How we can fix the 'housing crisis'?

moneyistooshorttomention

Brings us neatly back to overpopulation and the reasons we are Brexit-ing.

Lioness_Twinkletoes

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I think they are referring to self-build "hobbit home" type houses of the "back to the land" variety.

Oh, I see. So, we'd be looking at just building homes on some land, regardless of ownership, planning permission or anything like that? No mains water, no sewage, no electricity. In other words, shanty towns. I see no reason why that won't work :doh:

moneyistooshorttomention

Source of natural water? Compost toilets. Solar panels/woodburners/etc.

Yep...planning permission is a difficult one though....

Okays then - huge old unwanted manor house type house/price coming out cheap per square foot as no-one wants it? - and plenty of land around it for self-sufficiency. Brings us neatly back to a variation on OP's idea....

I'd certainly give serious consideration to the "old manor house" type idea if I were young again - and facing even more struggles to get my housing than I had from a 1950s birth.

Bearing also in mind that I suspect a lot higher percentage of people in that generation are taking the "romantic" view that not a lot of us took in my generation - of "I am not going to get married/even live together with someone unless they are Mr/Ms Right and if that means I never get married - then so be it". So we need to bear in mind a rather higher proportion of that generation remaining single than did so in my own generation or the Elderly Generation.

AdrianC

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Brings us neatly back to overpopulation and the reasons we are Brexit-ing.

Certainly brings us back to the same relationship with reality.

Cornucopia

Lioness_Twinkletoes wrote: »

Bless your heart. I work in housing and regeneration and believe me, it is not as simple as "cracking on and building houses". Frankly, it's damned hard work for the professionals, imagine what a screw up it'd be if the general public just decided to 'build something'.

What are the factors that mean that the big builders are only managing to deliver around 45k pa houses to the market, when the shortage is around 10 times that figure? Why is it "damned hard work"?

I'm all in favour of sensible planning controls, but it does seem to me that something is very wrong when the house building industry is not pulling its weight in resolving homelessness - something that it is uniquely placed to do. Whilst it is great to have world-leading standards of insulation (I presume), if you are homeless and those requirements are part of what stands between you and your own roof, then I can see them being part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I'm also somewhat critical of a planning/bullding process that almost invariably delivers this, irrespective of local building traditions, architectural merit, lifestyle or ecological considerations:-

You must be very young as you are extremely idealistic.

You don't have to be young to be idealistic. It's disappointing that you think otherwise.

AdrianC

Cornucopia wrote: »

but it does seem to me that something is very wrong when the house building industry is not pulling its weight in resolving homelessness - something that it is uniquely placed to do.

It isn't.

The house-building industry has one job, and one job alone - to make money, by building and selling houses. The industry is made of private companies. That's what private companies are for. If they don't make money, they close.

Political direction can - and should - be nudging the way in which they can make money, through planning decisions, which are made at a district and county council level but influenced by national government policy.

Cornucopia

AdrianC wrote: »

It isn't.

Who else could build 300,000 houses?

The house-building industry has one job, and one job alone - to make money, by building and selling houses. The industry is made of private companies. That's what private companies are for. If they don't make money, they close.

In some parts of the country, there is considerable over-demand for their product, and yet over the past couple of years they have been dragging their feet. Why is that? Why not make those profits?

Political direction can - and should - be nudging the way in which they can make money, through planning decisions, which are made at a district and county council level but influenced by national government policy.

Yes, I accept that is how things are set up. However, at the moment the overall job is not getting done, and I have seen Planners complaining that it is the Builders' fault.

Against that background, I think that the Government will eventually lose patience with the industry (Planners and Builders alike) and do something else.

AdrianC

Cornucopia wrote: »

Who else could build 300,000 houses?

You seem to be confusing the actual implementation - the building of houses - with the policy as to where those houses could and should go, and what size/style/price range they could and should be.

In some parts of the country, there is considerably over-demand for their product, and yet over the past couple of years they have been dragging their feet. Why is that? Why not make those profits?

Because people object to those applications.
How many places have you seen massive banners objecting to new developments?
How many petitions like this are there...?
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-woodstock-say-no-to-1200-more-houses

Yes, I accept that is how things are set up. However, at the moment the overall job is not getting done, and I have seen Planners complaining that it is the Builders' fault.

Planners decide on specific, detailed planning applications. Builders put those applications in.

Those decisions are informed and guided by various documents which carry varying amount of legal weight in saying what is and what is not encouraged - from Neighbourhood Development Plans, Core Strategies and National Planning Frameworks - but the application has to come from a builder.

The NPF says x,000 new houses should be build in our county in the coming decade or so. Our county's CS says that they should be spread between the communities in a certain way. Our village's NDP says that they should be here and here. But until a landowner sells his land to a developer who puts in to build a property there, because he thinks it'll make him money, it ain't going to happen.

Against that background, I think that the Government will eventually lose patience with the industry (Planners and Builders alike) and do something else.

Such as?

marksoton

Cornucopia wrote: »

In some parts of the country, there is considerable over-demand for their product, and yet over the past couple of years they have been dragging their feet. Why is that? Why not make those profits?

They don't have the skilled labour to do so.

And the hoops to jump through to provide the infrastructure is immense.

badmemory

Have we reached the stage yet where builders/developers who have owned land with planning permission for over 5 years say, in an area that needs the properties building, should have the land removed from their ownership? Or at a minimum the planning permission removed.