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

GwylimT

dktreesea wrote: »

Yes, but you're living in a ground floor apartment, so the same kind of access that you would have if you had a bungalow. Try living on the top floor. We have 60 stairs between us and the front door. No need for developers to install lifts in low rise housing. For health reasons it is now looking like we are going to have to move.

I have lived on a higher floor, not the top floor, but the seventh floor, well technically eighth as you had to enter from the basement. I rarely used the lift as I didn't want to have to wait for it.

Mrs_pbradley936

Quite apart from the homes themselves we ought to give thought to the impact of many more people on local services. For example 500 new homes were built not too far from us - so say another 1200 people. Some of them will be children so what about schools? All of them will need a GP, are there plans in place for that? How many extra fire engines did we get? What about ambulances? I can see the money going to the Council via extra Council Tax for these 500 homes but to date nothing along the lines I have mentioned.

choille

Over 50% of the houses here are holiday homes that are visited only a few weeks of the year or let out in the Summer for massive rates.

Looking at private rents in the town it seems that the buy to let market is booming, forcing house prices up. I think we should bite the bullet & cap the rents, but it won't happen with Mr Cameron in power.

Brown sites are the way forward - ex military bases etc. They are quite a few that are just aching out to be renovated.

There are a lot of empty semi-derelict houses about that could be renovated with the will, but I doubt this present government has the will to do so, it's not in their interest, or their rich mates.

CLAPTON

choille wrote: »

Over 50% of the houses here are holiday homes that are visited only a few weeks of the year or let out in the Summer for massive rates.

Looking at private rents in the town it seems that the buy to let market is booming, forcing house prices up. I think we should bite the bullet & cap the rents, but it won't happen with Mr Cameron in power.

Brown sites are the way forward - ex military bases etc. They are quite a few that are just aching out to be renovated.

There are a lot of empty semi-derelict houses about that could be renovated with the will, but I doubt this present government has the will to do so, it's not in their interest, or their rich mates.

why do you need the government to renovate semi-derelict houses : do people where you will lack initiative and the will to do some hard work?

Lingua

It always amazes me the difference between North and South (and between affluent and less affluent areas in each) - around here you can buy a house for £20-30k, albeit with the need for a little modernisation. But for that price, what's not to love? Meanwhile the same price buys you a few square feet in London. Madness!

I feel that the only way to improve the situation is, quite simply, to build more - but as mentioned, building more does not mean building 4-bed luxury accommodation when people are already struggling to get on the ladder. 2-bed apartments and 2-bed terraces might not be the best, but they're certainly more affordable to give people a chance to get into the market.


Lingua

MPD

Mrs_pbradley936 wrote: »

Quite apart from the homes themselves we ought to give thought to the impact of many more people on local services. For example 500 new homes were built not too far from us - so say another 1200 people. Some of them will be children so what about schools? All of them will need a GP, are there plans in place for that? How many extra fire engines did we get? What about ambulances? I can see the money going to the Council via extra Council Tax for these 500 homes but to date nothing along the lines I have mentioned.

On one memorable occasion the LA said one of the reasons for council tax increasing was all the new developments in the area.

cells

dktreesea wrote: »

But the mean is misleading, because it takes into account higher income earners which pulls the average up.


Taking the median wage though, so £27,456 per annum (source: ONS, annual survey of hours and earnings, provision 2015 results)
then yes, if someone is doing better than 50% of full time workers they are not going to have the difficulty buying something that those on £18k and below would face.


Why should it be unrealistic for a single person to be able to buy a home, much less reasonable? Single people need affordable homes just like everyone else. We can't all live at home until we are 30 and have built up the savings and income to be able to buy a home.



Take the bottom 25% of full time employees, on less than £20k per annum. In a place like the UK where even in Scotland (which builds thousands of social homes each year) the provision of social housing is inadequate, are you really saying it is unrealistic for this group to expect to own a home, reasonable even? This isn't a small group of people. The number in this group runs to millions of workers.


To me, people should not have to feel they can only afford to buy a home if they are in a relationship. It's bad enough that the bottom 50% of full time workers can only raise a mortgage of £110,000 (4 * earnings, give or take) without having the bottom 25% only ever able to afford to rent.

Your thinking in the right way but you are using unreasonable numbers and assumptions

I once did a thread about the average terrace price vs the average local male full time wage and in more than half the country one working man on the median wage can comfortably buy. And remember this isba mortgage which gets easier to pay with time as wages go up but the house purchase price is fixed.

In half the country homes vary from affordable to give away prices. In a lot of the remainder prices are very affordable for two full time working people. Its only really London and to a much lessor extent the SE where its difficult to buy with just two wages.

dktreesea

GwylimT wrote: »

I have lived on a higher floor, not the top floor, but the seventh floor, well technically eighth as you had to enter from the basement. I rarely used the lift as I didn't want to have to wait for it.

But what happens when people can no longer climb the stairs to the front door? If a lift is available, at least there is a choice, even if you prefer to use the stairs.


These low rise buildings are all well and good for younger people, but if people are going to be in their 40s before they can afford to save enough and earn enough to buy one, if they never then get into a position to upgrade their apartment to a bungalow, there could come a time when their flat is no longer a viable choice.

Cakeguts

Has anyone looked at how much bricklayers earn? There is a shortage of bricklayers in the UK. The reason why there is a shortage is because schools and parents encourage young people to go to university rather than get a trade. Developers need bricklayers. So even if the planning process was improved there is no guarantee that more houses would be built if young people do not want to learn a trade.

dktreesea

cells wrote: »

Your thinking in the right way but you are using unreasonable numbers and assumptions

I once did a thread about the average terrace price vs the average local male full time wage and in more than half the country one working man on the median wage can comfortably buy. And remember this isba mortgage which gets easier to pay with time as wages go up but the house purchase price is fixed.

In half the country homes vary from affordable to give away prices. In a lot of the remainder prices are very affordable for two full time working people. Its only really London and to a much lessor extent the SE where its difficult to buy with just two wages.

Unreasonable numbers and assumptions in what sense? The earnings information is from the ONS.