House prices fell 1.20% in June

dougk_2

BobProperty wrote:

So why not allow some more building and basis infractructure in places other than brownfield sites - sorry NIMBY

What has renting or owning got to do with the quality of life?

Precisely that - new developments should not effect the surrounds of current residents / communities for the worst. Many current industrial estates could be redeveloped in a more constructive and economical use of space, relieving pressure there for new sites and theyby releasing more land for housing if need be. We also need a cultural change to cut the number of divorces and seperations perhaps?

Renting as compared to buying has nothing to do with the quality of life (other than in the UK for some reason people EXPECT to be able to buy a house whereas elsewhere people don't even think about it). Renting and buying should not be mutually exclusive. Its simple in my eyes if you can afford it you can buy it (if you wish), if not you can save and/or rent. Many people are happy renting hence IMO why there is an increase in BTL's.

In addition I will say that there is a difference between BTL's and owning a second or holiday home. BTL's make homes available to others - Second homes and holiday lets take them away and they sit idle big chunks of the year.

Conrad

WHA wrote:

I've quite a few long-term landlord clients who have been selling most of their BTL portfolio

One had about 40 flats

Another owned over half of one particular street

I too worry about the amateurs who are going into BTL now. To make money you have to know when the time is right to move against the trend

Yes I sold my modest portfolio.

Ive put some of the money directly into foreign property.

Also some in shares of companies and funds investing in foreign property (especially German which is like UK property market c1993).

The only people 'investing' now in the UK are simply following a big herd.

Thepoint is to achieve maximum returns in the short, medium and long term and not just to place your bet then wait for 25 years.

BobProperty

dougk wrote:

Precisely that - new developments should not effect the surrounds of current residents / communities for the worst. Many current industrial estates could be redeveloped in a more constructive and economical use of space, relieving pressure there for new sites and theyby releasing more land for housing if need be. We also need a cultural change to cut the number of divorces and seperations perhaps?

Renting as compared to buying has nothing to do with the quality of life (other than in the UK for some reason people EXPECT to be able to buy a house whereas elsewhere people don't even think about it). Renting and buying should not be mutually exclusive. Its simple in my eyes if you can afford it you can buy it (if you wish), if not you can save and/or rent. Many people are happy renting hence IMO why there is an increase in BTL's.

In addition I will say that there is a difference between BTL's and owning a second or holiday home. BTL's make homes available to others - Second homes and holiday lets take them away and they sit idle big chunks of the year.

If you read the link to the planning report you will see there isn't anything like enough brownfield to cope with the housing need. I can't make out from what you are saying where the extra land will come from. One of the problems at present is that planning makes it more economic to replace large family homes and city centre industrial units with blocks of flats, to the point in some cases of oversupply. In other cases the area is considered to be "going down" as there "are too many flats being built " - just a strain of NIMBYism surely?
Cultural change in attitude on divorce? It isn't going to happen.
Yes, there is a difference between BTL's and second/holiday homes, but it's a free(ish) country, you could never legislate to outlaw the second. I could be cynical and say the former are much more likely to be re-possessed than the latter. :eek:

dougk_2

BobProperty wrote:

. I can't make out from what you are saying where the extra land will come from.

By redevoloping exsisiting poorly designed retail parks/industrial units as new housing developments and/or rebuilding industrial units with multiple story buildings and hence releasing the land that the ever increasing new retail parks/industrial units are being built on.

This is one area planning law could be tighter by insisting there are no new single story developments for industrial / retail units. Upper floors can be used for office space or living accomodation. Living above shops is nothing new after all! It would also provide higher security with people living on-site.

BobProperty

dougk wrote:

By redevoloping exsisiting poorly designed retail parks/industrial units as new housing developments and/or rebuilding industrial units with multiple story buildings and hence releasing the land that the ever increasing new retail parks/industrial units are being built on.

This is one area planning law could be tighter by insisting there are no new single story developments for industrial / retail units. Upper floors can be used for office space or living accomodation. Living above shops is nothing new after all! It would also provide higher security with people living on-site.

