Housing-A history of Britain in numbers.....

the_flying_pig

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I know.

You almost never do.:o

Lets see what Shelter have to say.....



Now, I know, Shelter have a VI and that text almost certainly wasn't written by a 'proper' economist.

So lets move on....

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation are pretty well respected, and certainly less political than Shelter.

What do they have to say?



Ouch.

Looks like Lillico is starting to be in, well, a 'minority of one'.

So what is the mainstream analysis of that Census data he quotes?



Ooops.

Sounds like a housing shortage to me.

I wonder what others are thinking?



And....



Weird.....

Why it's almost as if people are being forced to live with their parents or in HMO-s as there simply aren't enough houses to go around.

I don't suppose that massive shortage of housing could also be responsible for the significant increase in prices?

Basic supply and demand theory, but of course that couldn't possibly be correct as Andrew Lillico said it wasn't so.....

Right?

you're being very silly about this.

as you may or may not remember/care i applied "minority of one" to one thing only, namely your absurd claim that the debate over HTB can be boiled down to one thing only, namely whether you wanted hard-working young couples [sob, god bless 'em] to own their own homes or whether you wanted to [boo, hiss] shove them heartlessly into the arms of rachmanesque landlords. i repeat, this claim is absurd & your making of it is, as far as i know, unique to you.

as for the lilico thing, i said of it before posting, "i'm not saying that it uniquely & perfectly explains every last thing that's going on [i'll leave that kind of silly hyperbole to the usual debt cheerleading suspects] but it's an interesting perspective nonetheless". in other words i billed it in a very balanced & measured way. you're the one who's wheeled out all the playground !!!!. and as far as i can see you've not come anywhere close to a cogent explanation of why his stats on dwellings vs. households [the balance isn't getting any worse over time] is misleading.

i think you're probably trying to say [and i don't know why i'm helping you here] something like:

(1) an increasingly large number of these households are 'households' only through forced necessity [i.e. HMOs composed of adults who'd rather not be living together] - in an unconstrained world they'd divide into multiple households;
(2) because there are other trends going on, such as a much older population, loads of widow[er]s & empty nesters, average household sizes are about flat [though for some reason you argue that they're falling & bang on about this like it's the most important point in the world supporting your whatever current form your armchair 'grand theory' of house prices & the economy is taking] rather than going up, meaning that if you were to look for evidence of effect (1) in average household size data you wouldn't see it.

in short i think you're probably agreeing [if lilico's data is the right data - perhaps he's just plucked out the wrong data series, though you don't seem to be suggesting this?] that neither the number of dwellings per head nor the number of dwellings per household has particularly fallen, but are arguing the the population has an appetite for smaller household size & hence an increase in the number of dwellings per head/household.

Generali

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Chicken-feed.

In nearby Chigwell [home of the footballers] the council wants to build 1,250 homes but the residents aren't having it!

http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/10031391.New_homes_protesters_determined_to_keep_fighting/

I must say it's totally inappropriate for such a small parish - already paralysed by traffic. The development would increase the population by around 25%. That's bad enough, but with the current rules on 'affordable homes' it would increase the 'pleb count' to intolerable levels!

Rich footballers (and their WAGS) do not sink £3 million into a cosy home, only to bump into single parent mothers or burger flippers while having a quiet spritzer in the King William!

Well they've got to live somewhere. As always the attitude is, 'I don't want new houses within 10 miles of me'.

cells

Generali wrote: »

Well they've got to live somewhere. As always the attitude is, 'I don't want new houses within 10 miles of me'.

the main problem is that the council have local plans which set out the number of homes they want to see by year x and they effectively allocate and grant PP with that number in mind. eg they are not going to grant 50% more than that number and they are going to try to not grant a great deal below it

That in itself isnt toooo bad a method (although it isnt a good method either). The real problem is that the dam little hitlers in the council ALWAYS opt for a far too low a figure and more often than not underhit that figure too.

Each and every council should be forced to allocate land and grant PP to see their patch expand by 15% a decade. In crude numbers that would mean the uk grants about 550k planning stamps a year and sees about 400k starts a year (that is what happens in france currently, stock expands by ~15% a decade and they grants circa 550k building permits a year and see about 400k starts a year)

If a council does not hit that 1.5% allocation per year, it should be extremely heavily fined.


So the idiots in chigwell can be given a choice,
Council: ok guys we let them build the 1.5% this year or we will need to triple your council tax to pay for the fine of not building that.

Going4TheDream

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Chicken-feed.

