# A Million New Homes by 2020



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 4, 2016)

So that's what Davie boy has told us today.  Really - 1,000,000 - by 2020?  Was that in the conservative manifesto?

But whether or not that target is realistic do I want that target to be hit?  I'm really not so sure.  

Why this utter and absolute obsession over home ownership?  It seems to me to be unsustainable and unachievable so why don't we just accept that as I think at some point we will have to.  

That said the whole nature and control of rental accommodation would have to change to one that makes rental much more affordable,  But I suspect that means big changes in the small scale buy-to-let market where the owner relies upon the rent to pay the mortgage on a month-by-month basis and may only be in it for the short term to make some money through the buy and sell transaction - that has to change.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Jan 4, 2016)

Don't think it matters whether it's to buy or rent....we need more homes. Sadly the issue has been dodged by successive governments for many a year. But now sadly we don't have the people here to do it, and now rely on foreign workers.
BUt it's all ok, because we're all in it together


----------



## Norrin Radd (Jan 4, 2016)

a million new houses ,hmmm reads more like loads more flooding .we are at breaking point now with the weather ,more houses will mean more concrete jungle and nowhere for the water to go .
are they going to be built on stilts?


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Jan 4, 2016)

The poacher said:



			a million new houses ,hmmm reads more like loads more flooding .we are at breaking point now with the weather ,more houses will mean more concrete jungle and nowhere for the water to go .
are they going to be built on stilts?
		
Click to expand...


Well they won't be built in David's constituancy


----------



## Khamelion (Jan 4, 2016)

Not that I want to turn this thread into a diatribe against immigration, but that is the root cause. As a country we are letting in far to many immigrants, be they legal, illegal, here to work, here to sponge, or whatever.

We are a small country with limited resources, someone should put up the sign saying full.

And where are these houses to be built, probably on green field sites, some brownfield sites, more than likely in area prone to flooding, which will just exacerbate the flooding issues we have now.

A million homes in the next 4 years, really?  where? Which struggling golf course is the next to be turned into an estate of affordable housing for the masses entering the UK?


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 4, 2016)

1. That's certainly no greater than previous targets (none of which have been met!) and , I believe, (significantly) less than those made previously! In 2007, Labour wanted 250K per year and planners believed up to 295K were needed!

2. It's still not enough!


3. Where in the report was there any suggestion that these would be for individual purchase? If there are more Rental homes in 'the market', then there's a belief that accommodation, as a percentage of income, will reduce.

4. Planning of this sort is actually what proper governments should do! The fact that announcing it also provides an opportunity for a 'campaign' message is fortunate for them. what the media should be asking is how they intend to make those numbers happen and will they resign if they can't! That's the reason they (and every other party) don't put figures like that in their Manifestos - because they really can't be certain that they can make it happen!


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Jan 4, 2016)

Khamelion said:



			Not that I want to turn this thread into a diatribe against immigration, but that is the root cause. As a country we are letting in far to many immigrants, be they legal, illegal, here to work, here to sponge, or whatever.

We are a small country with limited resources, someone should put up the sign saying full.

And where are these houses to be built, probably on green field sites, some brownfield sites, more than likely in area prone to flooding, which will just exacerbate the flooding issues we have now.

A million homes in the next 4 years, really?  where? Which struggling golf course is the next to be turned into an estate of affordable housing for the masses entering the UK?
		
Click to expand...


Don't forget the number of single men and women requiring houseing in later life due to divorce. The numbers are quite alrming really.


----------



## Ethan (Jan 4, 2016)

Khamelion said:



			Not that I want to turn this thread into a diatribe against immigration, but that is the root cause. As a country we are letting in far to many immigrants, be they legal, illegal, here to work, here to sponge, or whatever.

We are a small country with limited resources, someone should put up the sign saying full.

And where are these houses to be built, probably on green field sites, some brownfield sites, more than likely in area prone to flooding, which will just exacerbate the flooding issues we have now.

A million homes in the next 4 years, really?  where? Which struggling golf course is the next to be turned into an estate of affordable housing for the masses entering the UK?
		
Click to expand...

That is a load of rubbish. Immigrants are not the problem, the problem is a combination of factors including the dramatic fall in council home building, the explosion of second homes and unoccupied properties, the downturn in the economy which reduced private house building and as pointed out by someone else, more middle aged and older single dwellers. This is not a small country. There is plenty of room, and we need more young people working and paying tax to fund public services. The Tories have lied before about house building plans. No reason to believe this isn't just an even bigger lie.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jan 4, 2016)

Khamelion said:



*Not that I want to turn this thread into a diatribe against immigration*, but that is the root cause. As a country we are letting in far to many immigrants, be they legal, illegal, here to work, here to sponge, or whatever.

