Nationwide- +0.8% MoM +3.9% YoY

chucknorris

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Hoping for a brisk sou'westerly

What are you talking about?

ukcarper

ruggedtoast wrote: »

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.

I have no requirement to drive through open country side just pointing out that in parts of south a lot of countryside has been built on.

I'm not sure those young people will thank the present generation if all the countryside is destroyed.

92203

ukcarper wrote: »

I'm not sure those young people will thank the present generation if all the countryside is destroyed.

We're nowhere near that stage though, are we? Even if we doubled the amount of developed land in this country (this would be grossly in excess of what is needed to supply adequate housing) , ~80% of land would still remain undeveloped.

I also don't think that future generations of young people would be particularly enamored with the current generation for preserving the countryside, should they be confined to paying through the nose in order to spend a lifetime living in HMOs (house shares) either would they?

I do accept your point regarding the South being more heavily developed than the North though, however there is still plenty of scope for further development in the south, and to help things further, moving towards a higher density housing model in certain areas too.

It would be nice to see the economy rebalanced to decrease the North -> South divide, so that a more equal share of the employment opportunities, wealth and infrastructure investment can be given directed towards Northern parts of the country too.

Where will it all end, and what do you propose we do to cater for population growth if we can't build enough houses in areas where there is demand (driven by jobs)?

ukcarper

92203 wrote: »

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?

How do you propose we go about demolishing all these Victorian terraces and building flats when they are all occupied a large percentage by owner occupiers especially as they are the houses most people seem to want to live in.

Perhaps the problem is not planning restrictions but the lack of planning.

ukcarper

92203 wrote: »

We're nowhere near that stage though, are we? Even if we doubled the amount of developed land in this country (this would be grossly in excess of what is needed to supply adequate housing) , ~80% of land would still remain undeveloped.

I also don't think that future generations of young people would be particularly enamored with the current generation for preserving the countryside, should they be confined to paying through the nose in order to spend a lifetime living in HMOs (house shares) either would they?

I do accept your point regarding the South being more heavily developed than the North though, however there is still plenty of scope for further development in the south, and to help things further, moving towards a higher density housing model in certain areas too.

It would be nice to see the economy rebalanced to decrease the North -> South divide, so that a more equal share of the employment opportunities, wealth and infrastructure investment can be given directed towards Northern parts of the country too.

Where will it all end, and what do you propose we do to cater for population growth if we can't build enough houses in areas where there is demand (driven by jobs)?

There is scope for more development in the south as I have said but in the areas it is really needed the scope is limited.

I agree it would be good if we could shift more employment away from London.

If you think the infrastructure in the South East is good I suggest you try driving or taking a train into London in the rush hour.

92203

ukcarper wrote: »

How do you propose we go about demolishing all these Victorian terraces and building flats when they are all occupied a large percentage by owner occupiers especially as they are the houses most people seem to want to live in.

Perhaps the problem is not planning restrictions but the lack of planning.

Yes, this too, though it is an undeniable fact that we do need more land to build housing on.

With regard to rebuilding existing residential areas, the fact that we are in general, a nation of homeowners makes this, and indeed any other building or infrastructure projects very difficult indeed.

People understandably have a vested interest in their properties, and will object to anything which will potentially impact upon the value of their home. I have seen this happen first hand in both my home county of Lincolnshire (regarding a proposed new housing estate and the impact it would have on the values of existing homes) and in Nottingham, where many people were against the building of the tram system through their areas.

I think Britain has a number of problems which I'll outline below ;

• Poorly regulated and insecure rental market, with no incentive for either landlord or tenant to invest in maintaining or improving property.
• The above leads towards increased reliance upon home ownership, and is considered to be the only way to build some roots and have a proper home.

This leads to a situation where it is impossible to increase supply to cater for growth, due to a strong and vocal home owning majority, who will vociferously object to any development or infrastructure projects.

We do not have a liberal or joined up planning system, due to the above, which is why we are now in our current situation. Swathes of massively outdated and inefficient (both in terms of space and energy consumption) houses, relatively poor infrastructure, and a rigged land and planning system which prevents these issues being addressed.

Perhaps wide scale home ownership is a significant part of what is wrong with this country, however with the ever worsening supply shortage and poorly managed rentals market, it is the only option for people who want to enjoy relative security and insulation from rent inflation, as the supply shortage worsens.

I will be buying a family home for this very reason. I'd rather rent and be able to move around the country for my job, maybe even work abroad for a few years. However, if I do, I'll probably miss the home ownership boat, and be put at the mercy of the shoddy rental system for the rest of my life.

ukcarper

92203 wrote: »

Yes, this too, though it is an undeniable fact that we do need more land to build housing on.

With regard to rebuilding existing residential areas, the fact that we are in general, a nation of homeowners makes this, and indeed any other building or infrastructure projects very difficult indeed.

People understandably have a vested interest in their properties, and will object to anything which will potentially impact upon the value of their home. I have seen this happen first hand in both my home county of Lincolnshire (regarding a proposed new housing estate and the impact it would have on the values of existing homes) and in Nottingham, where many people were against the building of the tram system through their areas.

I think Britain has a number of problems which I'll outline below ;

• Poorly regulated and insecure rental market, with no incentive for either landlord or tenant to invest in maintaining or improving property.
• The above leads towards increased reliance upon home ownership, and is considered to be the only way to build some roots and have a proper home.

This leads to a situation where it is impossible to increase supply to cater for growth, due to a strong and vocal home owning majority, who will vociferously object to any development or infrastructure projects.

