Census 2011: UK at 63.1 million, up 4 million in 10 years

chewmylegoff

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

It's interesting that you choose the peak of nett housing supply in the last decade.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/xls/118.xls

ENGLAND
2000 - 2001 132,000
2001 - 2002 130,510
2002 - 2003 143,680
2003 - 2004 154,770
2004 - 2005 169,450
2005 - 2006 186,380
2006 - 2007 198,770
2007 - 2008 207,370
2008 - 2009 166,570
2009 - 2010 128,680
2010 - 2011 121,200

11 Year total =
1,739,380

Average = 158,125


How did that compare to population increases over those 11 years?

well if the population has increased by 4 million in a 10 year period, if we ignore the first 132,000, then the 10 year total is 1.6 million.

So 4/1.6 = population has increased by 2.5 people per new house built.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family-demography/families-and-households/2011/stb-families-households.html#tab-Household-size

the average UK household holds 2.4 people, according to the ONS.

so, in other words, if there was a lag in house building compared to the population increase, it wasn't particularly significant.

of course the information i don't have is whether the 1.6 million houses that were built are actually capable of housing 4 million people. if they were all studio flats, they wouldn't be, for instance.

chewmylegoff

DpchMd wrote: »

Why do you continue to make these baseless statements?

It's impossible to disagree with Hamish's point in the OP, yet you have to try to find some frivolous baseless argument to counter his logical conclusion.

how about my frivolous, baseless maths which appears to suggest that it is not a logically sound conclusion at all? what about that?

shortchanged_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

It really isn't any more complicated than that.

All those elaborate myths about credit, liar loans, BTL, etc etc etc are mostly just utter nonsense. Any part they played was vanishingly small at best.

So explain to me why house prices are currently stagnant or falling in the main with interest rates being so low, yet with the same population pressures?

IveSeenTheLight

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

It's interesting that you choose the peak of nett housing supply in the last decade.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/xls/118.xls

ENGLAND
2000 - 2001 132,000
2001 - 2002 130,510
2002 - 2003 143,680
2003 - 2004 154,770
2004 - 2005 169,450
2005 - 2006 186,380
2006 - 2007 198,770
2007 - 2008 207,370
2008 - 2009 166,570
2009 - 2010 128,680
2010 - 2011 121,200

11 Year total =
1,739,380

Average = 158,125


How did that compare to population increases over those 11 years?

If we omit the 2000 year so they are measuring over the same period.

Property increased 1.6 million

Nett Population increased 3.7 million

chewmylegoff

what is relevant though, i think, is that if the trend since 2007/8 continues (and i think that new starts are very, very low at the moment IIRC) then there will obviously be a shortfall of new houses vs. increasing population.

chewmylegoff

So actually then ISTL - 3.7 / 1.6 = 2.31

So over that 10 year period housing has been built at a rate which is diluting the number of people living in each household.

Graham_Devon

DpchMd wrote: »

Why do you continue to make these baseless statements?

It's impossible to disagree with Hamish's point in the OP, yet you have to try to find some frivolous baseless argument to counter his logical conclusion.

It may be impossible for YOU to argue it. It doesn't mean it's impossible for others to see the wood for the trees. Thats your prejuidice taking over.

House building could have been higher, but it's catered for the demand if you allow 3 people to live to a house. Under 5 year olds for example won't need a house to themselves, and they have increased 13% in the census.

The lack of house building is a new thing. But it's not just house building thats lacking, it's everything at the moment.

IveSeenTheLight

chewmylegoff wrote: »

So actually then ISTL - 3.7 / 1.6 = 2.31

So over that 10 year period housing has been built at a rate which is diluting the number of people living in each household.

Theres a nice section of this in this report
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_251357.pdf

Household size

A household is defined as one person living alone, or a group of people (not necessarily related) living at the same address who share cooking facilities and share a living room, sitting room or dining area. A household can consist of more than one family or no families in the case of a group of unrelated people. The definition of a household changed slightly in 2011 (see background note 5 for more information). This change in definition has no impact on the comparability of the statistics over time.

There were 26.3 million households in the UK in 2011. The number of households has increased by 7.0 per cent since 2001, slightly faster than the 5.3 per cent growth in the size of the UK population.
This is due to the trend towards smaller household sizes: the proportion of households containing four or more people decreased from 20.7 per cent in 2001 to 19.6 in 2011, while the proportion of households containing one person increased from 28.6 to 29.4 per cent, or by nearly 0.7 million to
7.7 million, over the same period.

A different source, the General Lifestyle Survey, which provides more historic information, shows that 17 per cent of households in Great Britain contained one person in 1971. Although not directly comparable, this is 12 percentage points lower than the Labour Force Survey shows for the UK in 2011.

chewmylegoff

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

They share.
They stay at home with their parents

The population is 63 million, hence the additional per year is a small percentage, however it's a slow squeeze that's been happening for a number of years.

No they don't, and as the data on household size you have just posted demonstrates, there is no squeeze. In fact, things are going the other way entirely, with fewer people per house, not more, and houses being built at a rate which dilutes the number of occupants per house, rather than increases it.

IveSeenTheLight

I posted the data up above.

The number of households has increased by 7.0 per cent since 2001, slightly faster than the 5.3 per cent growth in the size of the UK population.

This is due to the trend towards smaller household sizes: the proportion of households containing four or more people decreased from 20.7 per cent in 2001 to 19.6 in 2011, while the proportion of households containing one person increased from 28.6 to 29.4 per cent, or by nearly 0.7 million to 7.7 million, over the same period.

What's happening is that smaller properties appear to be being built.

One way or another, they are being queezed

Also, looks like 29% properties contain only one person. Makes you wonder how many people were'nt captured in the census.

A different source, the General Lifestyle Survey, which provides more historic information, shows that 17 per cent of households in Great Britain contained one person in 1971. Although not directly comparable, this is 12 percentage points lower than the Labour Force Survey shows for the UK in 2011.