Right to buy to be extended

fordcapri2000

chucknorris wrote: »

Unusually I agree with you, but for different reasons, not because I think that it is unfair to potential and recent private buyers (which it might well be). But I believe that social housing needs to be increased, not diminished by being sold off. It should be kept for the purpose that it was originally devised for, which was to provide affordable housing for those that can't otherwise afford it, rather than provide a windfall for someone who will/may eventually sell it on, when it could then end up being rented out at full market rent.

And I am supposed to be flattered?

Bit full of yourself

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Seems to me you are living on a completely different planet with not a clue what you are typing.

and you were telling me only a short time ago that police, nurses etc lived in social housing

are they your idea of the 'poor'?

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

and you were telling me only a short time ago that police, nurses etc lived in social housing

are they your idea of the 'poor'?

It's pretty obvious you are leading us down a definition argument for the sake of it here, so I don't really want to get involved.

But to explain the nurses situation to you, as it appears you need it explaining.

Nurses, policemen etc are not paid huge salaries. Often single parents too. And if you live in the South West or South East, yes, you are relatively poor compared to the cost of housing when looking at childcare costs etc. This was, though, in response to you claiming that everyone in council or social housing was of the "undeserving class".

You'v now gone on and stated that council houses have never housed the poor. That's utter rot and you know it.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's pretty obvious you are leading us down a definition argument for the sake of it here, so I don't really want to get involved.

But to explain the nurses situation to you, as it appears you need it explaining.

Nurses, policemen etc are not paid huge salaries. Often single parents too. And if you live in the South West or South East, yes, you are relatively poor compared to the cost of housing when looking at childcare costs etc. This was, though, in response to you claiming that everyone in council or social housing was of the "undeserving class".

You'v now gone on and stated that council houses have never housed the poor. That's utter rot and you know it.

try and grasp the important principles and not some pedantic detail of no consequence

chucknorris

fordcapri2000 wrote: »

And I am supposed to be flattered?

Bit full of yourself

Don't you think it is a bit ironic, the so called socialist (you) whinges and complains that he is worse off because of the selling of social housing, and yet the so called capitalist (me) agrees that it is wrong in principle, but because it should remain a subsidy for the poorer off in life? I think that you haven't understood at all what my post actually said, did you? Maybe you should go back and read my post again.

BobQ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No, didn't see that.

The programme I watched didn't really show the basements themselves, or the properties. Was more about non-doms and what they bring to the country, how they employ people etc.

Clearly they are employing people and money was changing hands in this country, as the basements proved. But they were also making money in this country by directly targetting the less well off and creating multiple, tiny homes within one home and renting them out at pretty high rents. THAT part invariably cost us, the taxpayer, as people still required support to pay the rents on these places.

Just struck me as wrong. Maybe "victorian" as another poster suggested.

I recall seeing a similar programme about a couple doing this to a London house. It was focussed on the disruption to the neighbours of months of pile driving and excavation.

There was also someone on the TV last night who had been refused permission to do something like this and had a novel protest about it.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/14/candy-stripe-house-redesign-makes-kensington-neighbours-see-red

Sapphire

The programme on late Tuesday evening (BBC2) featured many cases of individuals excavating under houses in London, work which goes on for years in some cases and affects nearby properties in terms of noise and structural damage in major ways. I have no idea why such individuals are ever given permission to destroy London's architectural history in such ways (probably involves pay-offs, etc.). It was a very interesting programme – you should see it in you can.

BobQ wrote: »

I recall seeing a similar programme about a couple doing this to a London house. It was focussed on the disruption to the neighbours of months of pile driving and excavation.

There was also someone on the TV last night who had been refused permission to do something like this and had a novel protest about it.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/14/candy-stripe-house-redesign-makes-kensington-neighbours-see-red

Mallotum_X

vivatifosi wrote: »

St Albans is an area I know well Moby. In answer to your question, they either buy somewhere cheaper, such as up the train line in Luton, or stay in St Albans, over occupying the space (e.g. parents sleeping in living room so kids get bedroom), or living in places that desperately need renovating, but worrying that the landlord will do this and put the rent up.

Exactly this, I live in Luton and increasing number from out of town are moving in as prices are lower, although also increasing quickly due to people relocating. That said you can still get a 3 bed semi in a decent area for under 250k.

Our new neighbours are a couple from St Albans, moved out of a flat to get a 3 bed house for only a little more than their place sold for.

People just adapt and move to other areas.

westernpromise

CLAPTON wrote: »

where in London can you buy a plot of land sufficient for 4 flats for £125k?

I don't know where specifically, because I'm not in the market, but my calculation is as follows. If you look at this data

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/305680/Table_563_-_Discontinued.xls

...you can see that in 2010, the average price of a hectare of residential building land in London was about 6.5 million quid. I haven't found a reference for what it is now, but let's say it's 8 million a hectare.

The average UK house is much less than a hectare - only about 76 square metres in fact.
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14916580)

Let's double it to allow for a garden (or space to park 4 or 5 cars), and call it 150 square metres. 150 square metres are 0.015 of a hectare.

So your land would cost 0.015 x £8 million = £120,000.

So a plot big enough for 4 flats could certainly be had for the kind of money I'm suggesting in London.

You then build something like the converted houses in Maida Vale or Notting Hill, where you've got four floors, one flat per floor. You get four onto one plot, and as long as you can build them for less than £875k, you get back four extra homes for every four you've sold.

Where there were four rented homes, there are now four owner-occupied homes plus four new homes, making eight.

westernpromise

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Not sure you got the point. The cost is ours, either way.

On tory figures, this will cost the taxpayer £17.5bn over the next parliament.

A million new shared ownership homes would also cost the taxpayer £17.5bn.

Either way, the taxpayer shells out £17.5bn. One policy helps a maximum of 135,000 families.

The other policy helps 1,000,000 families.

Honestly. There is no argument here that proves that the RTB policy is the best use of the money here. But do feel free to try.

So they can build a home for £17,500? I have trouble believing this.