30-year old physicist said: “I hadn’t been able to save much money but my dad helped with the £16,000 deposit. I wouldn’t have been able to afford to buy without this scheme and am probably paying less now than some renting.”

Fran Ryan, co-chairwoman of Oxfordshire Community Land Trust, which wants to build more affordable housing, said: “This is not good news for people who need to live in this area.

“If every village had a community land trust to build a few permanently affordable homes like this, what a difference it would make.”

David Orr, National Housing Federation chief executive, said: “The traditional picture of the English countryside is fast becoming extinct. We know how difficult many under-40s find it to buy in towns and cities but it’s becoming impossible to put down roots in our villages and market towns.”

IN A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN

The most expensive rural area to live in the country is South Buckinghamshire. The average house price there is £563,032 and average earnings are £27,903. 

Above South Oxfordshire in the 10 least affordable areas are the Cotswolds, Chicester in West Sussex, Waverley in Surrey, Sevenoaks in Kent and Tandridge in Surrey. 

  • Do you want alerts delivered straight to your phone via our WhatsApp service? Text NEWS or SPORT or NEWS AND SPORT, depending on which services you want, and your full name to 07767 417704. Save our number into your phone's contacts as Oxford Mail WhatsApp and ensure you have WhatsApp installed.

Send your Letter to the Editor

11:20am Monday 28th July 2014

What do you think? We welcome letters from our readers on a wide variety of subjects and you can send us a letter through the blue headline above.



Our top stories

Black Friday: Shopping traffic causing chaos around Bicester as police warn to avoid area

Oxford Mail:

1:59pm Friday 28th November 2014

POLICE have urged people to avoid the Bicester area due to heavy traffic into Bicester Village on Black Friday.

John Campbell desperate to seize second chance with Oxford United

Oxford Mail:

9:10am Friday 28th November 2014

JOHN Campbell expects it will be a struggle to sleep tonight as he deals with excitement levels beyond anything he experienced playing in two Wembley finals.

Grant: City bids for share of £144m cycling money

Oxford Mail:

9:00am Friday 28th November 2014

OXFORD’S share of a newly-announced £114m grant could be spent on a fully connected city cycle network or teaching cycling in schools, campaigners have said.

Drugs conspiracy case jury considers verdict

Oxford Mail: Scales of Justice

8:30am Friday 28th November 2014

The jury in the case of a pub boss and building company director accused of being involved in a drugs conspiracy has retired to consider its verdict.

Queen of crime who ‘thrilled and inspired a generation’

Oxford Mail:

8:30am Friday 28th November 2014

PD James was yesterday hailed by fellow Oxford literary legend Colin Dexter as ‘one of the most stylish and distinguished modern crime writers’.

Update: Driver taken to hospital after two lorries crash on A34

Oxford Mail: A34 traffic alert

7:38am Friday 28th November 2014

TRAFFIC is "very slow" on the A34 after one lane was closed following a crash between two lorries.

Comments (13)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:53am Wed 20 Aug 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

"Fran Ryan, co-chairwoman of Oxfordshire Community Land Trust, which wants to build more affordable housing, said: “This is not good news for people who need to live in this area.

“If every village had a community land trust to build a few permanently affordable homes like this, what a difference it would make"
Well no, it wouldn't.
If the "ideal" or "traditional " ratio is 3 to 1 , then there'd have to be 5 times as many houses built than now exist to achieve that.
It's not a dwelling supply problem. It's a money supply problem. Quantitative easing and continuous low interest rates have seen a flight from savings to property. I'll freely admit I've bought a buy to let because my cash was dying in the bank. As interest rates rise, the money will flow back and prices will ease. But they'll never balance because, as I said, if you build 5 times as many houses in the South East it would be a slum, so it's not going to happen (I hope)
"Fran Ryan, co-chairwoman of Oxfordshire Community Land Trust, which wants to build more affordable housing, said: “This is not good news for people who need to live in this area. “If every village had a community land trust to build a few permanently affordable homes like this, what a difference it would make" Well no, it wouldn't. If the "ideal" or "traditional " ratio is 3 to 1 , then there'd have to be 5 times as many houses built than now exist to achieve that. It's not a dwelling supply problem. It's a money supply problem. Quantitative easing and continuous low interest rates have seen a flight from savings to property. I'll freely admit I've bought a buy to let because my cash was dying in the bank. As interest rates rise, the money will flow back and prices will ease. But they'll never balance because, as I said, if you build 5 times as many houses in the South East it would be a slum, so it's not going to happen (I hope) Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 2

9:00am Wed 20 Aug 14

Andrew:Oxford says...