But Planning has, in general, separated commercial areas from residential areas. I can not see that "living over the shop" on a large scale will be acceptable by either the residential public or the commercial businesses. I can foresee a lot of problems and exceptions being wanted. Are you seriously saying that people would want to live in apartments on top of a 24hour Tesco? Or that a bank would be happy with people having unrestricted access to its premises? What quality of life would you have living over a 24hour supermarket?

dougk_2

If you take rading as an example this is near enough the case . there is a huge complex of very expensive apartments next to the 24 hour tescos - its even coloured the same colour blue! And on the plus side is very handy having the shop next door! After all people now seem to be wanting longer hours opening on Sundays as they "don't have time" to go shopping - so problem solved.

Its not much different to the many riverside developments that mix bars, clubs, cinemas and housing in a single dvelopment - i can think of several towns that have these (Norwich and Eastbourne being two) and the housing there is marketed as "exclusive" and can be much higher priced than similar properties elessewhere in the town - so I guesas people do want it.

A change of attitude is needed by comercial companies to see that security is enhanced by people living on site and its nothing new, and your answer is flawed as this is common place in other european towns and cities (Barcelona, Porto, Paris , just to name a few), look how many banks and shops have houses/apartments/flats above them.

lynzpower

ON london tonight theres often a property slot, and i reckon at least a year ago there was a long "special" on pre-fab homes that could be literally litfed by cranes to place on top of existing commercial buildings. the designer showed one being placed on top of selfridges, the resident "owned" the "home" and then moved it around wherever they wanted and paid ground rent on the roof of the commercial premises. No discussion whatsoever about the quality of life in these prefabs apart from saying you could live in zone 1 for the cost of the prefab itself. Which was somewhere in the region of 120k if i remeber rightly. No discussion as to water & sewerage, fire escapes, safety or anything. I personally wouldnt lay out 100k plus to live in one of these, and I havent seen much about them since.

Ive known 2 people "living over the shop" one bought a flat and the shop has since broken every planning rule under the sun and turned into an open fish market with noise and smell pollution galore- they are well and truly lumbered with a flat they cant get out of- , and the others rented above a clthes shop that turned into a fried chicken place, and moved out. Nil quality of life for either im afraid.

For everyone saying use up brownfield sites theres people complaining about how our manufacturing output is dwindling off to the third world. Ive got a flat on a brownfield site, very nice it is too, but its in a predominantly residential inner london area- fine. Not so great over the road in the olympic village where peoples livelihoods are being liquidated in the name of "development". Or heres another case of the planners gone mad http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1660371,00.html

i suspect this isnt a planning issue, but one of wider economics, and that if the banks are lending to a silly degree, then surely thats where the buck should stop.

Just my opinion folks

BobProperty

dougk wrote:

.....A change of attitude is needed by comercial companies to see that security is enhanced by people living on site and its nothing new, and your answer is flawed as this is common place in other european towns and cities (Barcelona, Porto, Paris , just to name a few), look how many banks and shops have houses/apartments/flats above them.

Surely we need housing for all people of all ranges of income? There's no point in saying we can have nice waterfront apartments over shops and restaurants but they are "exclusive". Where are the Housing Associations going to build (since Councils have given up on it)? Where will the poorest in society be housed?
My argument isn't flawed, you get apartments over shops for historic reasons and all that is being done currently is replacing new with the same pattern as old. It is also on a relatively small scale and on its own won't solve the problem. Manchester and I'm sure London could be added to your list, but the countries you mention don't have their population restricted to living on 8% of the land either. I don't remember Paris being surrounded by "Green Belt". I'm sure it has expanded over the years. Could you show us where the mixed developments of commercial and residential property are in these cities, and I mean the large scale stuff, not a handful of apartments over a shop?
Your suggestion of housing on commercial and industrial sites will have so many exceptions and would cause unwanted property to be constructed. It will be incredibly difficult to get the proportions balanced between residential and commercial and, at any time of imbalance, one or the other type of accommodation will be empty. Can you really see a bank's money clearing centre having accomodation on it? Who wants to live on the corner of Buncefield? If the apartments over the warehouse are occupied by recovering alcoholics do you think a wine merchant will be taking them? There's just so many exceptions for both business and homedweller I can't see how it would work. And I've not even started on the infrastructre problems....

BobProperty

lynzpower wrote:

..... Or heres another case of the planners gone mad http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1660371,00.html .....

Just read that Lynz, nice to see the DPM upholding his socialist principles.