Newsnight: Housing shortage the biggest social justice crisis of our times

IveSeenTheLight

the_flying_pig wrote: »

the issue is that the end to local authority building, the sector that in the 50s through 80s used to build about half of all housing, was a massive game-changer. for housebuilding to remain at the same levels [if that was indeed what we wanted] private sector output had to double - we needed a private sector building gamechanger to match the local authority gamechanger. there has been no such game-changer.

Key points from your post, the graph and other known facts1: -

• House building has significantly lowered.
• Available social housing has significantly lowered
• Population is incresing.
• The government is reliant on the private sector to fill the gap both in the availability of properties to own and to expand the rental market

PaulF81

ukcarper wrote: »

So you think anybody earning a low wage is a social misfit I think that says it all.

Not at all. But for years the house building policy in the uk were based around social housing time to redress the balance. Our village (despite having no public transport links) is having social housing forced upon it. When the parish council requested the land be used for private housing, you can guess what the problem was. The local planning framework wouldn't have it. Social housing or nothing.

So the council voted for nothing.

GeorgeHowell

A lot of nimbyism arises because opportunistic developers are allowed to throw up cheap, nasty, ugly, cramped dwellings in inappropriate locations and without necessary infrastructure enhancements being catered for. That's what needs fixing -- some proper planning by councils to set and adhere to realistic guidelines as to what and what does not constitute acceptable planning. Local councillors need to start doing their jobs and achieve reasonable balance between housing needs and maintaining the quality of life in communities.

antrobus

coastline wrote: »

..

The other 'key point' of the graph would be the fact that the 'Local Authorities' line has been at zero since about, oh, 1997.

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So this appears to be somewhat bizarre. Charge the builders a levy, to incentivise NIMBY's to allow house building, while incentivising the very same builders via newbuy....in the meantime, allowing them to sit on large swathes of landbanks, with full planning permission.

We need someone with a clue!!!!

And why the ..... should local housing opposition groups get cash!??!

It's actually a very good idea in principle. Assuming we are going to build new houses then why not give money to the communities that accept/welcome them in the area.

You say that it is to buy off NIMBY groups but it could just as easily be said to be a reward for areas that don't fight against development. I've always been of the opinion that richer rural areas that fight against development should be allowed to avoid it if they pay for it by higher council tax or something similar. The money they pay could then be used to build better facilities in the generally poorer areas that would get built in. This scheme effectively does that because the money that is being levied comes from everyone (a nominal increase in housing costs) but is redistributed only to those who accept new builds.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

PaulF81 wrote: »

They could sell them if they cut the price.

The profit margins of the major builders are already in single digit percentages.

How much less profit do you want them to make?

Take build costs, add land costs, and then add the council bribes for new schools, roads, etc they have to pay, and it ain't cheap to build a house.

The major reason for a lack of building is a lack of both mortgage lending and development finance.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Oh what rot Hamish. How much does it cost to get a bunch of Eastern Europeans to build a shonky new build 2 up 2 down? About £30k probably all in.

Rubbish.

It costs upwards of £1000 per square metre to build a house these days, and that does not include the land, infrastructure or council bribes for schools, roads, etc.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The profit margins of the major builders are already in single digit percentages.

How much less profit do you want them to make?

Take build costs, add land costs, and then add the council bribes for new schools, roads, etc they have to pay, and it ain't cheap to build a house.

The major reason for a lack of building is a lack of both mortgage lending and development finance.

Why do you insist on looking at profits in percentage terms when it comes to builders?

Why not look at the amount in actual pounds? You simply won't.

Tesco, Sainsburys, WH Smiths, Electric companies....none of them come close to the percentage point profits that builders do.

You consistently cloud these dicussions with your use of percentage profits.

What's more, it's untrue. One of the largest builders, Persimmon Homes had a profit of 13% average per build. Taylor Wimpey's is 11.4%.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You'll find him standing in a field moaning about some vague points.

So because he's a boomer his concerns can't be genuine? I take it all boomers must be against and all post-boomers for - nice and simple.

What we are trying to engineer is a means by which we can house people who can't afford to buy and, in many cases, won't be paying market rent. The hand-wringers don't have a problem with this situation as long as it's not them paying.

I'll guarantee that if social housing is built near his residence his quality of life will suffer. I've mentioned before that I live on quite a nice estate that is blighted with a social housing section - the people living there are living the stereotype - problem dogs, problem kids, houses wrapped in satellite cable, litter, idiots speeding in small cars, frequent police visits, kicked down fences etc. etc. This is replicated around the country.

I think we're paying the price for allowing people to go through life and generations without making a contribution (financial or otherwise). Not requiring people to work is a bigger social injustice than the housing shortage.

If someone has to get up and go to work they are less likely to be sat revving their car at midnight on a weekday. They're more likely to object to their neighbours doing the same. Who knows - they might even start making a contribution to their own housing costs and encouraging their kids to get some qualifications before leaving school.

coastline

land prices...not too clever ??