Housing Shortfall approaching 1 million

michaels

Yes - for some reason the preferred option is to cram in on to brown field and infill even though this overloads the local infrastructure rather than building new tows on greenfield where a suitable infrastructure can be built at the same time. All the infill is in little packets and so can not garner enough developer contribution to tackle the big problems like lack of road and school capacity which are much more expensive to handle in existing towns anyway - for example it would not be possible to widen all the local roads despite the total number of additional housing units in the local plan requiring it.

the_ash_and_the_oak

Don't think dense living is the problem and I don't think it necessarily overloads infrastructure (roads aside - society becoming increasingly car reliant but thats another issue). I think our problem is increasing sprawl and suburban modes of living (the US esp) w this idea of subdivision nodes and Motorway living

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

SingleSue wrote: »

In our lovely little village, we are currently fighting the building of over 1600 homes, .

:T

Well, thank you very much for doing your bit to keep house prices high.:D

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

:T

Well, thank you very much for doing your bit to keep house prices high.:D

Y'know, the more you say, the more I hope you face serious negative equity and get a dose of the problems other people face in which you rejoice to keep yourself wealthy.

Sometimes you really do let out big hints as to how desperate you are for high house prices, regardless of what that costs others.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Demanufacture wrote: »

The simple question is Really2, when you bought you're first home, did you or did you not want the cheapest price that you could get it for, or did you feel sorry for the vendor/developer and offer them 20k+ more.

Or to put it another way, if you could have got it for 50% off you wouldn't of taken it and offered the asking price instead ?

The simple fact is every bull who owns a house was once upon a time a FTB bear who wanted said house as cheaply as possible, yet when they've bought they turn on that position and the people who try to follow them and look down on them as the scurge of society.

Every property bull (has in wanting HPI) is a hypocrite who doesn't want people to enjoy the same things they wanted when they bought, by the way I'm not saying this is you as I have no idea if you love HPI or not, but may on here clearly do.

What a load of absolute nonsense.

On both the occasions that I bought a house, I looked around at houses, and negotiated the best deal for myself that I could.

I didn't sit around hoping for a crash, I didn't wish misery on others, and I didn't have some misguided sense of entitlement that the world owed me a house on the cheap.

I was never a "FTB housing bear", as you put it.

But if you want to start talking about hypocrites, isn't it you that claims to have previously owned a house?

So when you sold it, why didn't you go out and find some deserving little FTB-er and sell it to them for 50% off? But you didn't, did you? You took the most money you could for it, despite being a "housing bear", and thinking that price was a rip-off.

But now you expect others to sell on the cheap?:rolleyes:

the_ash_and_the_oak

Got to kind of agree w Hamish here. Don't think there is a moral element to prices themselves imo

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Y'know, the more you say, the more I hope you face serious negative equity and get a dose of the problems other people face in which you rejoice to keep yourself wealthy.

Sometimes you really do let out big hints as to how desperate you are for high house prices, regardless of what that costs others.

Graham, it would be virtually impossible for me to face "serious negative equity" as a net position, as I already have a mortgage free house in addition to the mortgaged one.

The only thing sounding desperate these days is you and the other bears bleating on about the crash that failed to live up to expectations.

SingleSue

dgl1001 wrote: »

Im sorry, but i couldn't just read this and not respond.

Sorry for confusing you....I live in a village but within a very short space, there is the nearest town.

We are still classed as a village in that we have our own identity, village councillors etc but we are becoming more and more connected with the nearby town.

I tend to have an identity crisis as I was born in the town and haven't quite got into village life and take the area as a whole...something which all those from the town are guilty of and also something which really pees the villagers off!

The area they are talking of to build these homes does equate to miles due to the available area making it a long thin strip of land (in relation to how they would normally mass build) and of course, the obligatory missing of already built farms, houses, differently owned fields etc which covers from our village, behind the outskirt area of the town, the town itself and down to the old town).

Regarding the ducks....the area spoken about will obliterate the duck pond, so they won't be able to and 1600 houses is a huge amount for this area (it's all relative, 1600 may not be many in say London but here it is a massive amount). We also at present, have many empty properties and those designated homeless has stayed at pretty steady levels for the last 20 years or so....if not, actually fallen with the provision of halfway houses, temp housing for the single person or one child families (which is actually flats and very nice too), we may need a little extra but not 1600 extra.

