More houses needed, says Government adviser

baileysbattlebus

CLAPTON wrote: »

Nonsense if you really are a planning officer then I dispair.

The targets for affordable housing (mandatory and compulsory) are set by central government and NOT local governament.

I was being sarcastic about the definition of 'affordable housing being very small .....' obviously NO governemnt department would say such a thing.

And if you are saying that 'affordable ' is subsidised please provide a reference for such nonsense.

Social and affordable housing


Affordable housing includes social rented and intermediate housing, provided to specified eligible households whose needs are not met by the market. Affordable housing should:

• meet the needs of eligible households including availability at a cost low enough for them to afford, determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices; and
• include provisions for:
  1. the home to be retained for future eligible households; or if these restrictions are lifted, for any subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision.
  2. Social rented housing is rented housing owned and managed by local authorities and RSLs, for which guideline target rents are determined through the national rent regime. It may also include rented housing owned or managed by other persons and provided under equivalent rental arrangements to the above, as agreed with the local authority or with the Homes and Communities Agency as a condition of grant.

Intermediate affordable housing is housing at prices and rents above those of social rent but below market price or rents, and which meet the criteria set out above. These can include shared equity (eg HomeBuy) and other low cost homes for sales, and intermediate rent.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/housingstatistics/definitiongeneral/

AFAIA, developers and local authorities often enter into a Section 106 agreement (this could be for schools, roads etc too), and a proportion of the development will be houses that are affordable, subsidised or below market price, whatever you want to call it. Affordable housing could be to rent or buy.

Ofcourse we all know developers are in the business of making money - so I imagine they offset the potential shortfall in money received by charging more for full market price houses. There will be an impact on HPI if they do this. By making houses more expensive for the full market price buyer they contribute to rising house prices - I've no evidence to support this BTW, just my opinion, so if someone knows differently, I would be delighted to find out that developers are altruistic.

dopester

Found it eventually.

chucky wrote: »

it looks like the mid-1950s was when home buying really started.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456991/img/1163066882.gif

Chucky, I'd be cautious about extrapolating too many conclusions from the top chart.

If you have time, a fascinating site devoted to how the building societies really took off... (private mortgage from solicitors in Victorian times) the building boom which followed, and yes, went on to influence our outlook on home-ownership.

http://www.pre-war-housing.org.uk/default.htm

dopester

dopester wrote: »

Also, please can you help me with a calculation? Say at the end of 2007:

"Mortgage debt accounts for only 30% of the value of the UK's £4 trillion worth of housing assets," he added.

Say immediately after writing that article, housing assets all crashed by 20%, what would be the % of mortgage debt to the revalued new total of housing assets?

That of course wouldn't reflect exactly where we are today.

Nobody to help me with this?

OK. 'Imagining' I had a house valued at £100,000 and 30% remaining in a mortgage debt (£30,000). If overnight the value of my house lost 20% it would now be worth £80,000. I'd still have a mortgage of £30,000. Roughly my new mortgage debt position is about 37.5%.

I maintain much of the equity value in many of the BBC's championing confident articles was illusionary, created by reckless credit expansion and those at the margin buying for ever higher prices.

The Halifax calculates that booming house prices have meant overall household wealth has more than doubled in the last decade, rising from £3.3 trillion in 1997 to £6.7 trillion in 2007.

"UK home owners have collectively accumulated an extra £2 trillion of equity in their homes over the past decade as property prices have risen," said the bank's chief economist Martin Ellis.

"This has significantly strengthened the household balance sheet.

"Mortgage debt accounts for only 30% of the value of the UK's £4 trillion worth of housing assets," he added.

Even with record mortgage debt repayments in the first 3 months of the year (£8.1 billion), and a trend predicted to continue (assisted by low rates), it has to be balanced against what many believe are further falls in property prices to come and job insecurities.. which increases the mortgage debt percentage.

dgl1001

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/housingstatistics/definitiongeneral/

AFAIA, developers and local authorities often enter into a Section 106 agreement (this could be for schools, roads etc too), and a proportion of the development will be houses that are affordable, subsidised or below market price, whatever you want to call it. Affordable housing could be to rent or buy.

Ofcourse we all know developers are in the business of making money - so I imagine they offset the potential shortfall in money received by charging more for full market price houses. There will be an impact on HPI if they do this. By making houses more expensive for the full market price buyer they contribute to rising house prices - I've no evidence to support this BTW, just my opinion, so if someone knows differently, I would be delighted to find out that developers are altruistic.

The affordable housing cross subsidy comes off the land value rather than increasing the value of the remaining properties. so, if you have a site worth say £10M with no affordable housing, a 40% affordable housing requirement (quite common) would reduce the value of the land to £6M. Howeveer, you are correct in stating that this will increase HPI, as affordable housing policies make sites unviable, therefore stopping the supply of housing, increasing pressure on the remaining stock. To another poster, the level of housing need and therefore provision of affordable j=housing, is set within the Strategic Housing Market Assessments (SHMA) and then at a local level through local housing needs assessments.

mewbie_2

You can't have HPI if people can't afford it. Stop wasting my time on this guff.

dgl1001

mewbie wrote: »

You can't have HPI if people can't afford it. Stop wasting my time on this guff.

clearly your struggling with the concept of supply and demand!!!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

mewbie wrote: »

You can't have HPI if people can't afford it. Stop wasting my time on this guff.

I take it you understand the difference between "people" and "you"?;)

With 270,000 households forming per year, and only 100,000 houses being built, then only the top earning 40% of those households need to be able to afford (and compete for) a house in order for prices to rise.....

HousingBear

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

With 270,000 households forming per year, and only 100,000 houses being built, then only the top earning 40% of those households need to be able to afford (and compete for) a house in order for prices to rise.....

Is this another "estimate" from a totally discredited source of property ramping? Like Professor Nickell and his "houses will be ten times salary in a few years" quote from 2007?

You've quoted this statistic a number of times. Show your source, please.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

HousingBear wrote: »

You've quoted this statistic a number of times. Show your source, please.

Source already quoted a number of times.

July 2009 Nationwide HPI report.

dgl1001

HousingBear wrote: »

Is this another "estimate" from a totally discredited source of property ramping? Like Professor Nickell and his "houses will be ten times salary in a few years" quote from 2007?

You've quoted this statistic a number of times. Show your source, please.

Good god - your arrogance amazes me. The national planning and housing unit has one agenda, and that is to lower prices to better sustain the economy of this county. The science of household formation has been around for years, long before the increase and decline of houseprices over the last 10 years.
Throw away comments, such as yours, suggest that struggle with meaningful debate as you are so blinkered in your one dimensional world of house price crashes - which you will be preaching for some time