We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
More houses needed, says Government adviser
dgl1001
Posts: 183 Forumite
Up to five per cent more new homes will need be built annually than previously thought, according to revised advice to ministers on housing supply.
Regionally the biggest increase – at 11 per cent – would be in Yorkshire and Humber, new guidance from the National Housing and Planning Advice Unit (NHPAU) has suggested.
Overall up to 290,500 new homes will need to be built in England each year until 2031, it has assessed. That is the date when most regional plans currently under review will end.
This analysis, contained in the unit's latest report, has concluded that declining affordability is having increasingly severe impacts.
Professor Stephen Nickell, chairman of the unit, has told housing and planning minister John Healey that "the recession will have little impact on the number of homes that we need to build over the next 20 years".
He said: "There are likely to be increasingly serious wider economic and social consequences if we do not manage to bring the supply and demand for housing back towards balance and start tackling the backlog of unmet demand."
Countryside campaigners have claimed the new figures are "unrealistic and unsustainable". That's the view of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) which fears urban sprawl will result if all the housing is built.
Senior planner at the CPRE, Kate Gordon, said: "We acknowledge the need for more homes but at around three times present construction rates these figures are hopelessly unachievable."
She claimed that local councils would be faced with no choice but to allocate greenfield land for housing development to meet the new targets.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/507390/pdf/1299593.pdf
Regionally the biggest increase – at 11 per cent – would be in Yorkshire and Humber, new guidance from the National Housing and Planning Advice Unit (NHPAU) has suggested.
Overall up to 290,500 new homes will need to be built in England each year until 2031, it has assessed. That is the date when most regional plans currently under review will end.
This analysis, contained in the unit's latest report, has concluded that declining affordability is having increasingly severe impacts.
Professor Stephen Nickell, chairman of the unit, has told housing and planning minister John Healey that "the recession will have little impact on the number of homes that we need to build over the next 20 years".
He said: "There are likely to be increasingly serious wider economic and social consequences if we do not manage to bring the supply and demand for housing back towards balance and start tackling the backlog of unmet demand."
Countryside campaigners have claimed the new figures are "unrealistic and unsustainable". That's the view of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) which fears urban sprawl will result if all the housing is built.
Senior planner at the CPRE, Kate Gordon, said: "We acknowledge the need for more homes but at around three times present construction rates these figures are hopelessly unachievable."
She claimed that local councils would be faced with no choice but to allocate greenfield land for housing development to meet the new targets.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/507390/pdf/1299593.pdf
0
Comments
-
Up to five per cent more new homes will need be built annually than previously thought, according to revised advice to ministers on housing supply.
Regionally the biggest increase – at 11 per cent – would be in Yorkshire and Humber, new guidance from the National Housing and Planning Advice Unit (NHPAU) has suggested.
Overall up to 290,500 new homes will need to be built in England each year until 2031, it has assessed. That is the date when most regional plans currently under review will end.
This analysis, contained in the unit's latest report, has concluded that declining affordability is having increasingly severe impacts.
Professor Stephen Nickell, chairman of the unit, has told housing and planning minister John Healey that "the recession will have little impact on the number of homes that we need to build over the next 20 years".
He said: "There are likely to be increasingly serious wider economic and social consequences if we do not manage to bring the supply and demand for housing back towards balance and start tackling the backlog of unmet demand."
Countryside campaigners have claimed the new figures are "unrealistic and unsustainable". That's the view of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) which fears urban sprawl will result if all the housing is built.
Senior planner at the CPRE, Kate Gordon, said: "We acknowledge the need for more homes but at around three times present construction rates these figures are hopelessly unachievable."
She claimed that local councils would be faced with no choice but to allocate greenfield land for housing development to meet the new targets.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/507390/pdf/1299593.pdf
Family homes are needed I am debating this on another thread.
Apparently their are 17.1M family's in the UK but they only have around 15M properties to fit in to.
That is why houses are falling less than flats. If they don't get it sorted it is just going to be HPI al over again.0 -
just going to be HPI all over again.
I'm not sure, people are borrowed upto their eyeballs, there maybe a 'need' but at current levels the banks don't want to lend and the public don't or can't borrow any more, hence the historical low approvals and the record insolvencies.
With no wage inflation on the horizon, and the awful state of the economy in general, made worse by the huge government borrowing, house prices will fall whether it be in pricing terms over the next 2-3 years or in stagnating terms over the next 10-15 years.0 -
I'm not sure, people are borrowed upto their eyeballs, there maybe a 'need' but at current levels the banks don't want to lend and the public don't or can't borrow any more, hence the historical low approvals and the record insolvencies.
With no wage inflation on the horizon, and the awful state of the economy in general, made worse by the huge government borrowing, house prices will fall whether it be in pricing terms over the next 2-3 years or in stagnating terms over the next 10-15 years.
By HPI i mean another boom in the future. It only takes a spark and I think the spark last time was family homes.
People saw them increase caused by demand. They then started to buy all kinds of property as they saw the price going up, and up ending in mainly 1 bed flats being built
(the boom and greed took the focus on what the actual shortage was)
Only when they crash again do you see what actually was in demand and houses in general have faired fairly well in the crash.0 -
I'm not sure, people are borrowed upto their eyeballs, there maybe a 'need' but at current levels the banks don't want to lend and the public don't or can't borrow any more, hence the historical low approvals and the record insolvencies.
