Government must do more on affordable housing

Harry_Boyle

The fundamental problem is actually the year on year population increses. If a government was to put a cap on UK population numbers then the problem with housing, and many other problems would solve themselves.

We can't keep increasing our population by the millions and not expect issues with housing, energy, etc.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Quite annoying that the whole "it's the lenders fault" is appearing in the media. It's far more than that. How did builders cope before the boom of the last decade!?

Just 98,000 houses were built in 2012.

A study of barrats FTBs has for the first time stated lack of housing is their biggest problem and not mortgage finance.

Lack of lending and lack of building are related. Builders don't build houses that people can't buy.

If FTB's are now finding finance is a secondary problem to finding a new-build then, after a lag, builders will increase starts to fill the gap.

Near me a small new estate has been built. It ticks most of the boxes, close to local amenities and bus routes, easy access to main roads, brown field site etc. The problem is that although the houses and prices seem ok the estate's been built in the middle of a run down area and is in the catchment of one of the city's poorest performing schools. I'm afraid that people that people living there will likely have problems with petty theft and anti-social behaviour.

Lot's of FTB's have the same idea as me - they're selling like a three day old cake.

I think when FTB's are complaining about lack of housing they really mean lack of suitable housing. Plans for building in 'nice' areas regularly fall foul of the planners because the locals are dead against new estates being built. Like that or not local politicians are there to serve the electorate and not the other way round.

N1AK

Harry_Boyle wrote: »

The fundamental problem is actually the year on year population increses.

Which is why there was a property shortage and massive house prices in 1901-1911 right? A period in which population grew more than 2001-2011 even though the population was 20 million lower so the increase in population was about 200% as rapid as it was in the previous decade.

It also must be why property and energy was such an issue in the 60s when population growth was the same as the last decade but with a lower population making the rate of increase about 120% as rapid.

The fundamental problem is that you've got an opinion based on nothing but your 'beliefs' rather than any factual evidence. The post war period shows you can have massive population growth without running out of houses or energy so clearly population growth alone isn't the cause.

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

More accurately, if builders hadn't competed with each other and speculated on land, they wouldn't be in quite so much negative equity on the land they hold, and they could therefore afford to build on it at a price which would sell.

Pretty accurately sums up the issue many builders are having at the moment. It doesn't help that as the government and population generally want to see rising prices the builders have an incentive to hold on before developing or selling.

If the government put some money into building new housing itself and forced building companies to accept that they won't make a killing by sitting on land for a few years then we'd see more building. The issue at the moment is that as long as building firms believe a property boom will happen soon they'll hold off until then.

The government could even offer a small incentive to complete building faster by effectively providing funding to people who use land in the next year or two. If the government offered to pay 10% of the land cost for any property started, completed and sold in the next 18 months then it would encourage builders to start now rather than wait for for prices to increase.

Wookster

wotsthat wrote: »

Lack of lending and lack of building are related. Builders don't build houses that people can't buy.

I love this myopic view that it is only mortgage finance that is holding back the market rather than prices of the underlying properties themselves.

wotsthat

Wookster wrote: »

I love this myopic view that it is only mortgage finance that is holding back the market rather than prices of the underlying properties themselves.

I said lack of lending and lack of building were related. Disagree if you like but don't pretend that I said lending is the only thing holding back the market.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I think when FTB's are complaining about lack of housing they really mean lack of suitable housing. Plans for building in 'nice' areas regularly fall foul of the planners because the locals are dead against new estates being built. Like that or not local politicians are there to serve the electorate and not the other way round.

This appears to be more heresay than anything else.

I base this on the fact that builders currently have planning permission granted for just shy of 400,000 plots.

However, they won't build on them. They get the planning permission purely to increase the value of the land and then sell it on.

However, no ones now buying that land, so they are stuck with it. They won't build on it as they would make a loss. But that's not the lenders fault or the buyers fault, it's solely the companies fault for gambling on land prices.

As I keep saying to Hamish, theres far more to it than "pump endless debt into the system". These are the facts. Look at housebuilder company reports. Look at the amount of land stock they have. Look at how they simply won't revalue it.

There was an article just a couple of days ago about a housebuilder suddenly starting work on a plot they have permission on. Trouble is, the permission was granted NINE years previous. Everyone had forgotten about it until the builders decided they would now build.

A land tax would sort all of this out, and sure, may see a couple of housebuilders go bust, but hey, no one sheds a tear when others go bust because of gambling. The difference here is, blockbusters doesn't effect our own interests.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I said lack of lending and lack of building were related. Disagree if you like but don't pretend that I said lending is the only thing holding back the market.

The other problem with this view is where do you stop?

Hamish has sadd openly that you don't stop, you simply saturate the UK in limitless debt. I don't know what he thinks this will achieve other than massive short term gain.

You on the other hand have said it's all lack of lending. However, lending HAS been looked at. We have QE. We have funding for lending. We have newbuy. We have lend a hand. We have products whereby the government AND your parents can now join to become guarantors. We have councils willing to become guarantors.

And guess what, people just keep saying the same thing.... "lending is the problem".

Well what more do you want? Where do you stop blaming the lending and look at what's been done on the lending front....while peepin at the results all that expense has bought.

In terms of value for money, all of that I mentioned above has bought a tiny amount of value for builders and the market. So theres surely some other problem?

Many of us can see that problem, but it seems a few simply cannot...or will not. Not really sure which.

Mr._Pricklepants

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Who's the one promising to fight against house building? You couldn't make it up. Grant Shapps.

Turnbull2000 wrote: »

He's only standing up for the wishes of the voters.

That's right. Democracy in action. An MP standing up for the wishes of his constituents, as he should.

Graham_Devon

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

That's right. Democracy in action. An MP standing up for the wishes of his constituents, as he should.

Which suggests the government should do whatever the people wish for? Regardless of the problems down the line?

I'm pretty positive you would be utterly against this as soon as it affected you.