The Housing Surplus Timebomb

drc

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Empty homes in England (Recorded) 2009 - 651,993

http://www.emptyhomes.com/usefulinformation/stats/2009breakdown.htm

The Empty Homes Agency estimate that bringing just a quarter of the UK’s empty homes into use would provide homes for 700,000 people, save 160 square kilometres of land and save 10 million tonnes of CO2 over building the same number of new homes.


If you know of one, report it.

http://reportemptyhomes.com/

Almost makes you think that there is a deliberate policy of not getting these empty homes into use. I wonder why that would be? Nothing to do with potentially leading to a fall in house prices if there are more homes available. Wouldn't surprise me...

chucky

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Empty homes in England (Recorded) 2009 - 651,993

http://www.emptyhomes.com/usefulinformation/stats/2009breakdown.htm

The Empty Homes Agency estimate that bringing just a quarter of the UK’s empty homes into use would provide homes for 700,000 people, save 160 square kilometres of land and save 10 million tonnes of CO2 over building the same number of new homes.


If you know of one, report it.

http://reportemptyhomes.com/

these empty homes would need a lotof work doing to most of them...

unfortunately people don't want to live where these empty homes are...

and when they want to, they can't afford it or get the finance...

buying a home is not something that everyone can afford

chucky

stueyhants wrote: »

Hamish, will you please stop comparing apples with oranges. Your comparing long term single incomes as a % of mortgage costs against household incomes now.

Back in the 1990 according to national statistics http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=5140
The average % of household income spent on a mortgage was 25.1% (Owner/mover)

If we look at today, take a 180k house, 10% deposit and your looking at about £960 per month mortgage. Compared to the average household income of about 30k http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=334

This gives 38%. If people want to use 37k as the household income (as some people like to use) then it's still 31% and that is still more unafforable.

i like this post but just like Hamish you've forgotten one key piece of detail...

interest rates... it would have been more expensive to service that smaller mortgage in the 1990s...

Stu, i'll let you work out the average mortgage rate for both 1990 and 2010 against the average property price at both times. you'll be very surprised...
work out the average

ManicMum

Hey, who put my house on here? At least the neighbours are quiet!

stueyhants

chucky wrote: »

i like this post but just like Hamish you've forgotten one key piece of detail...

interest rates... it would have been more expensive to service that smaller mortgage in the 1990s...

Stu, i'll let you work out the average mortgage rate for both 1990 and 2010 against the average property price at both times. you'll be very surprised...
work out the average

I'm probably being a bit thick here, but doesn't that figure I've quoted for 1990 reflect the cost of servicing the mortgage as a % of household income ? And that is a valid comparision to the one I quoted for 2010 ?

Anyway, comparing % of household income on mortgage costs over time is a bit pointless because other factors such as the cost of food/cars/electronics have a hugh impact. You can afford to spend more of your income on mortgage costs if the cost of food, fuel etc is cheaper.

Thrugelmir

chucky wrote: »

these empty homes would need a lotof work doing to most of them...

unfortunately people don't want to live where these empty homes are...

and when they want to, they can't afford it or get the finance...

buying a home is not something that everyone can afford

The fact that this problem is now being actively addressed suggests otherwise.

Hamish is quite correctly making a point that more housing is required in the future. This goes someway to tackling the shortfall.

I'm unsure what the relevance is to whether people can afford to buy or not. As surely this slack will be taken up by the private rental market.

The point is thats its cheaper to refurbish an existing building than build from new.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The fact that this problem is now being actively addressed suggests otherwise.

Hamish is quite correctly making a point that more housing is required in the future. This goes someway to tackling the shortfall.

I'm unsure what the relevance is to whether people can afford to buy or not. As surely this slack will be taken up by the private rental market.

The point is thats its cheaper to refurbish an existing building than build from new.

But heres the thing.

The projected shortfall is of somewhere between 250,000 and 300,000 houses per year, every year, for the next few decades, and that is just to house eveyone, never mind HPI.

dgl posted the other day that government projections indicate closer to 400,000 a year would be required to maintain prices at current levels. (haven't seen any other data on it, so don't know for sure)

The most optimistic estimates are that around 800,000 are empty. But of those, the head of the empty homes agency admits that 50% are only empty for 6 months or so for refurbishment or probate, and actually end up back in occupation. Most of the rest are derelict, or just in the wrong place, which does nobody any good at all.

Houses not only need to exist, but also exist in places where people want to live, and be of the type people need, and where the employment exists to support them.

And of course, they must also be available for sale or use. Confisaction of private property by the state is deeply illiberal, and is a slippery slope most people would not want to see our nation go any further down.

So the empty homes issue is mostly a red herring.

In addition, there are around 300,000 second/holiday homes in the UK. Perhaps something could be done with taxing those on a council by council basis to discourage multiple ownership, as has been proposed by the LGA. But in all honesty, if you're rich enough to own a holiday home, you probably can afford the tax. Besides, 300,000 houses is only a 3 month supply at current sales levels.

None of this is going to make the slightest difference to long term HPI. It's tinkering around the edges.

Britain needs a massive housebuilding programme, beyond anything currently imagined or projected, if HPI is to be averted. As I do not believe such a programme is remotely possible, given the financial and political reality, then I believe massive HPI is inevitable over the coming decades.

blueboy43

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The fact that this problem is now being actively addressed suggests otherwise.

Hamish is quite correctly making a point that more housing is required in the future. This goes someway to tackling the shortfall.

I'm unsure what the relevance is to whether people can afford to buy or not. As surely this slack will be taken up by the private rental market.

The point is thats its cheaper to refurbish an existing building than build from new.

The goverrnment is knocking great swathes of victorian terraces down in the North of England under the pathfinder programme.

Then rebuilding a smaller number of homes.

work that one out.

Mr.Brown_4

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The projected shortfall is of somewhere between 250,000 and 300,000 houses per year, every year, for the next few decades, and that is just to house eveyone, never mind HPI.

...

So are there hundreds of thousands of homeless people? Are we expecting hundreds of thousands of homeless? I mean forget your blessed HPI mantra for a moment - if there physically are not enough houses then doesn't matter what price they are, there will be a lot of homeless people.

exil

Not sure. There is plenty of pent up demand (people in their 20s and 30s living with Mum and Dad) but until the houses available are affordable then this will have no effect on prices.

And the empty houses are largely where no-one wants to live. The demand is for houses in leafy villages in the South East - where the locals are prepared to stage a coup against any government that dares lay a brick anywhere in the neighbourhood.