Self-build: Should people build their own homes?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Conrad wrote: »

So we punish millions of would be owners to what end?

Enriching landlords.

It is beyond bizarre that so many of our resident crashaholics celebrate far more people being prevented from buying through mortgage rationing than ever were through higher prices.

abaxas

daveyjp wrote: »

For a single house for owner occupation there would be no requirement for a s106 payment.

Exactly why there is a built in advantage of scale.

Larger development = larger company = larger bung.

daveyjp

Larger Development = more pressure on local services = more s106 money required.

If you don't want it this way I can only assume are you happy to fund all the new public infrastructure from your taxes, rather than tax (which is all a s106 payment is) the developers profit.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

daveyjp wrote: »

rather than tax (which is all a s106 payment is) the developers profit.

It's not a tax on the developers profit, that's an idiotic meme pedaled by politicians to a gullible public.

It's a tax which is passed through onto the price of each and every new house.

No wonder newbuilds are so expensive.....

Councils use homebuyers as a cash cow to fund infrastructure, whilst taking the money they should be spending on infrastructure raised through general taxation and wasting it on bloated head-counts full of non-jobs.

abaxas

daveyjp wrote: »

Larger Development = more pressure on local services = more s106 money required.

If you don't want it this way I can only assume are you happy to fund all the new public infrastructure from your taxes, rather than tax (which is all a s106 payment is) the developers profit.

By definition, council tax is there to provide local government services.

Why should someone pay twice for the same thing?

2nd_Time_Lucky

vivatifosi wrote: »

Wymondham's post above points to one of the big issues that we have in the UK. It isn't about whether or not we should self-build, it is about lack of imagination. If we continue to live in a small country where when people try to convert shops into houses, or build non-standard houses or use different materials, or try and self-build the answer is almost always "oh no, you can't do that". There is no one panacea to the housing issue. For a country known for its design capabilities and quirky and eccentric thinking, we are really lacking on this one.

^^ this is exactly what i am battling ATM. Me and my 2 neighbours have 20 acres between us. we grow our own food, recycle water etc and are very much a co-operative who have also opened new footpaths etc.We are trying to get permission to build 3 small, single storey eco houses that would be selfsustaining and offgrid for all utilities except internet. The council is fighting us all the way yet they also say that the village is zoned and in need of new properties

shortchanged_2

Hamish your ideas about affordability are all bull. The current generation who bought probably since 2002/2003 are going to have an awful time trying to climb the property ladder thanks to the rampant HPI of the last decade.

Take my parents house for example. They bought a 4 bed detached house in a nice area where they live for £70,000 back in 1999.

So to make it easier lets say they paid £100,000 for it.

Over the 12 years since they bought, if you put a 4% annual growth on the value of that house (which I'm sure is higher than the average inflation figure over that period) their house should now have a value of about £166,000.

However, that house would now sell for around £250,000, nearly £100K more than if it had risen more in line with inflation.

So I suppose my point is could I afford my parents house if it had risen in line with inflation now.....yes.

Can I afford it at it's current price...no.

There must be thousands of other people who thanks to rampant HPI cannot now afford to climb the property ladder and that I'm afraid all boils down to too high house prices and lack of affordability due to high loan to earnings ratio etc.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

shortchanged wrote: »

Take my parents house for example. They bought a 4 bed detached house in a nice area where they live for £70,000 back in 1999.

So to make it easier lets say they paid £100,000 for it.

Over the 12 years since they bought, if you put a 4% annual growth on the value of that house (which I'm sure is higher than the average inflation figure over that period) their house should now have a value of about £166,000.

However, that house would now sell for around £250,000, nearly £100K more than if it had risen more in line with inflation.

So I suppose my point is could I afford my parents house if it had risen in line with inflation now.....yes.

Can I afford it at it's current price...no.
.

Why should you be able to afford the same house your parents did when....

1. There is a shortage of housing.

2. There is a shortage of housing.

3. There is a shortage of housing.

In case you hadn't noticed, there is a stonking great HOUSING SHORTAGE in this country.

When demand for housing exceeds supply as it has done for a decade, (and mortgage lending isn't dysfunctional as even the CML admit it is today) then prices will inevitably rise.

And when mortgage lending is dysfunctional like today, then rents will rise instead. As they're doing now, reaching new record highs despite the recession, unemployment, uncertainty, austerity, public sector cuts, etc.

daveyjp

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

It's not a tax on the developers profit, that's an idiotic meme pedaled by politicians to a gullible public.

It's a tax which is passed through onto the price of each and every new house.

No wonder newbuilds are so expensive.....

Councils use homebuyers as a cash cow to fund infrastructure, whilst taking the money they should be spending on infrastructure raised through general taxation and wasting it on bloated head-counts full of non-jobs.

There's only one money pie in any development - developer has to show his 15% profit, landowner wants what he thinks the land is worth, homeowner wants a house for nothing, but also want schools to send their children to, roads to access their houses, so s106 payments are required.

Reality is at the moment developers are renegotiating s106 contributions left right and centre as they bought land during the boom and there's now no profit in the development.

No worries anyway with localism comes CIL - if you think s106 is bad you ain't seen nothing yet.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

In all seriousness Shortchanged, as much fun as this back and forth can be, can you just take a step back and think about the following....

If we only build 35% of the houses we need, as is happening today, then what percentage of the population need to be able to afford to buy them for prices to rise?