SHOCK:- Urging old people into smaller homes 'may backfire'

grizzly1911

Encouraging older people to downsize to smaller homes could backfire and worsen the housing shortage for first-time buyers, argues a report.
The International Longevity Centre report said more should be done to make retirement housing "aspirational."
A lack of desirable retirement housing meant older people downsizing might end up chasing the same properties as first-time buyers, it added.
But critics said different generations had different housing priorities.
Quality of life The International Longevity Centre (ILC) study criticised "scapegoating" of older people for "hoarding housing" as "ageist and irrelevant".....
"Planners and policy-makers must recognise the impact of our ageing society and develop adequate housing".
The report argues that the UK needs to build more homes but adds that a lack of desirable retirement housing means older people who downsize may end up chasing the same properties as first-time buyers.
Retirement housing needs an image overhaul, say the authors, with many people viewing it as "expensive and isolated" and prone to hidden charges.
Currently it is focused on people with the greatest health and social care needs - instead design should be improved to make it "aspirational", they argue.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22656641




Well I never surely they thought of that - didn't they?

Generali

The problem was and remains that you need more houses. It's not that complicated yet politicians have deliberately blocked solutions for decades.

BlondeHeadOn

There is also hardly any building of bungalows any more, and those bungalows that exist are often bought by families who then build up to add an extra floor or dormer bedroom.

I know they require a bigger footprint than ordinary houses or flats which makes them very unpopular for developers, but it means that a useful type of 'downsizer' property is slowly disappearing as an option.....

:cool:

olly300

BlondeHeadOn wrote: »

There is also hardly any building of bungalows any more, and those bungalows that exist are often bought by families who then build up to add an extra floor or dormer bedroom.

I know they require a bigger footprint than ordinary houses or flats which makes them very unpopular for developers, but it means that a useful type of 'downsizer' property is slowly disappearing as an option.....

:cool:

They are also unpopular for local authorities.

Plus a lot of bungalows have 3 bedrooms. Quite a few of the older people I know want 1 or 2 bedrooms at the most.

BTW my godmother moved to a bungalow in her 60s with her father and added a dormer so it's not just younger people doing it.

BobQ

Generali wrote: »

The problem was and remains that you need more houses. It's not that complicated yet politicians have deliberately blocked solutions for decades.

But the problem is that housing policy seems to be directed at building very small flats.

I live in an urban area in a spacious house that is far too big for me. Fortunately, I can afford to live there and maintain it, even though I do not use several rooms. But I would indeed prefer a bungalow in the same area. But housing policy does not seem to encourage them being built and I have no intention of buying a small flat, a retirement apartment or moving to a more rural area to get a bungalow just for the satisfaction of allowing someone I do not know to acquire a large family house.

olly300

BobQ wrote: »

But the problem is that housing policy seems to be directed at building very small flats.

I live in an urban area in a spacious house that is far too big for me. Fortunately, I can afford to live there and maintain it, even though I do not use several rooms. But I would indeed prefer a bungalow in the same area. But housing policy does not seem to encourage them being built and I have no intention of buying a small flat, a retirement apartment or moving to a more rural area to get a bungalow just for the satisfaction of allowing someone I do not know to acquire a large family house.

I spoke to a councillor, who while she covered a rural area, explained that generally housing policy is to put as many homes as possible and as reasonable on each available site.

So as bungalows use more space than a normal house councils aren't going to encourage developers or even self-builders to build them.

grizzly1911

olly300 wrote: »

I spoke to a councillor, who while she covered a rural area, explained that generally housing policy is to put as many homes as possible and as reasonable on each available site.

So as bungalows use more space than a normal house councils aren't going to encourage developers or even self-builders to build them.

Where we live is a small extension of a 70s development that was constructed in in the early 90s

On the older part of the development large houses and plots are mixed about 60/40 with bungalows. On our extension they kept that ratio although the plots are slightly smaller. The bungalows sell close to price of 4 bed detached properties.

In the extended area, semi rural, there similar pockets.

A close relative of ours is downsizing at present, in another area and there are few suitable properties. Moving to a semi sheltered "exclusive" set up. The key elements being the ever rising energy costs, repairs, high council tax band and the wish to be amongst similar age group/community rather than the "isolated" in a a younger age mix where most people were at work.

Generali

BobQ wrote: »

But the problem is that housing policy seems to be directed at building very small flats.

I live in an urban area in a spacious house that is far too big for me. Fortunately, I can afford to live there and maintain it, even though I do not use several rooms. But I would indeed prefer a bungalow in the same area. But housing policy does not seem to encourage them being built and I have no intention of buying a small flat, a retirement apartment or moving to a more rural area to get a bungalow just for the satisfaction of allowing someone I do not know to acquire a large family house.

The fundamental problem IMHO is that almost no British people are prepared to allow any homes whatsoever to be built within a 10 mile radius of them and will fight tooth and nail to prevent it.

The logical thing to do is create more New Towns. Select some villages with good rail and road links and build 10,000 houses in each (plus schools, shops etc). Trouble is it would take 20 years of court cases and bickering to get to a point where the first digger could move in and the first political party promising to stop 'concreting over the countryside' would win by a landslide.

Until people are prepared to accept that new houses need to be built, not enough houses will be built.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

The fundamental problem IMHO is that almost no British people are prepared to allow any homes whatsoever to be built within a 10 mile radius of them and will fight tooth and nail to prevent it.
...

Strangely, the only exception to this in my village concerns these retirement flat complexes.

Quite a few have sprung up, all on existing built up land - not greenfield.

There is a logic to this. These places are sold on proximity to the village centre and ammenities.

Fruit_and_Nut_Case

Generali wrote: »

The logical thing to do is create more New Towns.

Come and live in sunny Sherford in south Devon. :cool:

Generali

Fruit_and_Nut_Case wrote: »

Come and live in sunny Sherford in south Devon. :cool:

Julie makes my point very eloquently:

Julie Leffleigh, from the Plymouth suburb of Elburton, lives next to where Sherford would be.

She said: "It's going to be an awful lot of homes and we don't want it.

"It's so lovely looking out here on to green fields, I was brought up here."

"I think this will finish Elburton, it will be like a concrete jungle," she added.