Housing Shortage Worsening - Another million homes needed in just 10 years....

cells

You can build a new build house for £115k which includes the cost of everything. If planning was easier I would say you could knock another £20k off that.

Also if planning was easier and property plentiful we would find second hand homes were cheaper than new homes after a while

£115k 3-bed new home
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/new-homes-for-sale/property-33496737.html?premiumA=true

shortchanged_2

Its getting to the point now that there needs to be a thorough independent report into the dysfunctional uk housing market.

As graham pointed out there have been several schemes in place to help the building companies increase their profits with little knock on to actual benefit to the housing market itself. Constant drip feeding in order to maintain prices.

The other problem is if we get Hamishes wish of looser lending it will only add further fuel to the fire, as more people compete for fewer houses.

The UK simply has to build more houses and it is time now for the government to take the lead on this as private companies are simply not up to the task.

cells

shortchanged wrote: »

Its getting to the point now that there needs to be a thorough independent report into the dysfunctional uk housing market.

As graham pointed out there have been several schemes in place to help the building companies increase their profits with little knock on to actual benefit to the housing market itself. Constant drip feeding in order to maintain prices.

The other problem is if we get Hamishes wish of looser lending it will only add further fuel to the fire, as more people compete for fewer houses.

The UK simply has to build more houses and it is time now for the government to take the lead on this as private companies are simply not up to the task.

what do you think the government is going to do, divert tube drivers to become brick layers, nurses to become plumbers?

All the government can do is subcontract, to a private firm.

The problem is not a lack of private companies that are capable and willing to do the work. The problem is that the government sets a quota which is too low and then we all complain that the builders are failing. How can the builders build more than the quota they are permitted to build?

shortchanged_2

cells wrote: »

what do you think the government is going to do, divert tube drivers to become brick layers, nurses to become plumbers?

All the government can do is subcontract, to a private firm.

The problem is not a lack of private companies that are capable and willing to do the work. The problem is that the government sets a quota which is too low and then we all complain that the builders are failing. How can the builders build more than the quota they are permitted to build?

There is plenty of land that has planning permission that is not built on.

House building levels have been a lot higher, so why are they so low now?

I'm really convinced there is not the genuine will from the government or building companies to increase the level of building as they wish to maintain house prices.

We are always told that the demand for housing is there so why are we as a country so incapable of supplying the demand? It is a dysfunctional market that has outpriced too many people.

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

what do you think the government is going to do, divert tube drivers to become brick layers, nurses to become plumbers?

All the government can do is subcontract, to a private firm.

The problem is not a lack of private companies that are capable and willing to do the work. The problem is that the government sets a quota which is too low and then we all complain that the builders are failing. How can the builders build more than the quota they are permitted to build?

I don't buy this.

A development around 10 miles from me has just had phase 2 and 3 axed. 90 plots in total. 32 were completed. The demand is huge. But they still axed phase 2 and 3 of the build.

They had the permission, they had the land. They had the sales. The demand is huge.

Point is, they had built what they wanted to. They had built what was most profitable on the prime land. The 4-5 bed detached places. They will now move off somewhere else leaving the somewhat obligatory roads to nowhere and do the very same thing.

What's anyone going to do? Tell them to demolish the 32 houses completed?

Redrow famously axed all their building projects in Wales as the welsh assembly wouldn't support what was then Newbuy. Again, they clearly thought the demand was there in the first place, but they simply decided not to build 3,000 homes as a protest. The land was kept on the books.

The following statement has been taken from the Lyons Housing Review, which cites builders as one of the barriers to building the number of homes we need.

Housebuilders “drip feed” sites onto the market to keep up prices and maximise the difference between the price at which land was bought and the price of the completed housing unit. Thus, land bought at a high price (in the boom) will not be brought forward until sales prices reach a high enough level to cover costs and profit. At that point, completed housing units will be drip fed onto the market.

The campaign to protect rural england also concur....

The business plans of smaller organisations rely on the quick completion and
marketing of dwellings to ensure returns. This allows development proposals to
be built out and marketed rapidly, unlike the drip feed and phased marketing
techniques utilised by volume house builders on large greenfield sites that
ensure maximum profits but mean that housing is slow to come onto the open
market.

Increasing the number of high quality dwellings delivered on suitable
small scale brownfield sites by small and medium sized house builders has the
potential to meet a significant amount of housing demand and prevent can
inappropriate development on Green Belt and rural sites.

The LSE also concur on a report for the urgent need for London housing.

As importantly, large sites are often built out slowly because of marketing techniques that call for drip feeding new supply. Windfall and smaller sites can help alleviate this problem.

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I don't buy this.

A devcontributed tound 10 miles from me has just had phase 2 and 3 axed. 90 plots in total. 32 were completed. The demand is huge. But they still axed phase 2 and 3 of the build.

They had the permission, they had the land. They had the sales. The demand is huge.

Point is, they had built what they wanted to. They had built what was most profitable on the prime land. The 4-5 bed detached places. They will now move off somewhere else leaving the somewhat obligatory roads to nowhere and do the very same thing.

What's anyone going to do? Tell them to demolish the 32 houses completed?

Redrow famously axed all their building projects in Wales as the welsh assembly wouldn't support what was then Newbuy. Again, they clearly thought the demand was there in the first place, but they simply decided not to build 3,000 homes as a protest. The land was kept on the books.

The following statement has been taken from the Lyons Housing Review, which cites builders as one of the barriers to building the number of homes we need.



The campaign to protect rural england also concur....



The LSE also concur on a report for the urgent need for London housing.

You probably know a lot less than you think you do. I contributed to the Lyons Housing Review but I regret not giving them more of my time.

I could spend hours trying to educate you but I just don't have the time. I will only point out to you that the UK is made up of many different councils. Each council has a different planning department and there is a vast difference in the build rates.

So you have good councils like for example Telford which are approving AND building about 4 x as many (per capita) as poor councils like Waltham forest.

Are the economics or ethics or profit seeking or intelegence of builders in Telford and Waltham forest that different? No they are more or less the same type of people building the same type of homes via the same type of methods. The difference the reason why Telford is able to build so many more homes than Waltham forest.....quotas quotas quotas

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

You probably know a lot less than you think you do. I contributed to the Lyons Housing Review but I regret not giving them more of my time.

I could spend hours trying to educate you but I just don't have the time.

Sorry, your muffling with your head so far up your own derriere.

As you know far better than everyone else. Could you tell me how axing plots (real world example) sits hand in hand with your theory that there isn't enough planning permission available?

You may well have contributed to the Lyons Review. But that doesn't nullify the findings of the collective contributors. What I quoted was one of the findings of said review. That doesn;t mean I know less than I think I do. It just means that's one of the conclusions of the review - like it or not.

missbiggles1

cells wrote: »

what do you think the government is going to do, divert tube drivers to become brick layers, nurses to become plumbers?

All the government can do is subcontract, to a private firm.

The problem is not a lack of private companies that are capable and willing to do the work. The problem is that the government sets a quota which is too low and then we all complain that the builders are failing. How can the builders build more than the quota they are permitted to build?

Why can't local authorities directly employ the tradesman to build houses? Why subcontact to the private sector making building costs higher and workers lower paid?

cells

shortchanged wrote: »

There is plenty of land that has planning permission that is not built on.

House building levels have been a lot higher, so why are they so low now?

I'm really convinced there is not the genuine will from the government or building companies to increase the level of building as they wish to maintain house prices.

We are always told that the demand for housing is there so why are we as a country so incapable of supplying the demand? It is a dysfunctional market that has outpriced too many people.

There are lots of plots with planning permission that is correct but it does not mean what you think it does.

is a building company mean to run a hopefully sustainable business that will be alove for decades on just days worth of plots with planning.

If you own a building company that on average outputs 1000 homes a year how many plots do you think you would want to fell comfortable that your business has a future

1 month?

So you are going to hire workers buy tools and equipment set up a business and not know if within 31 days you can buy and secure planning on your next project? Really really!

Its quite sane and quite normal for a building comoanyy especially a large listed company to have a stock of sotes with planning. How else are they meant to operate sustainable businesses? !!!!!! are they meant to do. Hire and fire people every two months because they ran out of plots

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Sorry, your muffling with your head so far up your own derriere.

As you know far better than everyone else. Could you tell me how axing plots (real world example) sits hand in hand with your theory that there isn't enough planning permission available?

You may well have contributed to the Lyons Review. But that doesn't nullify the findings of the collective contributors.

There could be many reasons

1. You are misinformed

2. The site has been found to be uneconomic after more investigation

3. The builder hasn't the cash or resources to develop there and then or needs the resources elsewhere

4. General problems in running a small business (eg stakeholders disagree and things can't move forward)



And of course they well could be holding out for land prices to increase. Guess what....if you give out more quotas their land price will decrease so they would have a huge incentive to sell or develop asap