We do not have a liberal or joined up planning system, due to the above, which is why we are now in our current situation. Swathes of massively outdated and inefficient (both in terms of space and energy consumption) houses, relatively poor infrastructure, and a rigged land and planning system which prevents these issues being addressed.

Perhaps wide scale home ownership is a significant part of what is wrong with this country, however with the ever worsening supply shortage and poorly managed rentals market, it is the only option for people who want to enjoy relative security and insulation from rent inflation, as the supply shortage worsens.

I will be buying a family home for this very reason. I'd rather rent and be able to move around the country for my job, maybe even work abroad for a few years. However, if I do, I'll probably miss the home ownership boat, and be put at the mercy of the shoddy rental system for the rest of my life.

I think in general rental accommodation is in good condition the Landlords I know maintain there property to a good standard and are happy to have long term tenants. There are some bad Landlords at the lower end but if you compare property now to the past when tenants did have long term security things have improved.

92203

ukcarper wrote: »

I think in general rental accommodation is in good condition the Landlords I know maintain there property to a good standard and are happy to have long term tenants. There are some bad Landlords at the lower end but if you compare property now to the past when tenants did have long term security things have improved.

Quite possibly, this may be the case in the instances you've mentioned,, though not so much in my experience. Have you lived in rented accommodation recently?

There needs to be more done in terms of being able to enforce repair orders, and also enforce checks on landlords too. For example I do not believe that anyone with convictions for fraud, sex offences, or violent crime should be entrusted with the responsibility of housing people or having access to their homes.

We can argue about this until we're blue in the face, but it still doesn't escape the fact that we have a supply shorage, which disadvantages a large cross secrion of society ; nearly an entire generation.

While the supply shortage may be widely applauded by your landlord acquantances, who will be seeing increased yields and less voids, it is having a terrible effect on the lives of those who did nothing wrong, other than being born too late.

How do we address this issue without liberalising the planning system and increasing supply?

ukcarper

92203 wrote: »

Quite possibly, this may be the case in the instances you've mentioned,, though not so much in my experience. Have you lived in rented accommodation recently?

There needs to be more done in terms of being able to enforce repair orders, and also enforce checks on landlords too. For example I do not believe that anyone with convictions for fraud, sex offences, or violent crime should be entrusted with the responsibility of housing people or having access to their homes.

We can argue about this until we're blue in the face, but it still doesn't escape the fact that we have a supply shorage, which disadvantages a large cross secrion of society ; nearly an entire generation.

While the supply shortage may be widely applauded by your landlord acquantances, who will be seeing increased yields and less voids, it is having a terrible effect on the lives of those who did nothing wrong, other than being born too late.

How do we address this issue without liberalising the planning system and increasing supply?

Builders are sitting on lots of land but because mortgages are hard to come by they are not building. I don't think you will ever be able to build enough property to bring prices down to an affordable level for everyone. So some form of subsidised housing is required I would prefer that to be council type accommodation but as this needs a large upfront investment I can't see in happening.

Personally I haven't rented lately but the Landlords I know keep their properties up to a good standard. I know people who are renting and their properties are ok. I'm sure you wouldn't be prepared to live in the property I lived in the early 60s which was not an unusual property then.

92203

ukcarper wrote: »

Builders are sitting on lots of land but because mortgages are hard to come by they are not building. I don't think you will ever be able to build enough property to bring prices down to an affordable level for everyone. So some form of subsidised housing is required I would prefer that to be council type accommodation but as this needs a large upfront investment I can't see in happening.

Personally I haven't rented lately but the Landlords I know keep their properties up to a good standard. I know people who are renting and their properties are ok. I'm sure you wouldn't be prepared to live in the property I lived in the early 60s which was not an unusual property then.

Firstly, with reference to what you rented back in the 60s. Things have moved on since then, we now have central heating, double glazing, indoor toilets, proper bathrooms, and automatic washing machines. Quite rightly things have advanced quite significantly since then.

Most things have become cheaper as technology and manufacturing techniques have advanced, yet perversely in this country, housing has become more expensive. This is despite all the labour saving machinery, prefabrication and labour saving techniques which have been introduced into the building trade over the past few decades.

Builders are sitting on building plots, because they need to sell at a price which recoups the inflated cost of the land they purchased to build the houses on, the cost of materials, labour, and a profit margin.

Unfortunately, relatively few people are able to raise the required finance to buy such a property as, quite rightly, banks require people to put down a minimum of a 10% deposit.

Because house prices are so out of kilter with wages, saving up a 10% deposit for a house priced by todays standard is no mean feat for many would-be first time buyers. As a consequence, they are unable to get mortgages and buy the builder's houses, or a house from an existing homeowner, who would then go onto buy such a new build.

Of course, the builder's houses don't have to be purchased by owner occupiers. The Buy-to-let brigade could step in and buy them and add some much needed supply to the rental market. I wonder why they don't?

Liberalise the planning system and building land will become less scarce and cheaper for the builders to buy. The builders will be able sell for less and maintain their profit margins, more people will be able to buy, and ultimately housing supply will increase.

Obviously this would have to be done very carefully and gradually, with measures put in place to ensure that existing homeowners and banks remain solvent.

For many people, being born 5-10 years too late has made the difference between being able to pay £350-£400 PCM on a mortgage for a 3 bed semi (bought pre-boom) and have plenty of equity, or £600 PCM rent for a 2 bed flat in a similar area.