We are a small country with limited resources, someone should put up the sign saying full.

And where are these houses to be built, probably on green field sites, some brownfield sites, more than likely in area prone to flooding, which will just exacerbate the flooding issues we have now.

A million homes in the next 4 years, really?  where? Which struggling golf course is the next to be turned into an estate of affordable housing for the masses entering the UK?
		
Click to expand...

But you did anyway


----------



## Khamelion (Jan 4, 2016)

Hacker Khan said:



			But you did anyway 

Click to expand...

And my job here is done. Now where did I leave that small stone arched bridge? Bugger it's been washed away by the floods, looks like I'll be homeless now as well and in need of a house, why aren't the government building more houses? There building a million in the next 4yrs? champion I'll get one of those, I do hope it's on that flat piece of land next to the river, it'll be great in the summer, walking along the banks watching the ducks swim by.


----------



## bluewolf (Jan 4, 2016)

Khamelion said:



			And my job here is done. Now where did I leave that small stone arched bridge? Bugger it's been washed away by the floods, looks like I'll be homeless now as well and in need of a house, why aren't the government building more houses? There building a million in the next 4yrs? champion I'll get one of those, I do hope it's on that flat piece of land next to the river, it'll be great in the summer, walking along the banks watching the ducks swim by.
		
Click to expand...

Have you considered Dry January?


----------



## Khamelion (Jan 4, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			Have you considered Dry January? 

Click to expand...

Dry January, I don't drink a great deal anyway, so not a problem, but January being dry, not a chance, it's not stopped raining since yesterday and it's stotting down outside. Got to feel for the poor sods who have been repeatedly flooded.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Jan 4, 2016)

We need more homes. I think most would agree that. One million though in 4-5 years. Is that achieveable, especially if much of it will go on green belt land and inevitably face protest. I think not


----------



## Khamelion (Jan 4, 2016)

Ethan said:



			That is a load of rubbish. Immigrants are not the problem, the problem is a combination of factors including the dramatic fall in council home building, the explosion of second homes and unoccupied properties, the downturn in the economy which reduced private house building and as pointed out by someone else, more middle aged and older single dwellers. This is not a small country. There is plenty of room, and we need more young people working and paying tax to fund public services. The Tories have lied before about house building plans. No reason to believe this isn't just an even bigger lie.
		
Click to expand...

We are a small country, the urbans areas are creaking where the existing houses are, to create more housing, means more green belt and park areas becoming built on, which will just increase the flood risk to many areas.

A few years ago when Newcastle was hit bit a massive rain storm, houses which were built on land next to a dene, had to be demolished, this was due to the area being built on. Had there bee no houses the land would have absorbed the deluge, but with it being urbanised the water was concentrated into a torrent, which washed away foundations and left some of the housing unsafe.

Many new estates are being built on land that is liable to flooding, by building on fields that flood, you just bring misery to those who have bought there, misery to others down stream of the flood water as its got to go somewhere.

Forget building on new green field sites, leave the grass green, develop brown field sites, with modern high rises, encourage growth within the cities.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Jan 4, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			So that's what Davie boy has told us today.  Really - 1,000,000 - by 2020?  Was that in the conservative manifesto?

But whether or not that target is realistic do I want that target to be hit?  I'm really not so sure.  

Why this utter and absolute obsession over home ownership?  It seems to me to be unsustainable and unachievable so why don't we just accept that as I think at some point we will have to.  

That said the whole nature and control of rental accommodation would have to change to one that makes rental much more affordable,  But I suspect that means big changes in the small scale buy-to-let market where the owner relies upon the rent to pay the mortgage on a month-by-month basis and may only be in it for the short term to make some money through the buy and sell transaction - that has to change.
		
Click to expand...

SILH, do you rent?

Also, surely the number of houses wont be to do with home ownership, but purely housing a growing population? Whether a house is rented or lived in, it's only one family in there....


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 4, 2016)

Do we need a million homes in four years? Is there a million families looking for homes now ? Or in four years time ? Will it end in four years time the need to build any more houses? When the homes are filled will we need more homes for a larger population ? when does house building actually stop?


----------



## Liverbirdie (Jan 4, 2016)

Surely Northumberland isn't full.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jan 5, 2016)

There are many empty houses/shops/factories/unused farm buildings/brownfield sites in the UK.

Changes in planning laws, especially agriculturally tied accommodation and High Street Shops would, IMO be much better than creating more tiny cardboard box estates.

BTW ....more Tory lies from Cameron's mouth.
Totally unrealistic figure quoted.
Planning to build 1M houses is the same as me saying I am planning to score 62 in the next medal.


