If the planning process was overhauled and more houses built would everything be OK?

Mistermeaner

I think so.

Too much focus IMO on evil landlords , rich kids and those pesky migrants.

If the supply side of the equation was fixed through easier planning then costs would drop and everything would be sorted.

mwpt

Mistermeaner wrote: »

I think so.

Too much focus IMO on evil landlords , rich kids and those pesky migrants.

If the supply side of the equation was fixed through easier planning then costs would drop and everything would be sorted.

I have an old garage/shed at the bottom of my garden, which is used currently for storage but which I could knock down and construct an annex. I could house two people in the annex, adding to the available stock. The planners probably won't let me from what I've read so my lawn mower and bicycles enjoy a home while humans must live under the stairs:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34404651

Mistermeaner

And its quite right your bike has a good home.

We could however use lots of the unfarmed farmland on the edge of towns and cities to build lots and lots of housing.

Unused brownfield which tends to get used for housing now generally isn't suitable IMO due to infrastructure issues but tends to be easier to get planning on

Thrugelmir

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Unused brownfield which tends to get used for housing now generally isn't suitable IMO due to infrastructure issues but tends to be easier to get planning on

Brownfield requires a lot of cleaning up to use.

cells

Houses are only really expensive in London and some SE areas. Most the rest of the country varies from affordable to give away prices

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

Houses are only really expensive in London and some SE areas. Most the rest of the country varies from affordable to give away prices

so the best thing to do is to encourage a few more million people to flood London and the SE.

seven-day-weekend

I think if we want to live in cities we will have to get used to the higher density housing that is now being built -apartments for singles and couples and town houses for families, tiny gardens, and one allocated parking space.

Detached houses and bungalows like mine with large gardens and their own drive will rocket in value because there will be no more of them being built, as they take up too much room.

I do not want to see the green belt and green spaces being built on.

MPD

Free up planning all you want. Developers will always by preference add small to medium size developments on the edge of existing settlements, proven demand, lowest infrastructure costs, lowest risk and greatest profit.

mystic_trev

I live in prime SE and just exchanged on my next purchase. I offered asking price in early December, which now seems cheap, bearing in mind how prices are rocketing around here. I could Probably sell it now for another 10%+ That's sheer madness, somethings got to give.

dktreesea

cells wrote: »

Houses are only really expensive in London and some SE areas. Most the rest of the country varies from affordable to give away prices

But if you are on £18k a year, so not the minimum wage, can you buy much with a £72k mortgage?


In Leicestershire, (middle England), only 23 properties listed in the past month were £80k or under. Of these, some were showing £80k as a guide price.
http://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/property/leicestershire/?added=30_days&new_homes=include&page_size=100&price_max=80000&q=Leicestershire&radius
=0&results_sort=lowest_price&search_source=refine


That's not many choices. Yorkshire looks better, but so many of the prices shown were the starting point for the auction, not the final price.


As you go south it gets worse. in Gloucestershire, only 19 properties listed in the last month fit the £80k or under criteria. Cornwall had many trailer homes or shared ownership for that price.

michaels

Not sure - suppose we needed to build a new town from scratch - schools, shops, station, doctors surgery, hospital etc I wonder what the actual cost per property would be for a 1-bed, 2-bed, 3-bed etc (lets value the land at farm land value so probably negligible). I suspect the build plus infrastructure costs would still mean that a 1 bed was unaffordable on 18k and a 3 bed would probably need a household income of 25k plus so there is still going to be a sizeable chunk of the population who would need socially supported housing housing (la/ha or hb)