In nearby Chigwell [home of the footballers] the council wants to build 1,250 homes but the residents aren't having it!

http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/10031391.New_homes_protesters_determined_to_keep_fighting/

I must say it's totally inappropriate for such a small parish - already paralysed by traffic. The development would increase the population by around 25%. That's bad enough, but with the current rules on 'affordable homes' it would increase the 'pleb count' to intolerable levels!

Rich footballers (and their WAGS) do not sink £3 million into a cosy home, only to bump into single parent mothers or burger flippers while having a quiet spritzer in the King William!

NIMBY'ism at its finest

Loughton_Monkey

Going4TheDream wrote: »

NIMBY'ism at its finest

Well we're in Europe now. Personally, I believe that if we need another million homes, then let's build them! In France.

cells wrote: »

....So the idiots in chigwell can be given a choice,
Council: ok guys we let them build the 1.5% this year or we will need to triple your council tax to pay for the fine of not building that.

Not a bad idea, but to be fair, I don't think Chigwell would mind another 1,250 homes, provided they were all 'tasteful' and cost between £2m and £5m. Alan Sugar doesn't want to look out of his bedroom window every morning and gaze at a 330 house development of semi's....

Generali wrote: »

Well they've got to live somewhere. As always the attitude is, 'I don't want new houses within 10 miles of me'.

I think that's a bit extreme. I would be happy if my nearest neighbour was 2 miles away. The psychology of NIMBYism comes out quite clearly in campsites. I go for 8 weeks every year, before the main season and so the sites are relatively empty. I (and most Brits) will take a look round and pitch in the far corner, preferably not facing anyone else. Others come and pick their own isolated spot.

For some reason, it's the [mainly] Dutch who tend to show no inhibitions at all. They'll happily plonk their large caravan 4 feet in front of your main tent awning, ruining your view, and believe that three 2 to 4-year-olds crawling all over your plot, playing with your guy ropes, and throwing their dirty pampers at your car is "OK".

ging84

i do love stories about the squalid conditions and lack of toilets in scotland

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

the main problem is that the council have local plans which set out the number of homes they want to see by year x and they effectively allocate and grant PP with that number in mind. eg they are not going to grant 50% more than that number and they are going to try to not grant a great deal below it

That in itself isnt toooo bad a method (although it isnt a good method either). The real problem is that the dam little hitlers in the council ALWAYS opt for a far too low a figure and more often than not underhit that figure too.

Each and every council should be forced to allocate land and grant PP to see their patch expand by 15% a decade. In crude numbers that would mean the uk grants about 550k planning stamps a year and sees about 400k starts a year (that is what happens in france currently, stock expands by ~15% a decade and they grants circa 550k building permits a year and see about 400k starts a year)

If a council does not hit that 1.5% allocation per year, it should be extremely heavily fined.


So the idiots in chigwell can be given a choice,
Council: ok guys we let them build the 1.5% this year or we will need to triple your council tax to pay for the fine of not building that.

That is the main problem you cannot have a fixed amount for each town or village as all places are different and so is the amount of new development they can take. What is need is proper planning not some ad hoc approach.

zagubov

Considering tha eye-watering palatial deluxe prices our houses attract would it be asking too much that when they're built they be insulated properly so they don't kill an extra 5000 of us a year compared with far colder Sweden :eek:

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

That is the main problem you cannot have a fixed amount for each town or village as all places are different and so is the amount of new development they can take. What is need is proper planning not some ad hoc approach.

All good and well but the 'proper planning' youask for has failed this country over the last two decades.

You could have councils pay each other for more or less builds.

So each council would be forced to expand by 15%. Those that can not or don't want to could pay another council yo nake up the difference. A bit like a vap and trade system. What you will likely find is that nost councils do find ways to expand in their own areas rather than pay for another council to expand for them.

Whats certain is that the current system is not fit for purpose

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

All good and well but the 'proper planning' youask for has failed this country over the last two decades.

You could have councils pay each other for more or less builds.

So each council would be forced to expand by 15%. Those that can not or don't want to could pay another council yo nake up the difference. A bit like a vap and trade system. What you will likely find is that nost councils do find ways to expand in their own areas rather than pay for another council to expand for them.

Whats certain is that the current system is not fit for purpose

it would be impossible to increase the size of my for want of a better term village on 3 sides there is no land between adjoining town and villages the other side is used by army. There is a small nature reserve which consist mainly of lakes so I suppose the lakes could be drain and property could be built there.