Families forced to share houses up 20% in just 2 years...

NEO72

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Or you could just look at the basics.... That we build a little over 100K houses a year, but form 250,000+ additional households a year.

I see you've taken my advice from the other thread - there's a good little bull [pats head]

Now what any self-respecting bull would have done is arbitrarily select a period when demand did indeed exceed supply such as 2009 onwards.

chewmylegoff

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

To really put this into context, you'd need to add the 280,000 families sharing someone else's house, to the 1,000,000+ lodgers renting a room from a homeowner, then add all the HMO's, and then add the 50,000 homeless families (38,000 of which have kids) in council funded B&B 'temporary accommodation', and then realise that despite the number of people sharing houses increasing rapidly, the number of empty houses has been falling markedly.

Or you could just look at the basics.... That we build a little over 100K houses a year, but form 250,000+ additional households a year.

In order to alleviate the current housing shortage, and keep up with population growth and new household formation, we'd need to build at least 300,000 houses a year, every year, for the next 2 decades.

I suspect the chances of that happening are pretty much zero.

Which is why the chances of preventing both house prices and rents soaring over the next 2 decades are pretty much zero.

Surely the 280,000 families sharing with other families is exactly what your OP was about. The 1 million lodgers stat seems to be based on a vague survey question along the lines "have you taken in a lodger" which could mean ever (seems more likely that 1 in ever 20 households having a lodger - how many people do you know who hae one? Even if in a calendar year that would include some serious double counting as lodgers move about a lot). Anyway a lot of people lodge through choice and many of them have their own home that they return to at the weekend.

As for 250,000 new households forming a year, at a housing density of 2.3 persons per household that means we need just over 100,000 properties a year.

The fact is that the latest census showed that household size is decreasing not increasing. This could ONLY happen if sufficient houses were being built to allow household density to fall. If insufficient houses were being built then household density would be rising. (Also if there was a chronic shortage then prices would be going up not falling).

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

chewmylegoff wrote: »

As for 250,000 new households forming a year, at a housing density of 2.3 persons per household that means we need just over 100,000 properties a year..

You may want to try that calculation again when you're sober.

Generali

I agree that more houses are needed to be built in the UK, a problem which the current Government seems to a addressing as a matter of urgency. This is A Good Thing and anyone who uses the phrase, 'concreting over the countryside' should have something nasty done to them.

Is this a symptom of a lack of houses? Maybe not. The rise is from about 10-12,000 households which is 20% as the OP states but is also 2,000 out of about 30,000,000(?) households which puts the issue into perspective.

I suspect that the reason for the rise is likely to be the aging population: I know a few people that have pooled resources with their ill and aged Mum or Dad and bought a large home between them in order to be able to care for them.

chewmylegoff

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You may want to try that calculation again when you're sober.

Yer true... Although 250,000 is clearly the gross number of new households as the population is not increasing at a rate of 575,000 per year, it was more like 300,000 a year between 2001 and 2011. During that time the average household size fell from 2.4 to 2.3 IIRC, which could only have happened if houses were being built at a sufficient rate to allow it.

chewmylegoff

Generali wrote: »

I agree that more houses are needed to be built in the UK, a problem which the current Government seems to a addressing as a matter of urgency. This is A Good Thing and anyone who uses the phrase, 'concreting over the countryside' should have something nasty done to them.

Is this a symptom of a lack of houses? Maybe not. The rise is from about 10-12,000 households which is 20% as the OP states but is also 2,000 out of about 30,000,000(?) households which puts the issue into perspective.

I suspect that the reason for the rise is likely to be the aging population: I know a few people that have pooled resources with their ill and aged Mum or Dad and bought a large home between them in order to be able to care for them.

I think the graph means an increase of 10 to 12 multi family households per thousand households. About 25 million households so 250,000 to 300,000?

Ronaldo_Mconaldo

What do we want to see happen here, seriously? Are we hoping for Uncle Ed to get into power, he could then lay claim to every house in the country turf everyone out onto the streets and rearrange housing so that everyone gets a house they deserve, based on criteria by Labour and their comrades?

It's not how it works. It's survival of the fittest. Complain on internet forums up and down the cyberland, cry into your keyboards. It'll make no difference.

coastline

Those hoping to extend their property might not find it any easier...

"We found little or no evidence that the Government had considered or addressed the social or environmental impact of the changes.
“It has ignored the detrimental effects of the change - increased neighbour disputes and any deleterious impact on the quality, design and amenity of the permitted development and the local area.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9756898/Drop-plans-to-allow-home-extensions-without-planning-permission-MPs-tell-David-Cameron.html

BigAunty

Neotheone wrote: »

...With more and more people sharing, and soon all under 25's claiming HB moving back with parents. Far more supply than demand. ....

I thought the proposal to scrap HB for the under 25s had been scrapped? Gone the way of the much earlier proposal that long term job seekers would have their HB reduced.

Zero_Sum

coastline wrote: »

1 million lodgers in 20 million homes sounds very extreme...I don't know a single one to be honest...I never hear of anyone talking about them....maybe this is one huge tax dodge by our island of fiddlers as you can claim a good £5,000 on your tax form.
What I do know is theres a boat load of 3 bedroom semis with only 1 or 2 people in them...maybe the housing shortage is also down to organisation .
We were building 250,000 homes just a few years ago....so why not just build them in all these regions where the prices are going up...sell them no bother..;)

Me neither, think it would be interesting to see the split for London & SE v the rest othe country though