The Mansion Tax

[lindylou]

On 26/11/2025 at 17:23, CPR Dave said:

What do we think?

There's a couple of not very big ordinary family homes for sale on my street that will fall foul of this. 

Seems totally arbitrary to tax these people more than others imo. J hope the treasury will pay the cost of collection too, rather than burdening the council who won't benefit at all from this tax.

They should have just increased income tax.

 

Admin note: Post removed to avoid derailing the thread. Removed subsequent posts quoting this one. 

Edited November 30 by Administrator

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

2 hours ago, Sephiroth said:

Every person complaining about a small amount of tax on homes above £2million is the direct enemy of every voter/government/plan to build affordable housing 

I don't really see the linkage between the two factors tbh

[Sephiroth]

4 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

I don't really see the linkage between the two factors tbh

Fair enough. Perhaps I’m wrong 

but the country can either have rising house prices or affordable housing. Which means falling house prices right?

or is there a scenario where all of the existing housing stock rises in value while the hundreds of thousands of new, affordable  homes are somehow immune to the same market forces?

How do we build enough affordable houses for our children yet insist on our own houses going up in value? Both can’t be true. Enough new housing stock has to lower existing housing prices 

if  not , where am I wrong?

[Spartacus]

I wonder if the tax will cause the £2 million plus market to stall but boost the sub £2 million market as houses sell for just below the threshold. 

Will a house that then sells for less than its £2 million value, say at £1,95 million  then drop out of the tax or will the goverment still tax it as though it was worth over £2 million?  

As the tax will obly raise 1/2 a billion, will the threshold creep downwards or will more houses go into it as property values increase ? 

So many questions that may need to be understood better before it is inplemented otherwise there may be potential legal cleans post implementation. 

 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

16 hours ago, Sephiroth said:

is there a scenario where all of the existing housing stock rises in value while the hundreds of thousands of new, affordable  homes are somehow immune to the same market forces?

I don't think we need to worry too much about that. There would have to be a massive amount of new construction very quickly to keep housing costs level, let alone depressing existing house prices.

[Sephiroth]

But isn’t that massive construction effort the prerequisite to solve the housing problems? 

or is there another way? 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

It is. It's just not gonna happen.

London is supposed to get 440,000 new homes by 2030. Just 10,000 were completed in 2024-2025 so housing supply is barely growing.

Meanwhile, housing demand continues to increase. Net migration to the UK was +204,000 in 2024-2025 (and that's a big drop from the previous year). Of those people, about 25% will come to London ie 51,000 people. The average occupancy of a home in London is 2.5 persons i.e. we should have built 21,250 new homes in London just to keep the current supply equalised with current demand. But we didn't - we built half as much.

We're not even keeping things steady with new housing, let alone improving the structural long term shortage. That's not helped by NIMBYs and politicians like @James Barber opposing new housing on infill sites like the old Jewsons yard.

But I don't see how people complaining about more tax on £2m homes affects any of that one way or the other. Perhaps I'm being dense.

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/press/net-migration-falls-78-in-two-years-returning-to-pre-brexit-levels-every-major-immigration-category-except-asylum-declines/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1ldgqvypqpo

https://www.hbf.co.uk/news/urgent-government-action-needed-to-prevent-london-housing-delivery-collapse-warns-hbf/

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/householdcharacteristics/homeinternetandsocialmediausage/bulletins/householdandresidentcharacteristicsenglandandwales/census2021

 

[Sephiroth]

I think it’s directly related because a major factor in so few houses actually being built despite the demand is 

a) financial incentives for builders isn’t there. Longer they wait to build the more prices go up. Because too many people want prices to go up 

 

b) nimbys. In expensive houses.  Don’t build here it will devalue my property   Because my property price has to go up 

[Ebenezer]

7 hours ago, Sephiroth said:

nimbys. In expensive houses.  Don’t build here it will devalue my property   Because my property price has to go up 

It’s not NIMBYism to say I don’t want high-rises in ED ... it’s just not what the area is. Liking the character of where you live isn’t a crime.

[Sephiroth]

I think “high rises” and “crime” might be your words not mine 

“liking the character of an area” is something I imagine mos people feel.  But it is subjective.  What year was your home built? Should it not have been? To preserve the character of the area at that time? 
 

I don’t think building is the only solution.  Investment landlords and multiple property owners could also be tackled

but simply saying “no. Because character of area” isn’t going to help anyone growing up in the area get a place to live 

[CPR Dave]

"the hundreds of thousands of new, affordable  homes are somehow immune to the same market forces"

 

This is because they are usually built very cheaply, they are very unattractive (often because climate change rules limit things like having usable windows), they are built without any thought as to how the new residents will be offered basic services such as GP surgeries, transport links and schools etc, and no one who had any choice would want to live in them. 

