Shapps: UK may never build enough houses

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

pqrdef wrote: »

But where are all these people?

Sharing houses, living in overcrowded conditions, etc.

Although as the shortage has forced up the cost of rent, it has also made it cost effective to put some empty houses back into use.

The bears used to post all the time that there were a million empty houses in the UK. They've stopped doing that as according to the latest DCLG report, the empty houses now number just 300k. And most of them are empty for a reason and not available to use.

Have we got hundreds of thousands of people living under railway viaducts, or what?

Not yet.

As this is the UK, and councils have a statutary duty to care for the homeless, the 100,000+ people who end up homeless every year get houses in emergency B&B accommodation instead of living under railway viaducts.

Doesn't mean there isn't a housing shortage though.

The house-building industry's notion of demand doesn't necessarily equate to a real housing shortage.

Indeed.

Good thing it's the government stating there's a shortage then, and not the house building industry.

pqrdef

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Good thing it's the government stating there's a shortage then, and not the house building industry.

That's all right then. I believe everything the government tells me.

chucky

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Actually unless mortgage lending improves dramatically and quickly, that would leave a shortfall of at least 100,000 houses a year for the next few years.

Plus the 100K a year shortfall for the last few years.

Plus the million or more house shortfall that already existed in 2007.



Oh dear....

And why is that?



Obvious really.

Builders won't build what they can't sell, no matter how easy planning permission is to get.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-22/britain-may-never-fix-residential-property-shortage-shapps-says.html

The HPC crew can either have more houses built making the UK even more crowded with less farmland and maybe house prices won't rise as quick or... we don't build more houses, manage the population, keep the farm land and house prices rise...

I'll leave it with them...

the_flying_pig

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

...And why is that?



Obvious really.

Builders won't build what they can't sell, no matter how easy planning permission is to get...

er, hang on.

firstly, your own flipping quote exposes at least one flaw in this 'theory'. building was insufficient during the biggest credit expansion in global history. so there'd still be a problem even the credit taps were turned back on.

secondly, there are important reasons why banks are lending less than before. i never quite know what you think the answer is to this. should government force banks to lend more? do, or underwrite, the lending itself [see below for why I think this is a bad idea]? neither seems palatable, frankly.


i'm not an expert at all on these things but it seems to me that government should step in here. it's as clear an example of market failure as one could ever wish to see. government should just build a million new state-owned houses, most of them to be let out at [slightly lower, as supply increases and HB is capped] market rates - or even sold off immediately, albeit at a market price rather than pointlessly discounted - & as such not cost government anything in the long term. the current mob of building firms have had years & years to sort it out but failed regardless of market conditions. but there's really no reason for there to have been an expectation that they could do this. the private sector has been building just about as many houses as it ever did, albeit with a small dip caused by the credit bubble deflating. but it never came close to building as many as the state sector used to and probably never will. exceptionally foolish for shapps to infer from this that there'll never be enough built. and infuriating since it was his party wot created the situation in the first place.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

the_flying_pig wrote: »

should government force banks to lend more? do, or underwrite, the lending itself

Government will start by trying to underwrite the lending in an effort to force banks to lend more.

If that doesn't work, then I suspect they'll have no choice but to find a more direct way to lend.

Anyway, the debate is over on this front, and it's already happening.

Austerity has failed, and the coalition needs to get re-elected in under 3 years. So they now have no choice but to pursue growth.

The Coalition is preparing a "massive" increase in investment in infrastructure, Nick Clegg has said.

The deputy prime minister indicated the Government was preparing to switch the focus away from "lurid" warnings from ministers to growth.

In an interview with the Financial Times, Mr Clegg said the Government was looking at a similar initiative to the £20 billion scheme to support small businesses by "massively amplifying the principle of what we did on credit easing".

A cash boost could be used to support housing and infrastructure.


He told the newspaper the "absolute priority" was to inject credit into the economy using the Government's balance sheet.

"From the top of government, a few weeks ago we decided this was the route we're going to take. That's the instruction we've issued to the Treasury," he said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nick-clegg/9283913/Nick-Clegg-reveals-massive-infrastructure-plans-as-Coalition-hunts-growth.html

purch

I am sure the huge shortage of Housing in the U.K. is a wee bit more complex of a problem than can be solved by just increasing mortgage lending and availability.

purch

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Anyway, the debate is over on this front

Thanks for the heads-up Commissar Stalin.

I will try to remember that in future :eek:

the_flying_pig

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Government will start by trying tounderwrite the lending in an effort to force banks to lend more.

If that doesn't work, then I suspect they'll have no choice but to find amore direct way to lend...

Focusing too heavily on lending wouldn’t work. Even targetingincreased lending specifically at newbuild, we’d still have we’d still have thesame cosy crew of building firms sitting on land banks, clinging on to hopes ofselling at above-peak prices., & even when we did get back to peak, completelyunable or unwilling to churn out a quarter million houses a year. The 1960sapproach is called for.

purch

the_flying_pig wrote: »

The 1960sapproach is called for.

Mini skirts :j

Fuzzyness

CLAPTON wrote: »

out of interest what is the price of building land in surrey and sunderland?

in the halycon days of 2007 before the crash, you would probably be looking at around million pounds an acre in surrey and about half that in sunderland (possibly even less)