Yet the notorious Oxford(shire) faction of the CPRE and their partners in the Green Party consistently campaign to stop these.

Just last week the Press Officer of the Green Party in Oxfordshire formally condemned the building of 4000 homes (including 1600 homes for families in need) in South Oxfordshire.
Yet the notorious Oxford(shire) faction of the CPRE and their partners in the Green Party consistently campaign to stop these. Just last week the Press Officer of the Green Party in Oxfordshire formally condemned the building of 4000 homes (including 1600 homes for families in need) in South Oxfordshire. Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: 1

9:13am Wed 20 Aug 14

oafie says...

And when you cannot but- you are faced with runaway rents- you move somewhere- then as rents rise, your landlords obviously wishes to get the best rent possible-you can't get long term tenancies and are constantly forced to move -incurring even more costs and the still get a higher rent-it is desperate.
And when you cannot but- you are faced with runaway rents- you move somewhere- then as rents rise, your landlords obviously wishes to get the best rent possible-you can't get long term tenancies and are constantly forced to move -incurring even more costs and the still get a higher rent-it is desperate. oafie
  • Score: 1

11:49am Wed 20 Aug 14

Danny A says...

Ultimately house prices (values) have to be supported by wages since mortgages and rents are paid out of incomes not assets. Any valuation above what can be supported by the real economy (i.e. doing stuff rather than economic rents and capital gains) is a bubble that will pop at some point.

Also land trusts are a really important alternative to the current model.
Crucially they control the value of the land under the property, thus property cost reflect the actual 'bricks and mortar' and building thereof. It is the land (location) value aspect of property that becomes inflated by excessive bank lending and speculation.
Ultimately house prices (values) have to be supported by wages since mortgages and rents are paid out of incomes not assets. Any valuation above what can be supported by the real economy (i.e. doing stuff rather than economic rents and capital gains) is a bubble that will pop at some point. Also land trusts are a really important alternative to the current model. Crucially they control the value of the land under the property, thus property cost reflect the actual 'bricks and mortar' and building thereof. It is the land (location) value aspect of property that becomes inflated by excessive bank lending and speculation. Danny A
  • Score: 1

12:14pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

Ultimately house prices (values) have to be supported by wages since mortgages and rents are paid out of incomes not assets. Any valuation above what can be supported by the real economy (i.e. doing stuff rather than economic rents and capital gains) is a bubble that will pop at some point
You cannot exclude the accumulated wages (savings) of my generation from your equation. As to "doing stuff" does that not rather minimize the part that oil and gas extraction has played during the lifetime of those still with us?
"Also land trusts are a really important alternative to the current model.
Crucially they control the value of the land under the property, thus property cost reflect the actual 'bricks and mortar' and building thereof. It is the land (location) value aspect of property that becomes inflated by excessive bank lending and speculation"
An enormous rise in buy to let can be explained almost entirely by the disappearance of interest paid on savings, as I observed above. What's a "land trust"? It has the sound of an authoritarian and arbitrary imposition by the State, rather than my leaving Blackacre in entail, which is the traditional form of trust.
Ultimately house prices (values) have to be supported by wages since mortgages and rents are paid out of incomes not assets. Any valuation above what can be supported by the real economy (i.e. doing stuff rather than economic rents and capital gains) is a bubble that will pop at some point You cannot exclude the accumulated wages (savings) of my generation from your equation. As to "doing stuff" does that not rather minimize the part that oil and gas extraction has played during the lifetime of those still with us? "Also land trusts are a really important alternative to the current model. Crucially they control the value of the land under the property, thus property cost reflect the actual 'bricks and mortar' and building thereof. It is the land (location) value aspect of property that becomes inflated by excessive bank lending and speculation" An enormous rise in buy to let can be explained almost entirely by the disappearance of interest paid on savings, as I observed above. What's a "land trust"? It has the sound of an authoritarian and arbitrary imposition by the State, rather than my leaving Blackacre in entail, which is the traditional form of trust. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 3

