The sign of things to come? Amazing!

Gorgeous_George

I'll remove that sentence.



GG

HugoSP

Errata wrote: »

Hugo, that would be one solution. I've got a feeling that central gov is going to vigorously encourage councils and HA's to start building houses/flats again, because it seems to me that part of the present problem is security of tenure.

I fear you could be correct here Errate.

What I have said in another thread is that there are a huge number of houses that are left empty in the UK for a number of reasons. I would be very supportive of any government that used the stick and carrot approach to get these back into occupancy. Charging full or 50% council tax on unnocupied properties is not enough.

I would like to see the real prospect of compulsary purchases on properties that are left vacant and undeveloped for years, as opposed to those that maybe developed on a DIY basis by people simply trying to invest for the future, plus a voluntary tax efficient purchase scheme for others, similar to what I described above.

Such a policy would alleviate demand to a certain extent.

There are currently tax advantages for those who wish to convert properties from commercial to resiential and some other types of projects. We have recently embarked on a project to split a house and an old shop into two 3 bed houses. I am particularly keen on this type of scheme as it makes effective use of a partly redundant building, combining this with one 3 bed house laid out in an inefficient way to create 2 reasonably spacious 3 bed dwellings.

pickles110564

I work hard all my life, save, pay taxes never take any money from the social. I enjoy spending times in other parts of the country, so I buy a holiday home out of the money I have saved and paid tax on and then you want to punish me for working hard, paying taxes and saving.
What a wonderful country you want it to be:mad:

HugoSP

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

The problem is that there are too many people chasing too few houses. The answer is to build more houses.

Hmm, not sure that it is that simple. I say this should be coupled with making use of existing buildings or brownfield sites for redevelopment.

Near me there is a fantastic redevelopment of an old service station into some 12 affordable 3 bed homes with garages underneath! That kind of development is IMO pure genious.

If we are going to build more houses may I suggest building semis with large gardens, two bathrooms and attached garages. There's loads of land available if only the planners cared to free some up. It cannot be right that the population can increase by 10 - 20% but the planners do not allow 10 - 20% more land to be built upon. This policy leads to pokey little homes, flats (or apartments if you prefer) and silly prices.

I'm not sure I fully agree with the sentiments here. Individual housing needs have changed over the years.

1. Regrettably, more families are splitting up, requiring 2 homes whereas previously 1 has sufficed.
2. Most of us no longer grow our own vegetables or keep pigs, unlike some 70 years ago, and hence don't need large gardens to produce our own food. Intensive farming has all but put an end to that.
3. Room sizes may be smaller but rooms are often more plentiful that several years ago. 100 years ago a whole family would have occupied a 1 bed cottage. Now such a family would live in a 3 bed house. The footprint of the house itself may have doubled in that time.

Holiday homes rob coastal villages of their people and legislation should be brought in to return these homes to housing market.

Having lived in such a village I can vouch for the sentiments but I'm not sure that legislation is a way around this. Stiff financial penalties for HH owners who use them as their country pad without letting them most of the year round, would IMO be a good move. Each property in a community should IMO have a part to play in bringing money into that community. To avoid these penalties you either sell up or let it all the year around.

Buying houses to keep them empty, for whatever reason, is just wrong. This has nothing to do with BTL.

Agree 100%. It is these houses being kept empty that fuel the artificial demand for newbuilds

ceridwen

Agree with a lot of what HugoSP says - just one point tho' - decent-sized gardens are needed as much as ever - perhaps more. Many people are looking to use their garden as an extra "room" in effect now - rather than just as a patch of lawn with a few shrubs. Increasingly, people are looking to grow their own food - as organic food is so dear and/or they dislike the lack of variety in the shops. Allotments are nigh on impossible to get in many parts of the country if one needs one due to lack of decent amount of garden space - so this is very necessary.

Fully agree with comment re converting unwanted existing buildings.

Romani_Ite_Domum

An interesting thread.

I would to like to make a few more comments if I may.

Graham_Devon I have sympathy for you father if he had a squatter in his home. Not sure the circumstances but your experience of this may have clouded you judgments on squatters a little.

The use of the word "prejudice" appears to have upset a few people. I used the word because to the following quotes by fellow posters:

"druggie squatters "
"people stealing homes"
"cheering a bunch of people who have minds similar to chavs"
"I hope all of them get made to pay for the damage they have caused "
"People can't afford houses so they have decided to steal them instead. Its called sponging."
"I hope people will still be celebrating when the crusties 'liberate' your flat-screen TV and take your 4x4 into 'collective ownership".
"You lot are utterly deluded, and chav scum comes to mind"
"Go and vandalise other peoples goods because YOU want it "
"or they get on t'bike and go where they can earn a wage rather than loll about on benefits, smoking dope then steal other people's property."