The nearby town, next village and indeed our own village have already seen a great expansion in the number of properties over the last 30 years with several big estates built (I have lived on two of them!) which has meant that we don't suffer a lot of the problems that less rural areas suffer with regards to housing...our problem is the affordability of what is already here (one bedroom starter home, flats etc start price of 100k, simply not sustainable on average salaries in this area).

There are no plans to expand the amount of schools..in fact they are closing the two high schools we have and are merging them into one with set maximum amounts based on the current roll of the 2 schools. (This is seen as one of the main points in the discussion against the proposal).

Our road system is currently struggling, they have been looking at ways of getting around this but this is more to do with commercial traffic going to the dock..which would have possibly helped with the original site identified but will not help with the new proposed site, road expansion is not possible in many different areas of the proposed site which would lead to a bottle neck not only getting into the villages but the main town too (there is only one main way in and one main way out to the villages and town to the next biggest town, it is not a through town (although we are a through village, all the traffic comes through here when the main road gets blocked)...the town is at the end of the road, any further and you are into the sea!) The local powers that be have been fighting for the funds for road improvements for as long as I can remember as it is not good enough now (and made worse by the addition of the development ongoing for the last 30 years) and as you say, road use is predicted to grow.

With regards to land prices, the area they are proposing is in the most sought after and finishing close to what is known as Millionaires Row....historically, it has always been higher there than anywhere else in the area, even in past recessions.

The extra housing has been identified by the government as we are still within commuting distance to London (the Essex border is literally half a mile away from the the border of the town halfway across the estuary- not worked it out from the village but with the positioning of the village and taking it over the fields, it can't be more than 3 miles to the middle of the water), we are not currently struggling for housing but affordable housing, the local salary range does not support the high property prices. This has remained even with the large expansion that has been ongoing, new properties being built have not been affordable to a huge amount of the local population and I really can't see the proposed 1600 new houses being any different to be honest....we are one of those places where people come to live in retirement or because property is cheaper here than in Essex and they can commute (Colchester is 25 mins away, the M25 an hour or less if you go at 70 or above).


As for research, I haven't had to carry it out, there have been many many studies done on just this matter....we have one predominant business here, The Docks, if that suffers, we all suffer.

To be honest though, it is the fact that they want to destroy beautiful countryside, in fact, some of the most beautiful in the area and our children need those open spaces, clean air etc due to the horrendous amounts of pollution given out by the docks and the A14, which is really behind the protests, that same access to open space is also one of the reasons why people move here, to have the chance of the sea on one side and the countryside on another (whilst not turning 360 degrees and looking as then you get the not very nice view of the docks). A small amount of expansion is needed maybe but not to the scale they are proposing especially when it is unlikely the people who need the housing most will be able to access it.

For the record, I don't own (or have any wish to), so I do not have a vested interest in the property prices being high, low or anywhere in between, neither is the proposed area in my back yard, although it is within walking distance (the duck pond is further down and requires some kind of vehicle, eg a bike), so that is not my opposition either.

We don't mind more homes being built...it is the amount of new homes and the proposed area we are against.

Shakethedisease

I didn't sit around hoping for a crash, I didn't wish misery on others, and I didn't have some misguided sense of entitlement that the world owed me a house on the cheap.

Yes, But I bet you didn't hold off buying, rubbing your hands with absolute joy and glee in the hope the the price would go up eh ?

And I don't think you're quite 'getting' it that you are in fact wishing misery on others by constantly cheerleading for house prices to keep increasing.

chucky

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Graham, it would be virtually impossible for me to face "serious negative equity" as a net position, as I already have a mortgage free house in addition to the mortgaged one.

The only thing sounding desperate these days is you and the other bears bleating on about the crash that failed to live up to expectations.

that is a good point Hamish... actually it is an extremely good point and well presented...

but... we don't know what's around the corner. i don't think that we will get to the lows that we've had but it won't be happy days and easy going for quite a while