2:28pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Danny A says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
Ultimately house prices (values) have to be supported by wages since mortgages and rents are paid out of incomes not assets. Any valuation above what can be supported by the real economy (i.e. doing stuff rather than economic rents and capital gains) is a bubble that will pop at some point
You cannot exclude the accumulated wages (savings) of my generation from your equation. As to "doing stuff" does that not rather minimize the part that oil and gas extraction has played during the lifetime of those still with us?
"Also land trusts are a really important alternative to the current model.
Crucially they control the value of the land under the property, thus property cost reflect the actual 'bricks and mortar' and building thereof. It is the land (location) value aspect of property that becomes inflated by excessive bank lending and speculation"
An enormous rise in buy to let can be explained almost entirely by the disappearance of interest paid on savings, as I observed above. What's a "land trust"? It has the sound of an authoritarian and arbitrary imposition by the State, rather than my leaving Blackacre in entail, which is the traditional form of trust.
I'm just pointing out that buy-to-let incomes are ultimately limited by wages since the tenants will be paying rent out of their income. Certainly use of a discounted cash flow model will push up house *valuations* if other assets (shares, bonds, annuities etc) lose income generating potential in comparison. But in boom times with banks extending credit loosely and to an extent now with lots of money sloshing about either looking for a return or laundered (c.f Russians in London) it's easy for property prices to be bid-up beyond their sustainable income generating values which come from the wages paying the rents.

You should read up on Land trusts before leaping to judge. They actually represent release from the usual state influence on property by putting it in the hands of a community. On the other hand private property only has any value because of the rights enforced by the state!!!
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: Ultimately house prices (values) have to be supported by wages since mortgages and rents are paid out of incomes not assets. Any valuation above what can be supported by the real economy (i.e. doing stuff rather than economic rents and capital gains) is a bubble that will pop at some point You cannot exclude the accumulated wages (savings) of my generation from your equation. As to "doing stuff" does that not rather minimize the part that oil and gas extraction has played during the lifetime of those still with us? "Also land trusts are a really important alternative to the current model. Crucially they control the value of the land under the property, thus property cost reflect the actual 'bricks and mortar' and building thereof. It is the land (location) value aspect of property that becomes inflated by excessive bank lending and speculation" An enormous rise in buy to let can be explained almost entirely by the disappearance of interest paid on savings, as I observed above. What's a "land trust"? It has the sound of an authoritarian and arbitrary imposition by the State, rather than my leaving Blackacre in entail, which is the traditional form of trust.[/p][/quote]I'm just pointing out that buy-to-let incomes are ultimately limited by wages since the tenants will be paying rent out of their income. Certainly use of a discounted cash flow model will push up house *valuations* if other assets (shares, bonds, annuities etc) lose income generating potential in comparison. But in boom times with banks extending credit loosely and to an extent now with lots of money sloshing about either looking for a return or laundered (c.f Russians in London) it's easy for property prices to be bid-up beyond their sustainable income generating values which come from the wages paying the rents. You should read up on Land trusts before leaping to judge. They actually represent release from the usual state influence on property by putting it in the hands of a community. On the other hand private property only has any value because of the rights enforced by the state!!! Danny A
  • Score: 0

2:45pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

Danny A wrote:
Lord Palmerstone wrote:
Ultimately house prices (values) have to be supported by wages since mortgages and rents are paid out of incomes not assets. Any valuation above what can be supported by the real economy (i.e. doing stuff rather than economic rents and capital gains) is a bubble that will pop at some point
You cannot exclude the accumulated wages (savings) of my generation from your equation. As to "doing stuff" does that not rather minimize the part that oil and gas extraction has played during the lifetime of those still with us?
"Also land trusts are a really important alternative to the current model.
Crucially they control the value of the land under the property, thus property cost reflect the actual 'bricks and mortar' and building thereof. It is the land (location) value aspect of property that becomes inflated by excessive bank lending and speculation"
An enormous rise in buy to let can be explained almost entirely by the disappearance of interest paid on savings, as I observed above. What's a "land trust"? It has the sound of an authoritarian and arbitrary imposition by the State, rather than my leaving Blackacre in entail, which is the traditional form of trust.
I'm just pointing out that buy-to-let incomes are ultimately limited by wages since the tenants will be paying rent out of their income. Certainly use of a discounted cash flow model will push up house *valuations* if other assets (shares, bonds, annuities etc) lose income generating potential in comparison. But in boom times with banks extending credit loosely and to an extent now with lots of money sloshing about either looking for a return or laundered (c.f Russians in London) it's easy for property prices to be bid-up beyond their sustainable income generating values which come from the wages paying the rents.

