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

seven-day-weekend

CLAPTON wrote: »

good to teach the lesson that success isn't about working hard or gaining qualification etc but all depends upon a ballot.

obviously no-one would ever move out and lose all that subsidised accommodation

anyway what about the people who aren't successful ? Does your plan exclude them ?

I don't actually like the idea much either, but I think if there is going to be 'allocation' of rented affordable housing, and there is not enough to go round, then 'names out of hats' is a much fairer system than one based on some housing officer's idea of 'need'. At least everyone stands the same chance of their name being pulled out of the hat. Under the 'needs-based' allocation, many people will stand no chance whatsoever.

I would make exception for those who need specialist housing.

The people who aren't successful? There will be those who are not successful under needs-based allocation too. No difference there.

The only way is to build enough suitable housing, and also by encouraging those who wish to, to house-share.

CLAPTON

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I don't actually like the idea much either, but I think if there is going to be 'allocation' of rented affordable housing, and there is not enough to go round, then 'names out of hats' is a much fairer system than one based on some housing officer's idea of 'need'. At least everyone stands the same chance of their name being pulled out of the hat. Under the 'needs-based' allocation, many people will stand no chance whatsoever.

I would make exception for those who need specialist housing.

The people who aren't successful? There will be those who are not successful under needs-based allocation too. No difference there.

The only way is to build enough suitable housing, and also by encouraging those who wish to, to house-share.

better to simply sell them on the open market and use the money raised to build more or in other ways.

seven-day-weekend

CLAPTON wrote: »

better to simply sell them on the open market and use the money raised to build more or in other ways.

For those that are sold, yes. I was referring to those that are rented.

CLAPTON

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

For those that are sold, yes. I was referring to those that are rented.

No I'm saying they should all be sold.

BobQ

PasturesNew wrote: »

That would depend... that'd be in the "grey area to be determined".

By whom? Are going to have a quango to assess exemptions?

BobQ

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

These are already in existence as sheltered housing, surely?

As an older person with no care needs I would loathe and detest being told I had to live in a commune. I've just bought a bungalow with a large garden.

When I said about single people having higher density housing, I merely meant that if new smaller units of housing are to be built, then they will be higher density than in the past. I'm not saying single people should be forced to live in them!

Sheltered housing has been progressively converted into standard accommodation as "supporting people" budgets have declined. There are still some rented and owned properties that have age restrictions but not as many as needed.

I agree with you about the "commune", but equally I would like to see more bungalows designed for over 60s. Personally a "commune" would not bother me but I think it would annoy some.

seven-day-weekend

CLAPTON wrote: »

No I'm saying they should all be sold.

I would like to think there was affordable housing to rent as well.

seven-day-weekend

BobQ wrote: »

Sheltered housing has been progressively converted into standard accommodation as "supporting people" budgets have declined. There are still some rented and owned properties that have age restrictions but not as many as needed.

I agree with you about the "commune", but equally I would like to see more bungalows designed for over 60s. Personally a "commune" would not bother me but I think it would annoy some.

I might chose to live in a commune (although I can't imagine it). I would hate to be forced to do so.

I agree about more sheltered housing although I don't think it has to be bungalows. Low rise apartments with lifts are fine and don't take up so much room.

I am still feeling very thankful that we were able to get our bungalow at a price we could afford, even with everything that has had to be done to it. We never thought we'd be able to afford a bungalow, certainly not in an area we like, and with a big garden. Hoping to move in around the end of June.

CLAPTON

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I would like to think there was affordable housing to rent as well.

all property that is successful rented out, is by definition affordable to the person who is living in it.

'affordable' like 'sustainable' and 'hard working families' seems to have lost any meaning what so ever.

mumps

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?

I think underoccupation could be a problem. One of my kids and two friends found a house they wanted to rent but apparently they can't as it isn't an HMO and three friends can't rent a house. I was surprised as all of my kids have lived in shared houses but I didn't know that they needed permission. Why would three young adults sharing a house be problem?