Oh and sheraz2, thanks for the PM. I will not quote it as that would be bad forum etiquette.

IMHO to assume that the above is true of squatters would be prejudice. I have only personally known 2 squatting families in my lifetime. Both were hard working, honest people who paid taxes, didn't take drugs or steal things. One couple were teachers living in London and the others worked in agriculture in Cornwall. They maintained/improved the houses they were living in. I am sure that many others will quote bad experiences with squatters but I think the OP story reveals that decent people may have been driven to this because of the housing crisis in Cornwall.

As far as protesting to Government is concerned, this is already being done. Personally, I have never voted for NuLabour. I have always voted for the candidate rather than the party. My elected MP has been campaigning for something to be done about the growing housing problem for a decade. He has been campaigning to introduce measures similar to those that Guy_Montag has made in post #89


furby-2003 The comment "It is you lot that are deluded" was in response to "You lot are utterly deluded, and chav scum comes to mind." in post #54. I try to avoid attacking posters personally. Sometimes you get drawn in to fighting fire with fire.
As you have family that live in St Ives, you must understand the plight of young families living there. It will be hard on your cousins children in the future if nothing is done. I would not support squatting in somebody's family home.

ceridwen. You have made some good unpolarised points. It is the obsession with investment in property that is the problem.

Ad - I totally agree that many second homes are funded on BTL mortgages. I could go out and get a second home in the UK tomorrow. As far as I know it is mortgage fraud to use a BTL mortgage for a holiday home. Lenders don't mind as long as the payments are made.
jonbvn: to say this is "Completely unsubstantiated BS!" is a little naive.

Pobby has a good point in post #121. Basically the hard working people with homes are worried that their pension will not be big enough and invest in property to subsidise this, whereas the hard working people who cannot afford a property will still be worried about their pension and be paying rent in retirement. The social divide will just get bigger.

keeperbear: It is not a crime to own 2 properties but there again neither is squatting. There is a difference in moral standing the two arguments . To suggest that people on one side of the argument are "communists" is akin to saying the opposite view is fascist. I think socialists and capitalist would be more appropriate. I am glad you agree that it is an "An impending social disaster " and yes it was started by the Tories. However, I believe that Thatcher's plan to have an owner-occupier country was a good one. The problem is that the RTB scheme meant that social housing stock was reduced with out being replaced. NuLabour could have addressed this in the last decade but instead appear to have come up with BTL, which moves social housing into the private domain. A socialist government would not have done this.


Just to put the record straight. I do not condone stealing, damage to property, invasion of peoples permanent homes. I would support squatting in empty houses that have been bought for investment and have been left empty. It would be great if the problem of second homes in Cornwall and other parts of the country was addressed without resorting to squatting.

Oh and I do own my own house, worked hard all my life, save, pay taxes never take any money from the social. I enjoy spending times in other parts of the country.I choose not to but a holiday home or a BTL because my morals are different than those who choose to do so.


Sorry for the late reply to these points.

Errata

I thought that local authorities could now compulsorily purchase properties that were left empty for an unreasonalble length of time -
or did I dream that

Landlords play an important part in the housing supply, but tenants have no security of tenure which can lead to them feeling transient and not wishing to contribute to the community in which they live in terms of lobbying against school closures, for a modern medical centre for example.

I don't worry about property companies that have a very large portfolio, but I do have concerns about people with one or perhaps two BTL's who will need to sell up should they hit stormy weather, resulting in tenants being uprooted against their needs or wishes.

If anyone can afford a holiday home then I strongly feel that they should be taxed substantially on it, unless they let it to locals for say 6 months of each year, as no property owner can live in two properties at the same time.
I honestly don't know where this house crisis is going to go, and there's no doubt that it is a crisis with even those able to buy a one bedder having absolutely no prospect of buying a two bedder when they start a family.

20 years ago a comic bumper sticker read 'Retired and spending the kids inheritance' That now seems to strike a very sour note. I fear we are rapidly becoming two nations - The Haves and The Have Nots, which can only result in a more divisive and angry society which isn't good for any of us.

Pobby

Romani.Great,well thought out post!

TJ27

Errata wrote: »

I thought that local authorities could now compulsorily purchase properties that were left empty for an unreasonalble length of time -
or did I dream that

Nope, you didn't dream it. Colleagues of mine have already compulsory purchased several such houses and we have several more targeted.

I don't think we're especially worried about who occupies houses, or whether they are rented, owned, council, whatever. The point is that it's absolutely ludicrous to have empty houses around when there are homeless people on the streets. Councils can CP "problem vacants" and bring them back into occupation and I believe this to be a sound policy. Holiday homes are a bit different. Only a bit though in my opinion, they are still unoccupied for most of the yeart after all.

Errata

Can't remember it's name, but there's a small village in Cumbria which is nine tenths empty for most of the year because of holiday home owners.