Housing Shortfall approaching 1 million

Cleaver

tesuhoha wrote: »

So why not cover it with tinpot newbuilds, if people need places to live. Why should the countryside be enjoyed by the select few? Why should everyone be crammed togeher in London so that a few country dwellers can enjoy the open spaces?

People who live in London (or any other major city and many towns) do so, preusumably, because their job or industry is based there, they enjoy the living there or their family / friends live there.

Building a load of 'tinpot newbuilds' in rural Lincolnshire, for example, won't mean that people from towns or cities will want or be able to move there, even if they are very cheap. Hence the supply and demand peaks and troughs that we see all over the country.

People aren't 'crammed in to London' so a few 'country dwellers can enjoy open spaces'. Lots of people live in London because they choose to do so for one reason or another.

the_ash_and_the_oak

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I have to admit, I'm not too sure what you are saying here.

I was just commenting on the demand for homes. People keep relating that to an ever increasing population. I just think there is more to it than that, and a lot of this demad is caused by how we have decided to live.

The increasing demand caused by structural change has been met my increasing supply designed to meet that change imo. If demand were outstripping supply rents would increase imo (I'm sure there are examples out there where this has happened, which should prove the point)

StevieJ

tesuhoha wrote: »

There's plenty of land thats not greenbelt or agricultural. There are a lot of people who have bought plots of greenbelt land in the hope that they will be given planning permission to build but the government just want to keep the price of property high.

You previously wrote this
If planning permission was granted on green belt land there would be enough housing for everyone

Have you bought some green belt hoping to make a killing?

Sir_Humphrey

Look, most people I know (except for people with rich parents or very high paying jobs) lived or still live in flatshares if in their twenties. A bit like This Life but without as much shagging. Okay when you are 25, not so good if you are 35.

The real hidden problem is overcrowding of families. I understand this is a major problem in inner city areas such as Tower Hamlets.

michaels

tesuhoha wrote: »

The problem in this country is shortage of land. That drives the price of property up. Green belt land is enjoyed by the select few. If planning permission was granted on green belt land there would be enough housing for everyone and there would be no need for high property prices.

Have to say I think I agree with this - the English countryside is not 'virgin and unaltered by man' I am sure if was probably forest then scrub then pastoral land then agricultural and probably now set-aside for EU purposes. The Green belt could be converted into low density housing set in trees with artificial lakes etc and if the transport issues were 'designed in' - cycle paths, compulsory electric vehicles, suitable train/tube stations then there could be a large increase in housing, enough to change prices and increase affordability but there would be a lot of losers amongst those who currently have houses and a lot of noise from those who don't like to see a change to the status quo (even if the countryside they are trying to preserve has only looked the way it does for a couple of centuries and new development cold be just as green in terms of open spaces and trees)

Demanufacture wrote: »

What has driven property up is poor lending practises and IR's that were kept to low for too long as mortgages were excluded from the inflation index. Less than 20% of the UK is built on.

Yes this has driven up property prices but it is not what impacts affordability which is about the price adjusting (upwards generally) so that the number of people who want a house AND can afford one is equal to the supply of houses - as discussed the demand for house is not a fixed 1 house per 1.5 people or whatever but depends on price, as prices increase people house share, lodge, stay with parents etc

tesuhoha wrote: »

If the price of property was driven down people would not have to live in cities to be able to afford a house.

Makes sense to me, I think, needs some more thought...

Cleaver

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Look, most people I know (except for people with rich parents or very high paying jobs) lived or still live in flatshares if in their twenties. A bit like This Life but without as much shagging.

So a bit more like The Young Ones then?

michaels

Or Game On (for the 6 people who watched it)

Cleaver wrote: »

So a bit more like The Young Ones then?

tesuhoha

StevieJ wrote: »

You previously wrote this
If planning permission was granted on green belt land there would be enough housing for everyone

Have you bought some green belt hoping to make a killing?

No I havent. It just shows that I haven't changed my opinion.

tesuhoha

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

Don't quite get this. Last time I looked houses in London were more expensive than in Driffield

This was actually a typo, meant to say work instead of live

lostinrates

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Wouldn't say that this isn't an issue but single parent households are only 7.5% of the total - and while they are forecast to increase, it is the one-person households that see the explosive growth. One person households forcast to be 5 times as many as single parent ones.

I don't know the relevance or pressure or lack thereof caused my single parent families as opposed to one person households...but..7.5%...how many is that? I forget how many million we think we number now, but that must be a sizable chunk of a housing issue where 1 million homes is the number we are short. An issue that many of the very small new builds do not really repsond to.

(nb: I am not submitting this as an anti single parent post)