The secondary market for modern new built homes is completely different to older homes that were built with some aesthetic thought. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 hours ago, CPR Dave said:

climate change rules limit things like having usable windows

Eh?

[Angelina]

2 hours ago, CPR Dave said:

"the hundreds of thousands of new, affordable  homes are somehow immune to the same market forces"

 

This is because they are usually built very cheaply, they are very unattractive (often because climate change rules limit things like having usable windows), they are built without any thought as to how the new residents will be offered basic services such as GP surgeries, transport links and schools etc, and no one who had any choice would want to live in them. 

The secondary market for modern new built homes is completely different to older homes that were built with some aesthetic thought. 

Fascinating - you're actually picking up on the and overlooked critical point - is the infrastructure in place and able to support the additional number of occupants.

 

 

[Sephiroth]

2 hours ago, CPR Dave said:

"the hundreds of thousands of new, affordable  homes are somehow immune to the same market forces"

 

This is because they are usually built very cheaply, they are very unattractive (often because climate change rules limit things like having usable windows), they are built without any thought as to how the new residents will be offered basic services such as GP surgeries, transport links and schools etc, and no one who had any choice would want to live in them. 

The secondary market for modern new built homes is completely different to older homes that were built with some aesthetic thought. 

"they are usually built very cheaply" - as I understand it, the consensus is that homes are not being built at all, so not sure how they fit your description. 

Have NO idea what you are on about with your climate change rules - but I suspect you just think the whole thing is a hoax anyway

"no-one who has any choice would want to live in them" - again they aren't being built so not sure how this applies. So if a new street of housing was built somewhere in SE22 - you think people earring 50k, currently unable to get their own home  would not want to look at any new houses because of the reasons you describe? I doubt it. And today's cheap housing becomes tomorrows desirable, unaffordable homes - it's snobbery to say houses built before (say) 2000 were great and everything after is cheap and woke

"they are built without any thought as to how the new residents will be offered basic services such as GP surgeries, transport links and schools etc,"

 

crikey - 15 minute cities are desirable so! Joking aside, I have seen towns expand and not enough thought is given to infrastructure etc - but that's as much to do with the horse trading done with locals to get the things built in first place. (someone will say "they can't have a shop there because it will take business away from someone else. And no pub because, I dunno drugs. Something"

also - if you are going to build more surgeries and services (and we should) then you are going to have to tell all the people currently being told to ;eave the country to, erm, not leave because we need their expertise

"but we can train brits to do those jobs" - how has that worked out for any country? Need immigration as well folks

 

But one thing we can't do is continue to not provide homes for all the people growing up and as they leaves schools and unis. And if we are not going to provide homes, and the value of your 1M house becomes 2M because of scarcity of housing, maybe don't complain too much if we need to claw some of that unearned income back because "actually, I'm the real victim in all of this"

 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

3 hours ago, CPR Dave said:

They are built without any thought as to how the new residents will be offered basic services such as GP surgeries, transport links and schools etc

The development at the old Jewson yard is literally overlooking a train station, and Southwark has declining school rolls because fewer kids are being brought up in the borough - and yet NIMBYs objected to it. We *already* have a housing crisis for the people that live here right now.

[Cyclemonkey]

Oh well.  At least an increasingly aged population will be happy in their £2M family homes.

[James Barber]

On 30/11/2025 at 16:13, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

It is. It's just not gonna happen.

London is supposed to get 440,000 new homes by 2030. Just 10,000 were completed in 2024-2025 so housing supply is barely growing.

Meanwhile, housing demand continues to increase. Net migration to the UK was +204,000 in 2024-2025 (and that's a big drop from the previous year). Of those people, about 25% will come to London ie 51,000 people. The average occupancy of a home in London is 2.5 persons i.e. we should have built 21,250 new homes in London just to keep the current supply equalised with current demand. But we didn't - we built half as much.

We're not even keeping things steady with new housing, let alone improving the structural long term shortage. That's not helped by NIMBYs and politicians like @James Barber opposing new housing on infill sites like the old Jewsons yard.

But I don't see how people complaining about more tax on £2m homes affects any of that one way or the other. Perhaps I'm being dense.

