Are new houses really needed ?.

pbouk

There are more than enough houses in England at the moment, if there was not enough houses, there would be many more homeless on the streets.
It's all about buliding new homes to fuel house prices and make people believe they are richer than they actually are.

michaels

pbouk wrote: »

It's all about buliding new homes to fuel house prices and make people believe they are richer than they actually are.

You may need to explain your logic on this one ?

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

pbouk wrote: »

There are more than enough houses in England at the moment, if there was not enough houses, there would be many more homeless on the streets.
It's all about buliding new homes to fuel house prices and make people believe they are richer than they actually are.

!!!!!! have u got into the cleaning cupboard again....

gazter

nickj wrote: »

my local council plans to build aroud 10k houses to cope with the demand, where is this demand , it's not from local people as there are only around 50k in the district , the demand comes from people who think they'd like to move here because it's a nice area , the 1/2 million pound houses they are building now aren't going to be much use for people who are paid a pitance

I doubt your council is planning to build any houses.

nickj_2

gazter wrote: »

I doubt your council is planning to build any houses.

they will be giving permission for new builds and in fact they have already started ,as there have been several new developments already started
of course the district needs new housing , but they should be houses that the average man on the street can afford without having to mortgage themselves up to their necks . when i moved into my house , everyone who lived there was in a similar position to me , tradesmen , shop workers ftb's, now there are teachers , scientists and the like , the working class person has been priced out

CLAPTON

nickj wrote: »

they will be giving permission for new builds and in fact they have already started ,as there have been several new developments already started
of course the district needs new housing , but they should be houses that the average man on the street can afford without having to mortgage themselves up to their necks . when i moved into my house , everyone who lived there was in a similar position to me , tradesmen , shop workers ftb's, now there are teachers , scientists and the like , the working class person has been priced out

so are you saying that they should
-very very small and cheap?
-subsidised by the council tax payer?

Bantex_2

pbouk wrote: »

There are more than enough houses in England at the moment, if there was not enough houses, there would be many more homeless on the streets.
It's all about buliding new homes to fuel house prices and make people believe they are richer than they actually are.

Where are all these people who have not got anywhere to live?

Graham_Devon

I don't know if the original figure is correct, however, there was a big thing near me recently highlighting the issue that a lot of homes were empty for 11 months of the year.

All of those homes will, I assume, be paying council tax, so won't come under the figures posted above.

But those homes ARE empty for 11 months of the year or around about that figure. I guess this would be better defined as underused rather than empty, even if they are empty 90% of the year.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I don't know if the original figure is correct, however, there was a big thing near me recently highlighting the issue that a lot of homes were empty for 11 months of the year.

All of those homes will, I assume, be paying council tax, so won't come under the figures posted above.

But those homes ARE empty for 11 months of the year or around about that figure. I guess this would be better defined as underused rather than empty, even if they are empty 90% of the year.

presumably you are talking about holiday homes and holiday lets ?
why would you describe something, that is designed to be used for only a limited period each year, as being 'underused'

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But those homes ARE empty for 11 months of the year or around about that figure. I guess this would be better defined as underused rather than empty, even if they are empty 90% of the year.

That's to be expected. Holiday homes get used for...err...holidays.

Building sufficient homes to cover the demand from the second homers and full time residents would help. I guess that wouldn't make you feel as good as a ban on holiday lets and second homes despite being less effective in dealing with a housing shortage.