You should read up on Land trusts before leaping to judge. They actually represent release from the usual state influence on property by putting it in the hands of a community. On the other hand private property only has any value because of the rights enforced by the state!!!
To paraphrase Goering "when I hear "community" I reach for my gun"
The international community = everyone in the world. I don't think I'll bother to read up because respect for property ownership=civilizati
on, not something "given" by any state. The alternative to civilization is chaos and barbarism as a swift glance at the Soviet Union and the middle East shows.
[quote][p][bold]Danny A[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: Ultimately house prices (values) have to be supported by wages since mortgages and rents are paid out of incomes not assets. Any valuation above what can be supported by the real economy (i.e. doing stuff rather than economic rents and capital gains) is a bubble that will pop at some point You cannot exclude the accumulated wages (savings) of my generation from your equation. As to "doing stuff" does that not rather minimize the part that oil and gas extraction has played during the lifetime of those still with us? "Also land trusts are a really important alternative to the current model. Crucially they control the value of the land under the property, thus property cost reflect the actual 'bricks and mortar' and building thereof. It is the land (location) value aspect of property that becomes inflated by excessive bank lending and speculation" An enormous rise in buy to let can be explained almost entirely by the disappearance of interest paid on savings, as I observed above. What's a "land trust"? It has the sound of an authoritarian and arbitrary imposition by the State, rather than my leaving Blackacre in entail, which is the traditional form of trust.[/p][/quote]I'm just pointing out that buy-to-let incomes are ultimately limited by wages since the tenants will be paying rent out of their income. Certainly use of a discounted cash flow model will push up house *valuations* if other assets (shares, bonds, annuities etc) lose income generating potential in comparison. But in boom times with banks extending credit loosely and to an extent now with lots of money sloshing about either looking for a return or laundered (c.f Russians in London) it's easy for property prices to be bid-up beyond their sustainable income generating values which come from the wages paying the rents. You should read up on Land trusts before leaping to judge. They actually represent release from the usual state influence on property by putting it in the hands of a community. On the other hand private property only has any value because of the rights enforced by the state!!![/p][/quote]To paraphrase Goering "when I hear "community" I reach for my gun" The international community = everyone in the world. I don't think I'll bother to read up because respect for property ownership=civilizati on, not something "given" by any state. The alternative to civilization is chaos and barbarism as a swift glance at the Soviet Union and the middle East shows. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 3

3:53am Thu 21 Aug 14

Myron Blatz says...

Its all 'catch 22' because the affordable housing you build today, will simply become the potential short-medium term profit centre of tomorrow - because demand continues to outstrip provision. Even if buyers are tied to not selling for two years, prices in locations where people want to or need to live will still increase. This, especially where owner-occupiers are in competition with buy-to-let landlords and for student accomodation. Ironically, building more houses and flats in locations where demand is high, can create even more demand rather than solve housing issues - which starts the whole sequence off again. What somewhere like Oxford needs are more one and two-bed flats for non-students, not family houses. We also need more social/housing to rent, not buy.
Its all 'catch 22' because the affordable housing you build today, will simply become the potential short-medium term profit centre of tomorrow - because demand continues to outstrip provision. Even if buyers are tied to not selling for two years, prices in locations where people want to or need to live will still increase. This, especially where owner-occupiers are in competition with buy-to-let landlords and for student accomodation. Ironically, building more houses and flats in locations where demand is high, can create even more demand rather than solve housing issues - which starts the whole sequence off again. What somewhere like Oxford needs are more one and two-bed flats for non-students, not family houses. We also need more social/housing to rent, not buy. Myron Blatz
  • Score: 1

8:19am Thu 21 Aug 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

"We also need more social/housing to rent, not buy" Myron. It's public housing. Some crusty old socialist hack made up this weasel "social" about 15 years ago and it's 15 years past its sell by date. It wouldn't work because there'd be no real scrutiny of the applicants' list and none of the politicos' pet punters to be put at the top, e.g. illegals who are now to be invariably classed as "victims of trafficking" or house - husbands subjected to "controlling behaviour" by their wives under the latest nincompoopery from a coalition long since bankrupt of common sense.
"We also need more social/housing to rent, not buy" Myron. It's public housing. Some crusty old socialist hack made up this weasel "social" about 15 years ago and it's 15 years past its sell by date. It wouldn't work because there'd be no real scrutiny of the applicants' list and none of the politicos' pet punters to be put at the top, e.g. illegals who are now to be invariably classed as "victims of trafficking" or house - husbands subjected to "controlling behaviour" by their wives under the latest nincompoopery from a coalition long since bankrupt of common sense. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: -1

11:09am Fri 22 Aug 14

jockox3 says...

