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

boliston

Cakeguts wrote: »

Non standard construction for mortgages purposes?

Have searched google re mortgages on concrete houses and all i could find is info about old style ex council concrete prefab houses and these are always advertised as "cash buyers only" but the japanese concrete house looks like a recently built house. Also most new flats are built with concrete and people get motgages on them ok.

dktreesea

boliston wrote: »

Have searched google re mortgages on concrete houses and all i could find is info about old style ex council concrete prefab houses and these are always advertised as "cash buyers only" but the japanese concrete house looks like a recently built house. Also most new flats are built with concrete and people get motgages on them ok.

It may not be because of the concrete, but rather because asbestos was used in the construction. We had an asbestos roof on one of our homes and had to replace it as a condition to getting the mortgage.

dktreesea

kabayiri wrote: »

Oldham council have 1,000+ asylum seekers to find homes for, along with providing other support, yet they have lost £197m from their budget.

It's like a double whammy.

If we really want to grow the population base we will need to invest seriously in the infrastructure, and be prepared to pay for it via taxation.

The recent schools building project was financed with £50bn PFI, which is an expensive way of doing things.

This kind of thing makes me so mad. If Oldham Council are able to find homes to house 1,000 asylum seekers, how is it that it can't give homes to it's share of Greater Manchester's homeless people, or even people who are living in unaffordable overcrowded private accommodation and need an affordable home that's large enough for their family?


We should be taking care of our own first, before taking on the rest of the world's problems.


I've just read on another forum that if we make social housing too easy to get, everyone will want it!:mad: We should at least be providing it to those who need it. People deserve secure accommodation, where they don't have to worry lease in, lease out about having to move.

seven-day-weekend

dktreesea wrote: »

It may not be because of the concrete, but rather because asbestos was used in the construction. We had an asbestos roof on one of our homes and had to replace it as a condition to getting the mortgage.

Some concrete houses suffered from concrete cancer.

http://www.homeimprovementpages.com.au/article/all_about_concrete_cancer

Mistermeaner

GwylimT wrote: »

A big part of the issue is also the type of housing we are building. Around here virtually all the new build estates are four bedroom houses, with a few token two beds thrown in to meet so called affordable housing.

Where are the apartments? I really don't think we can carry on with our current method of house building.

Apartments are cheaper to build, require less land and cheaper to buy.

We live in a four bed ground floor apartment, it is the largest home we have lived in by far. We have a large private garden, but for those who are not ground floor we have a large communal garden with an allotment, play park, running track. Each apartment has at least two parking spaces and we have an onsite gym.

I couldn't afford a four bed house with the same square footage, three parking spaces or the garden size we have, nevermind pay to use a private gym on top!

Our block ranges from 2-4 bed properties, all bedrooms are a good size, in reality the single rooms are big enough for a double and bedroom furniture. Build quality is good, and its the quietest home I've lived in, and I've lived in a detached property!

We are a series of four storey blocks, positioned in a way that the buildings don't really over look each other. Over the road a new housing estate has been built on a slightly larger plot of land, it has 64 homes. We have around 150, each block is positioned so homes aren't over looked, parking is underground to save space, each block has its own entrance road to prevent congestion at busy time as well. There are five blocks with around thirty homes in each.

Where is this place?

C_Mababejive

Most of the land is "owned" by the few. They dont want commoners living on it.

Also we in this country need to move toward properly engineered and designed factory produced homes and move away from men gluing clods of clay together with mortar on some windswept muddy site.

cells

Each regions of England plus Wales&Soctland are all different and there needs to be different solutions for the varying housing problems.

In my view inner London needs to be knocked down and rebuilt at a much higher density. At the same time we would hopefully replace expensive to run solid brick poorly built council estates with much better built new builds.

It would be much wiser to build 2 million homes over the next 40 years in Zone 1 and 2 London than to spread the same 2 million out from Zone 1 to Zone 6. Homes concentrated in the centre would use less cars and transport needs

This would not be cheap as compulsory purchasing existing homes knocking them down and then rebuilding them cant be cheap.

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

Each regions of England plus Wales&Soctland are all different and there needs to be different solutions for the varying housing problems.

In my view inner London needs to be knocked down and rebuilt at a much higher density. At the same time we would hopefully replace expensive to run solid brick poorly built council estates with much better built new builds.

It would be much wiser to build 2 million homes over the next 40 years in Zone 1 and 2 London than to spread the same 2 million out from Zone 1 to Zone 6. Homes concentrated in the centre would use less cars and transport needs

This would not be cheap as compulsory purchasing existing homes knocking them down and then rebuilding them cant be cheap.

2 million over 40 years is 50,000 per year
given many will be knocked down to build the new ones and that the population of london is growing by 100,000 at present and rising, this won't really address the issue

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

2 million over 40 years is 50,000 per year
given many will be knocked down to build the new ones and that the population of london is growing by 100,000 at present and rising, this won't really address the issue

2 million net.

Also its the principle of London really needing more property in Zone 1-2 and to some extent Z3 rather than an even spread from Z1 to Z6 rather than the exact number

I think 50,000 a year while the population grows at 100,000 a year would be sufficient especially if the flats would of good size rather than studios or 1 beds

choille

CLAPTON wrote: »

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?

Rude & potentially racist & offensive.

I'm not talking about any single location, I was referring to the whole of the country.