Action on Rabbit Hutches?

OffGridLiving

Graham_Devon wrote: »

OK. Well that's one house on one estate by one builder. Not sure we can conclude therefore there are no issues.

Anyway, said my bit and don't believe there is anything, bar man made issues, stopping houses having just slightly more space than a lot of current new builds do.

There obviously is an issue, as the government have had enough pressure to look into it.

There is absolutely nothing stopping builders from building larger homes - they do it already, but they obviously cost more to build and therefore more to buy. Buyers can choose whether or not to pay a premium for a larger home, it's a free country.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

OK. Well that's one house on one estate by one builder. Not sure we can conclude therefore there are no issues.

Anyway, said my bit and don't believe there is anything, bar man made issues, stopping houses having just slightly more space than a lot of current new builds do.

There obviously is an issue, as the government have had enough pressure to look into it.

What about this one then

http://www.lindenhomes.co.uk/developments/cornwall/liskerrett-vale-liskeard/availability-prices/home-140

chucky

OffGridLiving wrote: »

I'd be interested to see what breakdown you thought was acceptable?

Interestingly despite Graham ranting that property in Devon is unaffordable, Brit was kind enough to start this thread which highlighted a few bits of hypocrisy even though they are areas with average crime rates and look quite affordable to buy with the average salary.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3281602

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Though I have to say, I cannot agree. To many other things to find money for, such as pensions, kids, food etc.

Not sure how demanding that new houses be bigger and presumably more expensive is going to help with this equation. Wouldn't a smaller rather than bigger house allow more money for food?

Builders build what they can sell. If there was no demand for the houses they build then no-one would buy them.

thescouselander

You'd have to be nuts to buy a new build. We've been looking at new builds from a whole range of developers for a while now and none of them are a practical proposition for living in.

The bedrooms tend to be too small to hold a bed and furniture. There's seldom anywhere to keep things like hoovers and ironing boards etc and there's never enough space in the kitchen for the full set of white goods (fridge/freezer, washing machine, dish washer and dryer).

The outside space is even worse with miniscule gardens and nowhere to keep the many recycling bins the council issue these days. Also the road space out side is so narrow that just one van or 4x4 will block the whole road (which is inevitable since most plots only come with one parking space).

All of that for premium of about 30% - not worth it in my opinion. Most people are probably just sucked in by the flashy show homes with 3/4 size furniture to make them seem bigger.

CLAPTON

thescouselander wrote: »

You'd have to be nuts to buy a new build. We've been looking at new builds from a whole range of developers for a while now and none of them are a practical proposition for living in.

The bedrooms tend to be too small to hold a bed and furniture. There's seldom anywhere to keep things like hoovers and ironing boards etc and there's never enough space in the kitchen for the full set of white goods (fridge/freezer, washing machine, dish washer and dryer).

The outside space is even worse with miniscule gardens and nowhere to keep the many recycling bins the council issue these days. Also the road space out side is so narrow that just one van or 4x4 will block the whole road (which is inevitable since most plots only come with one parking space).

All of that for premium of about 30% - not worth it in my opinion. Most people are probably just sucked in by the flashy show homes with 3/4 size furniture to make them seem bigger.

apparently there are people who buy bottled water:

I know you won't believe it but I am assured that it is true

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

.....Your average worker would have to work a quarter of their working life to earn £300,000 and we haven't even considered interest payments. For me, personally, that's the issue. Not the size of the room per-se, but the cost of it.

CLAPTON wrote: »

one would suppose that 25% of one'e income over one's working life is equivalent to 1/4 of one's working life's earning;

this seems completely reasonable for a house

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I can't say I'm surprised by your conclusion to be honest.

Though I have to say, I cannot agree. To many other things to find money for, such as pensions, kids, food etc.

Goats and Monkeys, Graham!

I don't know if you ever sit down and wonder why - on housing issues at least - it appears to be "The world v Graham Devon" on this forum. Or that most posters jump on your comments with a degree of derision.. absolutely gobsmacked by your rather 'unique' views...

But if you ever do, then the above routine and everyday example might suggest a reason to you.

You start off with the usual crass statement about how long the 'average' worker [i.e. c £26K] would take to earn £300K - the price of a specific house. Whenever have you heard of a £26K worker bought a £300K house straight off [without lottery win/inheritance, wife earning £50K....]. People tell you time and time again that 'average' people cannot and do not buy their first house at almost double the national average price!

Clapton 'humours' you by pointing out that 25% doesn't look too bad... a figure you don't disagree with...

... and you end up tacitly accepting that 25% is too much because there are other priorities like pension kids and food!

You seem to be rejecting the whole idea of 'investing' 25% of one's income into a roof over their heads. As anyone who buys their own house will tell you, 25% is a 'typical' amount we pay [for repayment of capital and mortgage interest] over our working lives, after which we get the remaining 30 years 'free'. My own figure is over 30%.

Following that logic for your 'average' joe at £26K, we find that 25% of this gives precisely £541.67 per month for rent. This implies he has got his priorities wrong and should live somewhere cheaper? Put more into pension? - Well he'll need that to pay his rent for 30 years of retirement.....

Now I just know what you're thinking. You're going to try hard to weasel you way out by saying that 'your' 25% [in your totally and utterly unrealistic example] was capital cost only, and if you add interest it's more like 35/40% of income for average joe...... but that's irrelevant, because that whole post is nonsense anyway.

You failed, anyway, to raise this after Clapton's post, preferring simply to imply that 25% is too much. Do the maths. Anyone buying a first house, at traditional rates, traditional salary multiples/deposits is going to be paying something not too far from that straight away, and subsequent interest rises and upsizing plus other costs of ownership will keep it at that sort of ballpark figure.

I would be interested to learn exactly what percentage of income is "correct" under your own priority system? Take a 'typical' sort of John Doe who possibly starts off earning £18K [today's values] and works steadily upwards, retiring on, say, a very decent £50K. Using the 25% rule of thumb, the cost of housing would be only £375 a month, rising to £1,042 a month when the guy would be expected to be living in a 'decent' 3/4 bed house....

So what percentage are you thinking of?

thescouselander

CLAPTON wrote: »

apparently there are people who buy bottled water:

I know you won't believe it but I am assured that it is true

At least if I bought a bottle of water it would be fit for purpose and quench my thirst. A new house, on the other hand, would be totally inadequate for its intended purpose.

CLAPTON

thescouselander wrote: »

At least if I bought a bottle of water it would be fit for purpose and quench my thirst. A new house, on the other hand, would be totally inadequate for its intended purpose.

intended purpose?

by whom?

by you or the purchaser?

OffGridLiving

thescouselander wrote: »

At least if I bought a bottle of water it would be fit for purpose and quench my thirst. A new house, on the other hand, would be totally inadequate for its intended purpose.

If you wanted to have a bath and bought a small bottle of water to fill it, then it wouldn't be fit for purpose. You'd then have to make the choice of whether to buy more water to fill the bath or pour the bottle over your head and take a shower instead.

A new house on the same hand can be a shower or a bath, depending on whether you're willing to spend the extra money.