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/press/net-migration-falls-78-in-two-years-returning-to-pre-brexit-levels-every-major-immigration-category-except-asylum-declines/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1ldgqvypqpo

https://www.hbf.co.uk/news/urgent-government-action-needed-to-prevent-london-housing-delivery-collapse-warns-hbf/

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/householdcharacteristics/homeinternetandsocialmediausage/bulletins/householdandresidentcharacteristicsenglandandwales/census2021

 

Hi Dogkennelhillbilly,

You won't be aware that i proposed infill sites for housing in East Dulwich - the garages on Bassano Street and Henslowe that respectively became 1-4 Dill Terrace family houses and the 78, 80, 80A Henslowe Street family houses. These were council owned garages and it was frustrating how slow the council was to go from my idea to completion (roughly eight years). East Dulwich has some other vacant WW2 bomb sites I'm guessing that the private land owners have been sitting on.Owe for a land tax for vacant land. 

WRT to the builders yard by East dulwich station. Southwark Council has an agreed policy the area should remain suburban 2/3 storeys maximum. But the approved scheme is 9 storeys of student accommodation. Very hard to put this genie back in the bottle. The council has recently publicly stated lower ratios of social housing will be required. I will be amazed if the developer doesn't submit another application now they have the 9 storeys approved but with significantly less social housing. The less social housing the higher the land values. The higher the land values the less social housing viability reports state are possible. 

If we really want to increase home supply - Southwark have over 6,000 empty homes. Vancouver charges a low % of the value of empty homes and rapidly eased this problem. Parts of Wales have introduced under Article 4 planning permission is required for second homes seeing within 12 months a dramatic decrease in property prices. Southwark Council have Article 4 requirements - why not add this one? It takes National political will to solve this AND regional and local authorities such as the second home council tax premium and these being used promptly. 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

3 hours ago, James Barber said:

Southwark Council has an agreed policy the area should remain suburban 2/3 storeys maximum. But the approved scheme is 9 storeys of student accommodation. Very hard to put this genie back in the bottle. 

This is simply untrue. The area is not 2/3 storeys maximum. Hambledon Court is on the other side of tracks from the Jewson site on Burrow Rd, is 8 storeys, and is barely known (let alone bothersome) to most people in East Dulwich. Felbridge House, Petworth House etc on the opposite side of the station from the new development are all 5 storeys tall. East Dulwich Charter (which neighbours the new development) is itself 4-5 storeys (depending on which block you're talking about).

What's more, Hambledon Court was finished in about 1978 iirc and no-one has built anything similar around here since then - so the "slippery slope" "genie in the bottle" argument doesn't work either. You can't simultaneously argue that Southwark is too slow in approving new construction but also suggest this will lead to a flood of new high-rise housing! At current rates of approval, we can expect our next 8 storey building to arrive in...2072!

[Jenijenjen]

11 hours ago, James Barber said:

But the approved scheme is 9 storeys of student accommodation. Very hard to put this genie back in the bottle.

Scaremongering - there is very little vacant land in East Dulwich available as sites for building 9 storey buildings so this is rather hypothetical. It could even be said the occasional taller, modern building breaks up the monotony of Victorian terraced housing.

Edited yesterday at 09:12 by Jenijenjen

[James Barber]

Hi Dogkennelhillbilly,

North of East dulwich station is not covered by the Dulwich Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) Suburban requirements.  And 1978 was before this guidance was agreed. 

Hi Jenijenjen,

We have vacant sites and sites that for certain heights would likely become available. Giibs & Dandy vacant builders yard - neighbours I've spoken to of this site are extremely concerned about what the council may now approve. Kwik Fit, Goose Green Trading Estate instantly come to mind as sites where tall buildings would bring a significant offer to the freeholders to see the sites up.

The Southwark Plan treats Giibs & Dandy + Kwik Fit as one site suitable for residential redevelopment. It also lists the Trading Estate for this as well. See page.84 https://www.southwark.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-09/Southwark Plan 2022 reduced 1.pdf

Do you think developers having seen the council approve a 9 storey redevelopment are more or less likely now to seek the same at other East Duwlcih locations?

[Jenijenjen]

2 hours ago, James Barber said:

 

Do you think developers having seen the council approve a 9 storey redevelopment are more or less likely now to seek the same at other East Duwlcih locations?

The sites in question though are not comparable to the builders yard by the station and less likely to be granted planning permission for 9 storey buildings. The builders yard fronts on to the railway line on one side and virtually no residential property surrounding on the other sides. The Gibbs & Dandy /Kwikfit and ED trading trading estate are surrounded at close proximity by residential, and in the case of the latter a Grade II building, so there would more stringent height restrictions. Both these sites are tired and sad looking, and in need of development to provide much needed housing.

Edited 55 minutes ago by Jenijenjen