Interesting to be discussing this with Lord P. Your near namesake 150 years ago never really understood the land issue as his successor Gladstone did, nor the liberal land club activists like Bright and Cobden, whose models of shared development, temporary building societies and land clubs built much of Victorian east Oxford and parts of north Oxford. But still, keeping to the *Palmerston" (Temple) family tradiiton of rentier landlordism I see :)

Further back though, before the Norman B*stard took all our land away from us, a saxon lord’s main duty was to ensure that everyone in his patch had equitable access to land as a means of subsistence.

For info, I am the other chair of the CLT building the homes in Botley, and I can tell you that we are doing it in spite of much government interference in the housing market rather than because of. Our current project kicked off originally because a lovely local lady, a Quaker, decided she wanted to leave some of her property to create housing for those who could not afford market rents in her locality, we’ve worked closely with the parish council, and *we* will be selecting suitable tenants on the basis of their financial situation and whether they have a connection with the local area already.

But we *know* CLTs are ultimately not the whole answer, but a private mechanism for keeping the value of the land, such a large component of housing costs, off the market. The real solution is to switch from taxing our labour via income taxes and the like, to taxing economic rents on all sorts of land (building locations, electromagnetic spectrum, airport landing slots and many other smaller targets of “rent-seeking” behaviour.

Nonetheless, I think you are wrong, Lord P, about the having to build many many homes in local communities to bring costs down. One of the biggest obstacles in our system of allocating housing land in the strategic planning process. This maintains high land prices “at the margin” (i.e. in this case, on the edge of settlements, of any size, city or village) as it allocated slabs for 20 years’ worth of development or whatever at a time, rather than allowing land owners to drip feed small amounts of housing that would rapidly lead to a fall in “hope value” (amongst those hoping that their £10k/acre farming land will be miraculously converted into £1m/acre housing land if they lobby the right politicians), and once the “margin” is near the agricultural price, it will begin to affect land/location values within the margins too.

Maintaining the fiction that we need to build vast numbers all over our countryside to reduce location values and so housing costs is what fosters NIMBYISM and BANANAism :) CLTs can help bring landowners and communities that are haemorrhaging people who can no longer afford to live there into line - with landowners knowing that they can help contribute to their community without risking people taking advantage of them by carpet-bagging just as soon as the homes are built.

Hi Danny A - you seem supportive/knowledga
ble about the CLT mechanism - you (all) might like to take a look at http://oclt.org.uk if you are interested in what we are doing (though the current project, our first, is far from ideal - a difficult site I would not have made our first development if I had had the choice!)
Interesting to be discussing this with Lord P. Your near namesake 150 years ago never really understood the land issue as his successor Gladstone did, nor the liberal land club activists like Bright and Cobden, whose models of shared development, temporary building societies and land clubs built much of Victorian east Oxford and parts of north Oxford. But still, keeping to the *Palmerston" (Temple) family tradiiton of rentier landlordism I see :) Further back though, before the Norman B*stard took all our land away from us, a saxon lord’s main duty was to ensure that everyone in his patch had equitable access to land as a means of subsistence. For info, I am the other chair of the CLT building the homes in Botley, and I can tell you that we are doing it in spite of much government interference in the housing market rather than because of. Our current project kicked off originally because a lovely local lady, a Quaker, decided she wanted to leave some of her property to create housing for those who could not afford market rents in her locality, we’ve worked closely with the parish council, and *we* will be selecting suitable tenants on the basis of their financial situation and whether they have a connection with the local area already. But we *know* CLTs are ultimately not the whole answer, but a private mechanism for keeping the value of the land, such a large component of housing costs, off the market. The real solution is to switch from taxing our labour via income taxes and the like, to taxing economic rents on all sorts of land (building locations, electromagnetic spectrum, airport landing slots and many other smaller targets of “rent-seeking” behaviour. Nonetheless, I think you are wrong, Lord P, about the having to build many many homes in local communities to bring costs down. One of the biggest obstacles in our system of allocating housing land in the strategic planning process. This maintains high land prices “at the margin” (i.e. in this case, on the edge of settlements, of any size, city or village) as it allocated slabs for 20 years’ worth of development or whatever at a time, rather than allowing land owners to drip feed small amounts of housing that would rapidly lead to a fall in “hope value” (amongst those hoping that their £10k/acre farming land will be miraculously converted into £1m/acre housing land if they lobby the right politicians), and once the “margin” is near the agricultural price, it will begin to affect land/location values within the margins too. Maintaining the fiction that we need to build vast numbers all over our countryside to reduce location values and so housing costs is what fosters NIMBYISM and BANANAism :) CLTs can help bring landowners and communities that are haemorrhaging people who can no longer afford to live there into line - with landowners knowing that they can help contribute to their community without risking people taking advantage of them by carpet-bagging just as soon as the homes are built. Hi Danny A - you seem supportive/knowledga ble about the CLT mechanism - you (all) might like to take a look at http://oclt.org.uk if you are interested in what we are doing (though the current project, our first, is far from ideal - a difficult site I would not have made our first development if I had had the choice!) jockox3
  • Score: 0

