New build property for full time residents only

TickersPlaysPop

I've been saying a proportion of new builds need to be open for purchase first to owner occupiers.... if they don't want to buy it allow the buy to letters in.

This effectively reduces demand and reduces the pressure in price inflation.

When we talk about demand we need to look at what that demand is comprised of. .. currently and for a long time there have been potential owner occupiers and buy to letters competing. On top of that add mortgage complications and cash buyers have the competitive edge.

Stop our homes being treated as a commodity to profit from.

Houses for homes, not for profit.

TickersPlaysPop

and before my old friend Clapers jumps in.... I've looked at your posting history and you've spent almost every hour of the day..... for days posting on this forum!

I won't be surprised if you've already responded to my post above lol

Take a break matey and get some real life in your life!

Generali

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

I've been saying a proportion of new builds need to be open for purchase first to owner occupiers.... if they don't want to buy it allow the buy to letters in.

This effectively reduces demand and reduces the pressure in price inflation.

When we talk about demand we need to look at what that demand is comprised of. .. currently and for a long time there have been potential owner occupiers and buy to letters competing. On top of that add mortgage complications and cash buyers have the competitive edge.

Stop our homes being treated as a commodity to profit from.

Houses for homes, not for profit.

How would it work on a practical level? Could our FTB hero just bid a quid for a house if not a quid who gets to decide what a reasonable price is?

If it's going to be some sort of defined market price then presumably FTBs can still be priced out by BTLers it's just that the BTLer has to wait for the FTBs to declare themselves priced out.

I do believe that something needs to be done to address the housing problem in the South of England but not sure you've thought through the implications of your proposal.

silvercar

Barnet council (London) has some scheme whereby a certain proportion of a new development has to be sold under shared ownership (80/20). These flats are now coming up for resale and they are not moving that quickly, as not enough people qualify for the shared ownership criteria. Frustrating for those trying to sell in a fast moving market.

Altarf

vivatifosi wrote: »

St Ives council has been considering a local ban on the sale of new builds developments as second homes. The Cornish town has a high proportion of second homes, with local residents unable to get on the housing ladder due to high prices and dearth of local well paid jobs.

So how does this work (or help)?

Lets assume this law is passed.

Developers will already own plots of land or properties for redevelopment. Do they now build new homes for locals which they will make a tiny profit (or even a loss on considering how much they paid for the plots), or do they sit there doing nothing until the political wind changes and the law is repealed?

Assuming some new houses are built and locals buy them. Does the law stop them selling them as holiday homes? Even if imposes a minimum ownership period, then as soon as that is up, if holiday home owners are paying more than locals, the local owner will sell it to be used as a holiday home.

This would either mean a big windfall for the local who bought the home, and why would the developer let that happen. So the developer would continue to sell the new properties for virtually the same price as holiday homes as they want the profit (although easy to see a shared ownership financing deal here to get the local to buy the property at a 'discount' but the majority of profit going to the developer when it is sold as a holiday home).

If the law does prevent the new houses ever being sold as holiday homes, then you would have a two tier market operating.

The shortage of holiday homes would drive up the price of the non-restricted housing stock even faster, meanwhile the restricted new homes would stagnate in comparison. This would further restrict the property supply for locals as they would be priced out of the second hand (non-restricted) property market even more.

Frankly it seems typical woolly thinking by local councilors who believe that "something must be done".

Rich2808

silvercar wrote: »

Barnet council (London) has some scheme whereby a certain proportion of a new development has to be sold under shared ownership (80/20). These flats are now coming up for resale and they are not moving that quickly, as not enough people qualify for the shared ownership criteria. Frustrating for those trying to sell in a fast moving market.

I think new builds generally aren't moving that quickly anyway.

Shared ownership really works on the basis you pick an area and property you love and are happy for live in for 15 plus years. It's a way for people on normal salaries to get security of tenure on a bigger property in a nicer area than you could otherwise do.

And make sure you get a long lease too. I have seen shared ownership properties with a 50 per cent share on a 70 year lease. However you cannot extend an SO lease - only if you own the flat outright. So the flat becomes unmortgageable and you can't sell it and cannot extend the lease.

So it's fraught with problems but in London for many it's the only option.

antrobus

Altarf wrote: »

....Assuming some new houses are built and locals buy them. Does the law stop them selling them as holiday homes? ....

It stops the new owner using the house as a holiday home.

The council will issue an enforcement notice. Failure to comply with an enforcement notice is a criminal offence. Technically speaking, a council could prosecute someone for failing to comply with an enforcement notice, and then apply for a confiscation order under POCA 2002.

Or just simply let the fines accumulate.:)

antrobus

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

I've been saying a proportion of new builds need to be open for purchase first to owner occupiers.... if they don't want to buy it allow the buy to letters in....

You misunderstand.

There is nothing preventing a BTL investor buying a property under the St Ives proposal, so long as the property is let out to someone as their primary residence.

p00hsticks

Altarf wrote: »

If the law does prevent the new houses ever being sold as holiday homes, then you would have a two tier market operating.

The shortage of holiday homes would drive up the price of the non-restricted housing stock even faster, meanwhile the restricted new homes would stagnate in comparison. This would further restrict the property supply for locals as they would be priced out of the second hand (non-restricted) property market even more.

The other loophole scenario is when the local currently living in quaint old cottage simply buys the newbuild and sells their existing property as a holiday let. It's just shuffling who lives where, not altering the mix.

Altarf

antrobus wrote: »

It stops the new owner using the house as a holiday home.

But for how long and is the restriction only for the first owner.

If only for a period, then there will just be lots of sales of these properties at that point to holiday home owners and you have solved nothing.

If it is an everlasting restriction, then a two tier market that owner's of the restricted homes will never be able to buy their way out of.