We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Worth watching?
Comments
-
We have learnt in recent years that some areas are so essential to society that they simply cannot be allowed to fail.
Many planning applications are granted on condition that certain contributions are made to the community's needs.
It would be possible to require developers to provide rental housing at lower than market rates in order to be allowed to build houses for sale.
But I agree that it would make even more sense to embark upon a programme of council house building similar to the post-war one.
TruckerT
Isn't that similar to what happens now0 -
-
TBH, I don't really know, but I haven't noticed any adverts promoting the idea that properties on a new development might be available to rent at lower than market rates.
TruckerT
The way I understand it a certain proportion of properties on large developments have to be affordable this is normally achieved by co ownership or some houses being transferred to local housing associations
I believe this is what CLAPTON is complaining about as it increases the price of remaining houses.
0 -
TBH, I don't really know, but I haven't noticed any adverts promoting the idea that properties on a new development might be available to rent at lower than market rates.
These properties are available on all developments.
Usually identified by the messy front gardens, litter and the Sky dish with 4-feeds.
Paid for by their neighbours.0 -
These properties are available on all developments.
Usually identified by the messy front gardens, litter and the Sky dish with 4-feeds.
Paid for by their neighbours.
I guess there is not much difference between struggling to pay a mortgage, and struggling to pay the rent.
TruckerTAccording to Clapton, I am a totally ignorant idiot.0 -
These properties are available on all developments.
Usually identified by the messy front gardens, litter and the Sky dish with 4-feeds.
Paid for by their neighbours.
We have on not far from us that was paid for by their parents in full.
To be fair we also have another farther away, who has been the owner for many years who seems to like the meadow look on his lawns.
Both built before social housing requirements.
We also have some recent co-ownership properties in town that look as good as any new build.
I accept the incidence of dereliction and "council telly" maybe higher but in some areas but same goes for some BTL as well as owner occupiers where owners don't care either. I'm not sure it is just homeownership I just don't think some people care full stop in this day and age."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
The way I understand it a certain proportion of properties on large developments have to be affordable this is normally achieved by co ownership or some houses being transferred to local housing associations
I believe this is what CLAPTON is complaining about as it increases the price of remaining houses.
'affordable' in planners speak doesn't mean the same as ordinary English.
It means that the houses will be 'affordable' to Housing Associations and will be rented out at 'affordable' rents to 'social' tenants.
And indeed it is paid for by increasing the price of the 'non affordable' houses.0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Seems odd that we should be making them more environmentally friendly and then simply scrapping them. Seems somewhat wasteful when so many parts will run for probably 3 times that long.
Reminds me of the law telling us all Central heating boilers have to be replaced by Condensing Boilers. The new ones last less than half the time of the old ones - not good for the environment. They also have to be run for longer to obtain hot water, so wasting water and increasing water bills.0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »I accept the incidence of dereliction and "council telly" maybe higher but in some areas but same goes for some BTL as well as owner occupiers where owners don't care either. I'm not sure it is just homeownership I just don't think some people care full stop in this day and age.
People do seem less considerate of their neighbours these days. Maybe it's just a function of higher density housing - people's annoying traits are more easily spotted.
I do have a theory though that there is an uneven spread of inconsiderate neighbours. On my estate they seem to be concentrated in the affordable section.
Go to any new estate and the affordable housing is easy to spot so it's not (just) my snobbery.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards