Nationwide- +0.8% MoM +3.9% YoY

Generali

92203 wrote: »

I think they need to ruthlessly redefine planning regulations and also revise what is classed as greenbelt land. In areas where there is massive demand, rundown Victorian terraces close to towns and cities need to be torn down and replaced with higher density accommodation. This will increase population density, making it easier to justify investment in public transport infrastructure for those areas.

House building is (at least in part) so low due to the complex and obstructive nature of the planning system, which creates massive legal costs and also makes building land incredibly expensive for builders to buy.

If the planning system wasn't so profoundly obtuse, building land would be cheaper and the legal costs faced by builders would be lower.This would ultimately lead to building costs reducing, more houses being built, and ultimately cheaper housing for the population.

Obviously, I appreciate that banks (and their customers) are heavily leveraged into property, so any moves to alter the supply/demand ratio will need to be engineered very carefully.

I do believe that the first boom was down to electioneering by Labour. Increased immigration, deregulated finance sector, and nothing done to increase supply. What did they expect to happen?

In conclusion, it is highly regrettable that this situation ever arose, and I do wonder whether or not any political party will ever be brave enough to deal with it.

Why not build the sorts of houses people actually want to live in? 1-2 bed starter homes with small gardens for the young and the old and 3-4 bed places with decent sized gardens for families?

92203

Generali wrote: »

Why not build the sorts of houses people actually want to live in? 1-2 bed starter homes with small gardens for the young and the old and 3-4 bed places with decent sized gardens for families?

This needs looking at too, though I was talking purely from a supply shortage perspective. I do believe that higher density accommodation should be built in urban areas close to towns and cities (where demand is high) though. Well designed, 2 & 3 bedroom flats, big enough for someone to build a life in and raise a family. Not the cramped rubbish we often see thrown up in this country.

Reduce the costs and obstacles in the planning system, which will result in cheaper building land. Establish something similar to the Parker Norris standard to define minimum space requirements in houses and flats, and put an end to overpriced rabbit hutch type shoe boxes.

Finally, in combination with the above, encourage institutional investment into the build-to-rent sector and build some additional regulation into the rental market. With sufficient supply, we'll then have a flexible and mobile workforce, with people able to change their accommodation in order to suit their circumstances with relative ease.

To clarify my position, I do not believe that 100% of working people should own (or have to own) their own properties. Property ownership decreases labor and (to a degree) social mobility Unfortunately in today's relatively (in comparison to wages) expensive and poorly regulated market, owning is infinitely preferable to renting. I do not believe that anyone should have to spend an entire lifetime at the mercy of the current supply shortage, or the poorly regulated crop of letting agents and small time landlords.

ukcarper

92203 wrote: »

I think they need to ruthlessly redefine planning regulations and also revise what is classed as greenbelt land. In areas where there is massive demand, rundown Victorian terraces close to towns and cities need to be torn down and replaced with higher density accommodation. This will increase population density, making it easier to justify investment in public transport infrastructure for those areas.

House building is (at least in part) so low due to the complex and obstructive nature of the planning system, which creates massive legal costs and also makes building land incredibly expensive for builders to buy.

If the planning system wasn't so profoundly obtuse, building land would be cheaper and the legal costs faced by builders would be lower.This would ultimately lead to building costs reducing, more houses being built, and ultimately cheaper housing for the population.

Obviously, I appreciate that banks (and their customers) are heavily leveraged into property, so any moves to alter the supply/demand ratio will need to be engineered very carefully.

I do believe that the first boom was down to electioneering by Labour. Increased immigration, deregulated finance sector, and nothing done to increase supply. What did they expect to happen?

In conclusion, it is highly regrettable that this situation ever arose, and I do wonder whether or not any political party will ever be brave enough to deal with it.

High density property was tried the 60/70s tower blocks and it didn't work.

I think most people calling for relaxation of green belt and easier planning laws do not live in the highly populated areas of the south east.

　

ukcarper

92203 wrote: »

I believe that Prudential are entering the Build-to-Rent market, and another consortium is even building some rental properties in Southampton.

I know that this idea was first discussed at the time of the General Election, and that there is a £1bn pot to help finance institutional investment

That will be beneficial if it happens on a large scale but I'm not sure it will.

92203

Generali wrote: »

Why not build the sorts of houses people actually want to live in? 1-2 bed starter homes with small gardens for the young and the old and 3-4 bed places with decent sized gardens for families?

This needs looking at too, though I was talking purely from a supply shortage perspective. I do believe that higher density accommodation should be built in urban areas close to towns and cities though. Well designed, 2 & 3 bedroom flats, big enough for someone to build a life in and raise a family. Not the cramped rubbish we often see thrown up in this country.

Reduce the costs and obstacles in the planning system, which will result in cheaper building land. Establish something similar to the Parker Norris standard to define minimum space requirements in houses and flats, and put an end to overpriced rabbit hutch type shoe boxes.

Finally, in combination with the above, encourage institutional investment into the build-to-rent sector and build some additional regulation into the rental market. With sufficient supply, we'll then have a flexible and mobile workforce, with people able to change their accommodation in order to suit their circumstances with relative ease.

Believe it or not, I am not a proponent of 100% home ownership, however with the current setup, it is infinitely preferable to renting. Nobody should have to spend a lifetime at the mercy of the current supply shortage, poorly regulated letting agents and small time landlords.

Perhaps if the private sector can't step in, we actually do need a state funded social housing building program to accommodate those who don't earn enough to buy, and ultimately take some of the strain from the private sector.

92203

ukcarper wrote: »

High density property was tried the 60/70s tower blocks and it didn't work.

I think most people calling for relaxation of green belt and easier planning laws do not live in the highly populated areas of the south east.

I'm not suggesting 1960s tower blocks on council estates, 3-5 floor blocks of flats in urban areas. There are many such developments in existence in this country, and they are not plagued by the problems you describe. We just need more of them, and with better designed layouts/room sizes etc.

High density accommodation seems to work well elsewhere in Europe too. Such accommodation is be infinitely preferable to the mash of neglected houses split into flats/bedsits you see on the outskirts of most cities.

As for the South, it is heavily populated, but much of it under developed. Construction has failed to keep pace with demand which is why living costs are so high there.

Take Reading for instance. 30 minutes from London by train. A 10 minute bike ride out of Reading will take you into vast numbers of rural villages and massive swathes of undeveloped countryside.

In fact, this Google map link shows just how much undeveloped land there is around London and other Southern population centers.

https://maps.google.com/?ll=51.444593,-0.973663&spn=0.460492,1.352692&t=h&z=10

Remember, less than 10% of this country's land mass has been built on. If this was extended by just a small %, it would make a big difference to the affordability of housing, and ultimately improve the quality of people's lives.

ukcarper

92203 wrote: »

I'm not suggesting 1960s tower blocks on council estates, 3-5 floor blocks of flats in urban areas.. High density accommodation seems to work well elsewhere in Europe. Such accommodation would be infinitely preferable to the mash of neglected houses split into flats/bedsits you see on the outskirts of most cities.

As for the South, it is heavily populated, but much of it under developed. Construction has failed to keep pace with demand which is why living costs are so high there.

Take Reading for instance. 30 minutes from London by train. A 10 minute bike ride out of Reading will take you into vast numbers of rural villages and massive swathes of undeveloped countryside.

In fact, this Google map link shows just how much undeveloped land there is around London and other Southern population centers.

https://maps.google.com/?ll=51.444593,-0.973663&spn=0.460492,1.352692&t=h&z=10

Remember, less than 10% of this country's land mass has been built on. If this was extended by just a small %, it would make a big difference to the affordability of housing, and ultimately improve the quality of people's lives.

Yes we could build on every bit of available country side and put even more strain on the infrastructure in the south east. If you look where I live there appears to be a lot of available land but some of it is rare habitat and the buffers between towns are very small. I could identify some areas where building would not have to bad an impact but if they were all used it would not have a big effect on house prices.

If you know Reading you will know that there is little if any green space between Reading and Wokingham and going east the towns are gradually merging into one. In fact I could probably take you on a drive from Farnham in the East to Reading without going through any open countryside.

92203

ukcarper wrote: »

Yes we could build on every bit of available country side and put even more strain on the infrastructure in the south east. If you look where I live there appears to be a lot of available land but some of it is rare habitat and the buffers between towns are very small. I could identify some areas where building would not have to bad an impact but if they were all used it would not have a big effect on house prices.

I'm not proposing that we build on every available bit of countryside. There is a lot of land which could be built on, even in the South.

The infrastructure in the South is also better than what we have in North, though like all infrastructure in this country, it needs to be expanded and improved to cater for population growth.

Interestingly, a lower proportion of our land is built on than in countries such as Germany and France, even though they have a similar population density to ourselves.

We also have one of the lowest amounts of living space per person in Europe.

A reevaluation needs to take place of the way in which existing development land is used, and in cases where demand warrants it, we need to replace houses with high quality blocks of flats. Not simply convert existing houses into poor quality flats and bedsits which seems to be the current trend.

Considering we have a housing shortage, residential land is used very inefficiently in this country, though I suspect that this is to do with planning restrictions and people objecting, rather than true necessity.

We need to build upwards and outwards. In the face of massive population growth and decades worth of insufficient house building, what other options do we have available to us?

ruggedtoast

ukcarper wrote: »

Yes we could build on every bit of available country side and put even more strain on the infrastructure in the south east. If you look where I live there appears to be a lot of available land but some of it is rare habitat and the buffers between towns are very small. I could identify some areas where building would not have to bad an impact but if they were all used it would not have a big effect on house prices.

If you know Reading you will know that there is little if any green space between Reading and Wokingham and going east the towns are gradually merging into one. In fact I could probably take you on a drive from Farnham in the East to Reading without going through any open countryside.

Your requirement to drive through 'open countryside' is outweighed by the need of hard-working young families to have a house to live in. Which is exactly the same metric that was originally used to decide to build your property.

If you are really committed then maybe you can convince the people who live in your street to bulldoze their own houses and return the land to the unspoilt meadow and forest that would have been there originally. And lead by example.

So far however I haven't seen any of the NIMBY crew advocate sacrifice for anyone other than other people.

ruggedtoast

chucknorris wrote: »

I guess you are talking about me so that makes you wrong!

Hoping for a brisk sou'westerly