How Many Spare Houses Would We Have If ....

PasturesNew

... the following were reversed and disallowed:

- furreners without legitimate work sent packing
- all Universities to provide all student accommodation in purpose-built units
- you could only own a 2nd home/holiday home if it'd been in your family for over 10 years (e.g. parents' inheritance of the old family home), or if it were with holiday restricted use, or a lodge/caravan/similar?

That's a lot of housing that's being mismanaged, misused, wasted.

ging84

so does that mean you can't be a landlord? atleast not one who owns another home

CLAPTON

PasturesNew wrote: »

... the following were reversed and disallowed:

- furreners without legitimate work sent packing
- all Universities to provide all student accommodation in purpose-built units
- you could only own a 2nd home/holiday home if it'd been in your family for over 10 years (e.g. parents' inheritance of the old family home), or if it were with holiday restricted use, or a lodge/caravan/similar?

That's a lot of housing that's being mismanaged, misused, wasted.

No idea how many foreigners there are that don't work (does that include non working partners, parents, children)

The land Unis use for students could be used of working people so it is as much a drain on housing resources as students flat sharing in private accommodation

I can see no merit in allowing two homes simply because it's inherited and been in the family 10 years (would simply mean old people wouldn't move or downsize)


I can see no merit in encouraging 'restricted use homes. why is that a good thing?

PasturesNew

ging84 wrote: »

so does that mean you can't be a landlord? atleast not one who owns another home

That would come under new rules.... e.g. a proper business set up to act as landlords, rather than "random couple who watched HutH, went to an auction and won one by accident", which is what often happens.

Proper business .... not amateur hobbyists.

BobQ

Unless we built some more, we have the same number as before.

I doubt the above would create spare houses because others would occupy them.

Your restrictions on occupation are in my view unworkable.

For example building halls of residence might be helpful but are you seriously saying that parents who wanted to help their student offspring buy a house should be stopped from doing so?

Banning second homes seems attractive but why is it OK for you to own a second home because you were left it by a relative buy not OK for me to buy one because I want one? Equally some people need a second home to live in during the week because their work takes them away from home to work.

What next? Do you have a spare room in your home, suppose we said that you should sell it and buy a smaller home?

Nikkster

But on the other hand, many furreners occupy houses/ flats(/ sheds) in a much higher density than locals (e.g. beds in sheds).

Likewise student houses where the living/ dining rooms are converted to bedrooms.

Maybe it's the underoccupied homes that are the problem?

PasturesNew

CLAPTON wrote: »

No idea how many foreigners there are that don't work (does that include non working partners, parents, children)

The land Unis use for students could be used of working people so it is as much a drain on housing resources as students flat sharing in private accommodation

I can see no merit in allowing two homes simply because it's inherited and been in the family 10 years (would simply mean old people wouldn't move or downsize)


I can see no merit in encouraging 'restricted use homes. why is that a good thing?

Not sure what that first question means really .... I mean "as a family unit" if they've arrived as one. If they're working/paying their way, then I wouldn't care if they had 12 of their family, not working (not claiming) .... but if they're all just occupying valuable space here without any good reason then they might as well go home.

Not sure what that means - is there a typo in there somewhere?

Well, there are some people who hold homes for sentimental reasons, or historic reasons. It's more about stopping people buying them just for profit, then leaving them empty most of the year as while they're sitting there, not even being used, they're gaining in value.

Restricted holiday homes means it's more likely that they are being bought as holiday homes and not purely as speculative investment.

PasturesNew

Nikkster wrote: »

But on the other hand, many furreners occupy houses/ flats(/ sheds) in a much higher density than locals (e.g. beds in sheds).

Likewise student houses where the living/ dining rooms are converted to bedrooms.

Maybe it's the underoccupied homes that are the problem?

Those sheds could be occupied by our current homeless!

Re under-occupation, that's because they don't build enough smaller homes that aren't [a] cramped disproportionately expensive If you want a 1-bed house round my way it'll cost you about £180-200k and you'll have a choice of one. If you want a 3-bed house it'll cost you £190-300k and you'll have a choice of 1001.

People don't/won't downsize because there's a lack of choice and what is out there's disproportionately priced for what you get.

PasturesNew

BobQ wrote: »

Unless we built some more, we have the same number as before.

Same number, but people who are finding a shortage of houses will find there are now more available. It's the availability of what we've got that's an issue.

BobQ wrote: »

I doubt the above would create spare houses because others would occupy them.

If all 2nd homes emptied magically at midnight tonight, half of Cornwall would be empty for starters!

If all student properties emptied magically at midnight tonight, all student houses would be empty.

That's "creation". Others would occupy them - that's the point. People would occupy them as long-term homes.

BobQ wrote: »

Your restrictions on occupation are in my view unworkable.

For example building halls of residence might be helpful but are you seriously saying that parents who wanted to help their student offspring buy a house should be stopped from doing so?

I don't know anything about "parents who wanted to help their student offspring buy a house..." as I've never known anybody that did that (but then I've rarely met a student either). That could be allowed as it's the kids' house.

BobQ wrote: »

Banning second homes seems attractive but why is it OK for you to own a second home because you were left it by a relative buy not OK for me to buy one because I want one? Equally some people need a second home to live in during the week because their work takes them away from home to work.

What next? Do you have a spare room in your home, suppose we said that you should sell it and buy a smaller home?

I was just being compassionate to those with a genuine sentimental and long-standing situation.

People don't need a second home to live in during the week - I've done that and rented a short-term studio flatlet, stayed in the spare room of private houses and used cheap B&Bs.

I do have a 2nd bedroom - I'd have bought a 1-bed except there was only one for sale when I was looking and it was the same price. On the other hand, I didn't go looking for a 3-bed, or 4-bed, or even desire that.

cells

PasturesNew wrote: »

... the following were reversed and disallowed:

- furreners without legitimate work sent packing
- all Universities to provide all student accommodation in purpose-built units
- you could only own a 2nd home/holiday home if it'd been in your family for over 10 years (e.g. parents' inheritance of the old family home), or if it were with holiday restricted use, or a lodge/caravan/similar?

That's a lot of housing that's being mismanaged, misused, wasted.

the answer is none, we would just live less dense

PasturesNew

cells wrote: »

the answer is none, we would just live less dense

Well, now you're just nit-picking over my poor use of phrase!

What I meant .... was too big for the title box. And I didn't think it through as I know what I meant.

I meant: how much better could we use the housing stock if: ...

I guess.