With no wage inflation on the horizon, and the awful state of the economy in general, made worse by the huge government borrowing, house prices will fall whether it be in pricing terms over the next 2-3 years or in stagnating terms over the next 10-15 years.
I can see what yours saying ad9898, but not all families are in debt and people have secured wage increases over this period. you only need some families to be able to afford their next house purchase to keep the market rising. I accept your point about the economy generally though0 -
By HPI i mean another boom in the future.
I understand what you're saying but the money is highly unlikely to be available for a boom and if it was can people afford it ? People are going bust at the fastest pace since records began and there will be many 10's of 1000's more just hanging on at the moment, that's despite the lowest IR's in history....... this tells a story.
It would suggest that what they have been trying to buy is too expensive for them.0 -
People are going bust at the fastest pace since records began, that's despite the lowest IR's in history....... that tells the story.
It would suggest that what they have been trying to buy is too expensive for them.
You are saying going bust and owning a house are mutualy exclusive with that comment.
But I would say Credit cards and store cards are not historicaly low and most probably account for a high proportion of people going bankrupt a lot more than people going bust because of a mortgage.
I am not disagreeing that house prices were OTT. But credit as been thrown around all over the place not just to home owners.
The biggest problem group for debt at the moment and higher in proportion to any time before is the under 25's.
Nearly all of under 25 year old debt is just consumer debt with no real assets. There are 24 year olds out there with £100K of debt. That was more than my last mortgage.:eek:
I would like to think HPI would be just inflation related but I seriosly doubt it until we have enough houses for people to bring up familys.:(0 -
Up to five per cent more new homes will need be built annually than previously thought, according to revised advice to ministers on housing supply.
Regionally the biggest increase – at 11 per cent – would be in Yorkshire and Humber, new guidance from the National Housing and Planning Advice Unit (NHPAU) has suggested.
Overall up to 290,500 new homes will need to be built in England each year until 2031, it has assessed. That is the date when most regional plans currently under review will end.
This analysis, contained in the unit's latest report, has concluded that declining affordability is having increasingly severe impacts.
Professor Stephen Nickell, chairman of the unit, has told housing and planning minister John Healey that "the recession will have little impact on the number of homes that we need to build over the next 20 years".
He said: "There are likely to be increasingly serious wider economic and social consequences if we do not manage to bring the supply and demand for housing back towards balance and start tackling the backlog of unmet demand."
Countryside campaigners have claimed the new figures are "unrealistic and unsustainable". That's the view of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) which fears urban sprawl will result if all the housing is built.
Senior planner at the CPRE, Kate Gordon, said: "We acknowledge the need for more homes but at around three times present construction rates these figures are hopelessly unachievable."
She claimed that local councils would be faced with no choice but to allocate greenfield land for housing development to meet the new targets.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/507390/pdf/1299593.pdf
can't they see we're in the middle of a housing crash that will last 30 years and that we have 1 million plus properties on Rightmove...0 -
Family homes are needed I am debating this on another thread.
Apparently their are 17.1M family's in the UK but they only have around 15M properties to fit in to.
That is why houses are falling less than flats. If they don't get it sorted it is just going to be HPI al over again.
Agree 100%.
Having used to work in housing, the particular strain on waiting lists is for family homes. Further, once families are in a house, as a general rule, they stay there (some move, but a minority).
Construction of family homes has been neglected for years.
One issue I always had with developers related partly to the language they used. When a site was acquired, they'd start talking about how many "units" they can get in the space. It used to be quite a thing, particularly seeing as Cheif Execs of housing assocs like boasting about the number of properties they have to rent out, and the new number they've built in the past year etc.
Used to bang my head against a brick wall. They're not "units", they're homes !!!!!!:mad:!
Developers would then look at how many units were wanted, & start cramming them in. This would lead to some (IMO) quite poor design features. The unit/home ceased to be practical for everyday living (believe me, having gone to inspect the properties prior to recieving the keys from developers, I have repeatedly benn stood there scratching my head wondering how people are supposed to live in the environment.It's getting harder & harder to keep the government in the manner to which they have become accustomed.0 -
lemonjelly wrote: »Agree 100%.
Having used to work in housing, the particular strain on waiting lists is for family homes. Further, once families are in a house, as a general rule, they stay there (some move, but a minority).
Construction of family homes has been neglected for years.
One issue I always had with developers related partly to the language they used. When a site was acquired, they'd start talking about how many "units" they can get in the space. It used to be quite a thing, particularly seeing as Cheif Execs of housing assocs like boasting about the number of properties they have to rent out, and the new number they've built in the past year etc.
Used to bang my head against a brick wall. They're not "units", they're homes !!!!!!:mad:!
Developers would then look at how many units were wanted, & start cramming them in. This would lead to some (IMO) quite poor design features. The unit/home ceased to be practical for everyday living (believe me, having gone to inspect the properties prior to recieving the keys from developers, I have repeatedly benn stood there scratching my head wondering how people are supposed to live in the environment.
I'm not so sure that developers were obsessed with the number of units or the rush to build flats..
Sadly it is the government that decides how many 'affordable' units are built as a condition of being given planning permission. (ps... affordable is government code for very very small )
Developers are just not allowed to use their judgement or indeed to respond to market forces when deciding what mix or flats, 2, 3, 4 bed house to build.0 -
I wonder how much this bit of blinkingly obvious common sense cost to research and publish? 0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards