Average asking prices pass 300k!!!

cells

mwpt wrote: »

Oh and where is the source? I'm taking this at face value but I also remain sceptical. I'd like to see a source.

Have a read of the London plan do a google search. Its quite a long document but it boils down to something like. London needs 60k new homes a year but we only have the capacity to build 50k a year so that will be the target going forward. Historically we barely achieved half of that but this piece of paper will change everything, please ignore ever year since its been published and build rates are nowhere near the 50k units a year.

https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/current-london-plan/london-plan-chapter-3/policy-311-affordable

Also each individual council has a planning part on its website. They publish how many new homes were built last year and a few years before that and what % was affordable homes.


Also note that an affordable home isnt a developer giving away for free to a council or HA. They sell at a price whereby the council can rent it at break even to a single mother on benefits. So that might mean selling a 3 bed flat for £80k to the council whereas the build cost was possibly 5x that

cells

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Did you watch the first episode of the Channel 4 programme Ugly House. Couple had a budget of £120k to refurbish their 1920's ex council house. Ended up spending £200k. Of which £25k was for the kitchen and £21k the glazing (interior walls were also glass). Sheer madness. Still a 3 bed house at the end of the day.

The couple must be seriously in debt.

Nor did the architect charge for her time.

This is down to the silly transaction taxes and new mortgage regulations making it harder for older borrowers to trade so what people do is upgrade.

You see this especially in London where homes have had hundreds of thousands or even millions spent on them to extend up down and sideways and to turn modest internals into £200k internals.

Spoonhead88

westernpromise wrote: »

I don't know about 50% but someone I know who was thinking of knocking down 2 houses in Barnet to put flats on them didn't bother when it turned out that more than 10 flats would trigger an obligation to build 2 or more affordable flats as well. Affordable meant "you will sell them far below market value". So none will now be built.

So instead of building 8 flats that they could make a profit on and 2 that they couldn't make as much profit on they decided not build any? I must be missing something here even if they made no profit/a loss on 2 of the flats the rest would of more than made of for it?

cells

Spoonhead88 wrote: »

So instead of building 8 flats that they could make a profit on and 2 that they couldn't make as much profit on they decided not build any? I must be missing something here even if they made no profit/a loss on 2 of the flats the rest would of more than made of for it?

maybe, maybe not

the big builders over the last 10 years have made big profits in some years and also bigger losses in other years which is clear evidence that its not a one way street of milk and honey

but that is not even the point. Tesco makes a profit, so maybe we should force tesco to sell half of their products at a loss to poor people? or do you think maybe the system we have is more sane, whereby people who cant afford to buy food are given money from general taxation and then they go to tesco and buy the food they cant afford themselves.

cells

Spoonhead88 wrote: »

So instead of building 8 flats that they could make a profit on and 2 that they couldn't make as much profit on they decided not build any? I must be missing something here even if they made no profit/a loss on 2 of the flats the rest would of more than made of for it?

building homes in the UK is expensive as it is.

knocking down x homes to first make way makes it even that much more expensive. Imagine knocking down 10 London semis to build 30 flats in their place. Well the owners of the 10 semis want £500k per home plus 10% compo plus other hassel fees. You have £6 million cost in buying them out before you begin any work

And once your 30 flats are built, you have to give 10 of them to the council at £70k a piece = £0.7 million.

If total costs are say £7 million for the 30 flats. And you just had to hand over 10 of them to the council for £0.7m then the remaining 20 flats you have for sale better fetch at least £7 million or £350k a piece.

And thats a case of knocking 1 down and building 3 in its place. Often the regeneration developments knock 1 down and can only build 2 in its place or 2.5

And people wonder why new builds in London are expensive.....

wotsthat

Here's the Labour mayoral candidate proposing 50% 'affordable' homes to be built on public land.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35465056

The Conservative candidate calls this a fantasy although I did read in the London plan posted by Cells that 17,000 of the last 42,000 homes built in London were 'affordable' so not far off in reality.

No wonder we can't get houses built in this country; as well as every development having to be surrounded by miles of newt barrier (nimbys love newts) the housing sector is a feeding frenzy of rent seekers.

GunJack

cells wrote: »

The London plan is for 50% of all new builds to be subsidized. My local London council last year managed to get 49.9% of all the new builds in the area as subsidized.

Each council sets its own figure it can be from 0pc to 50pc

London again..... there is a need for housing in other areas y'know, and I've never seen anything about that high proportion anywhere else...