12:56pm Fri 22 Aug 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

This is not really a response to the last post because the author knows more than I and I would be dissembling if I pretended to disagree with the proposition that taxes on wages (and acquiring property- stamp duty at current levels being a curse which would have blighted building in the 19th century) are not doing massive damage to the economy.
BUT I was brought up in Weston Turville in the late 40's and early 50's and when I return now I want to weep and feel very sad for today's young people. All the fields and streams we played in are concrete and culverts. Anyway my generation will soon be dead or daft and young jockox's generation knows no different.
This is not really a response to the last post because the author knows more than I and I would be dissembling if I pretended to disagree with the proposition that taxes on wages (and acquiring property- stamp duty at current levels being a curse which would have blighted building in the 19th century) are not doing massive damage to the economy. BUT I was brought up in Weston Turville in the late 40's and early 50's and when I return now I want to weep and feel very sad for today's young people. All the fields and streams we played in are concrete and culverts. Anyway my generation will soon be dead or daft and young jockox's generation knows no different. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

1:51pm Fri 22 Aug 14

jockox3 says...

Although I too can't say I know of Weston Turville, I can imagine what you mean. When I was very young we lived in that village where they filmed "The Village" or whatever it was called, Kibworth Beauchamp in Leicestershire and I see the same thing happening there. However, I maintain that this is *because* of the planning system. If you don't allow any new housing where people want it, but instead every ten years select some poor benighted community to expand massively putting all your planning eggs in one basket (think Carterton, Didcot, Grove, Witney etc) and engaging in moving anyone without a home into those communities regardless of their roots not only does it keep the prices up but you dwarf those communities and give the feel of urbanisation.

Yes, LVT would get rid of stamp duty, inheritance tax and other transactions taxes, and of course is not calculated on the value of the buildings or other capital investment on a site, only the land values. So it ought to free up transactions and investment.
Although I too can't say I know of Weston Turville, I can imagine what you mean. When I was very young we lived in that village where they filmed "The Village" or whatever it was called, Kibworth Beauchamp in Leicestershire and I see the same thing happening there. However, I maintain that this is *because* of the planning system. If you don't allow any new housing where people want it, but instead every ten years select some poor benighted community to expand massively putting all your planning eggs in one basket (think Carterton, Didcot, Grove, Witney etc) and engaging in moving anyone without a home into those communities regardless of their roots not only does it keep the prices up but you dwarf those communities and give the feel of urbanisation. Yes, LVT would get rid of stamp duty, inheritance tax and other transactions taxes, and of course is not calculated on the value of the buildings or other capital investment on a site, only the land values. So it ought to free up transactions and investment. jockox3
  • Score: 0

2:00pm Fri 22 Aug 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

Fair enough but I always had the feeling that Aylesbury ate WT, much in the way I recall from O Level biology an amoeba ingests its food, starting by planting its rugby club at the end of the village. To continue the analogy one must hope that those now living there never experience Aylesbury's contractile vacuole.
And anyway if you like countryside and haven't too much dosh (else M Hollande will steal it to buy bijoux for his petites amies) you can go to France, They've lots left there.
Fair enough but I always had the feeling that Aylesbury ate WT, much in the way I recall from O Level biology an amoeba ingests its food, starting by planting its rugby club at the end of the village. To continue the analogy one must hope that those now living there never experience Aylesbury's contractile vacuole. And anyway if you like countryside and haven't too much dosh (else M Hollande will steal it to buy bijoux for his petites amies) you can go to France, They've lots left there. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree