Style Council - Part 1

In this week's blog, in part one of two, we look more closely at a petition to scrap council tax and stamp duty and replace both with a single annual property tax that has passed 100,000 signatures, which means Parliament has to debate it. The proposal behind it, from campaign group Fairer Share, is a Proportional Property Tax: a flat annual charge of 0.48% of a home's current value, in place of both existing taxes. The case for it is not hard to follow: with council tax bands still resting on 1991 valuations, arrears have reached £8.3bn, and the campaign claims 77% of households would pay less; a £300,000 home would face roughly £1,440 a year. Our question would be, should we see radical reforms, what sort of impact could we expect on GDVs?

That petition now lands on the desk of a Prime Minister who has already signalled sympathy for the direction of travel. In his first major broadcast interview, Andy Burnham argued that homeowners in the South could reasonably pay more, pointing out that Greater Manchester households pay more council tax than owners of far larger properties in London. He’s named three possible routes: a proportional property tax, a land value tax charged on land rather than buildings, or simply cutting the mansion tax surcharge threshold from £2m to £1.5m, and much to the excitement of speculators, he’s ruled none of them out.

Nothing is imminent, and officials have briefed hard that no decisions have been taken; Lord Blunkett, for instance, has called a land value tax politically problematic and unrealistic in the short term, and any announcement realistically waits for the autumn Budget, however, for anyone appraising a scheme that will be selling units in 2028, "nothing before the Budget" is not the same as "nothing to worry about".

For the development sector specifically, the strongest argument has very little to do with council tax and everything to do with stamp duty. SDLT is a transaction tax, and transaction taxes suppress transactions. It penalises exactly the behaviour a functioning housing market depends on: downsizers releasing family homes, second-steppers trading up, households moving for work. Every one of those frozen chains is a buyer who never reaches a new-build sales suite. Removing the upfront cost of moving is the single most plausible mechanism for unsticking a market that has been sluggish on volume rather than on price. For developers, faster absorption is not an abstraction; it is a shorter sales period, lower finance costs and materially reduced exit risk on the appraisal. The second argument is regional. Council tax as currently constituted is regressive across geography as well as income; the Telegraph has reported that relative to local property values, Hartlepool residents pay 13.5 times what Westminster residents do. Any charge tied to current values rather than 1991 bands shifts the burden south and lightens it north. For SME housebuilders operating in the Midlands, the North and Wales, where viability margins are thinnest and where the Homes England Lending Alliance is designed to push capacity, a lower ongoing occupier cost is a modest but real support to affordability and therefore to sales rates.

The problem is capitalisation: an annual charge levied on value does not sit outside the asset; it becomes part of what a rational buyer is bidding for. A perpetual liability of 0.48% of value, discounted at any plausible rate, implies a meaningful haircut to capital values, in theory somewhere approaching a high single-digit percentage, before you net off the offsetting boost from abolishing SDLT. In lower-value regions, the SDLT saving plausibly outweighs the annual charge. In London and the South East, it plausibly does not. That is the mechanism behind the question developers keep asking: will stock be repriced downwards to duck the levy? The honest answer depends entirely on which model wins.

Under a genuinely proportional tax there is no threshold to duck below. A flat percentage has no cliff edge, so there is no gaming; only capitalisation, which reprices the whole southern market gradually rather than distorting it at specific points. Under a threshold-based approach, the mansion tax surcharge dropped to £1.5m, and the incentive is entirely different; we already know exactly what happens because SDLT has taught us. Wherever a tax cliff exists, prices bunch immediately beneath it. Listings cluster at £249,950 and £499,950 for a reason. Move a surcharge threshold to £1.5m, and you should expect a visible pile-up of transactions just under it, alongside developers quietly value-engineering high-end units so that they price below the line: smaller plots, reduced specification, an extra unit squeezed onto the same footprint rather than a larger one that crosses the boundary. That is not tax avoidance in any pejorative sense; it is a rational design response to a badly shaped incentive. But it compresses GDV at the top of the market, and it does so on schemes that were appraised before the threshold existed.

GDV is the denominator under almost everything in development finance. Loan-to-GDV headroom, day-one equity requirement, contingency adequacy, exit route, all of it flexes with the sales values assumed at the outset. A scheme in the South East drawing down now and completing in 2028 could be selling into a market where the annual holding cost of ownership has changed, where high-value units face a threshold that did not exist at appraisal, or where neither has happened because the reform stalled. The right response is not to price for a policy that has not been announced. It is to stress the appraisal against one that might be. That means testing GDV sensitivity at meaningful downside (not a token 5%) on higher-value southern schemes; being honest about whether contingency is genuinely sized for value movement rather than just build cost; and thinking carefully about unit mix on anything with units approaching £1.5m, because that is where the policy risk is concentrated and where it is also easiest to design around in advance.

It also means recognising the offsetting upside. If SDLT abolition does what its advocates claim, sales periods shorten, and a scheme that sells out in nine months instead of fifteen saves real interest cost and de-risks the exit far more than a few per cent of headline GDV. Reform of any kind creates winners and losers. Developers who have modelled both outcomes before the autumn Budget will be considerably better placed than those discovering the numbers afterwards.

Invest & Fund has returned over £389 million of capital and interest to lenders with zero losses, showing the rigour that governs our business. To take maximum advantage of this robust and exciting asset class, please visit www.investandfund.com.

Don't invest unless you're prepared to lose money. This is a high-risk investment. You may not be able to access your money quickly, and you are unlikely to be protected if something goes wrong. Take 2 minutes to learn more