----------



## freddielong (Jan 5, 2016)

Too many people own too many properties, that is the problem.


----------



## CliveW (Jan 5, 2016)

I know of several builders, some of whom run small family businesses and one who is a major builder in Central Scotland. All of them have built up land banks throughout the years when times have been good and they had money to invest. The problem now with builders is not that there isn't any land to build on, but the banks won't lend to builders to allow them to develop these sites so they lie undeveloped. Once the banks start to lend again (If that ever happens!) then things should improve.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jan 5, 2016)

Liverbirdie said:



			Surely Northumberland isn't full.

Click to expand...


No, but we are flooding nicely. There are huge empty parts of Northumberland but they don't want to build there. They want to build in the nice towns, ruining them by over over building, too much congestion etc and increase the flood risk by building on empty fields that used to absorb the rain. 

They need to think more about the type of properties needed, lots of single people now in this land of divorce, renovating terraces, city centres etc rather than simply buidling more and more in green areas. Only more flooding and a reduction in quality of life will come of this idiocy.


----------



## Rooter (Jan 5, 2016)

My town has already started, just in the final planning stages of 2000 houses to built near where i currently live. The road infrastructure will buckle and will be carnage. They have committed to build new schools, doctors surgery etc as part of it though. Its going around ancient woodland in the towns greenbelt.


----------



## jp5 (Jan 5, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Why this utter and absolute obsession over home ownership?
		
Click to expand...

Do you own your home?

I'd say the desire to be a homeowner comes down to:

1. Preparing for the future - someone that owns their own home is likely to be in a stronger position in retirement than someone that needs to continue paying rent.
2. Stability - many people are vulnerable to the whim of their landlord to increase rent / repossess the house. Especially with young children attending local schools, it's not a nice worry to have.
3. Building a home - whether it be decorating or owning a pet, when owning your house you can make it a home.  I'd not be surprised if people felt a better sense of community amongst homeowners than renters, knowing that they are committed to the local area.


----------



## fundy (Jan 5, 2016)

Rooter said:



			My town has already started, just in the final planning stages of 2000 houses to built near where i currently live. The road infrastructure will buckle and will be carnage. They have committed to build new schools, doctors surgery etc as part of it though. Its going around ancient woodland in the towns greenbelt.

View attachment 18058

Click to expand...

2000? They call that a small infill site in Milton Keynes lol

All well and good political parties telling us what houses are needed but they need to look at the whole process from smart to finish to address the full implications.

Where is the skilled labour needed just going to appear from? Are the banks going to lend the required money to developers? What infrastructure improvements/additions are needed (and should be done in advance!) What impact does the development have on surrounding area. What type of housing is needed? How much needs to be affordable housing and on what basis etc etc

Or you can just pull a number out of the air which looks quite similar to how much you are missing your own immigration targets by


----------



## jp5 (Jan 5, 2016)

Ethan said:



			That is a load of rubbish. Immigrants are not the problem, the problem is a combination of factors including the dramatic fall in council home building, the explosion of second homes and unoccupied properties, the downturn in the economy which reduced private house building and as pointed out by someone else, more middle aged and older single dwellers. This is not a small country. There is plenty of room, and we need more young people working and paying tax to fund public services. The Tories have lied before about house building plans. No reason to believe this isn't just an even bigger lie.
		
Click to expand...

~1.2million people have come to this country over the past 5 years - 330,000 this past year alone. Is that sustainable?


----------



## Sweep (Jan 5, 2016)

Not really sure why the government has to directly commission 13,000 new homes to be built over 5 sites. If these homes were so badly needed, surely the construction companies would be falling over themselves to build and no government intervention would be required.
A million homes by 2020? On a reasonable calculation, that is homes for 2 million people. My question would be, where are these 2 million people now? My fear is that a lot of land will be CPO'd for housing and the construction companies won't build, because housing on this scale will not be required.
National and regional governments have to understand that this isn't free council tax. Every single person living in these homes needs investment in schools, hospitals, surgeries, roads, electricity, gas, drains, sewers...... There is simply no point in planning new homes without first planning and implementing vastly improved infrastructure, especially bearing in mind the infrastructure we have now can barely cope.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jan 5, 2016)

Rooter - The market town where I live has committed to the same amount of new builds as yours, around 2,000. The infrastructure is not there, roads, doctors, school places, parking etc but the local council stated that once the house have been built and the shortfall recognised then they will look to improve the situation. You can't beat a bit of forward planning. Deeply depressing.


----------



## Rooter (Jan 5, 2016)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Rooter - The market town where I live has committed to the same amount of new builds as yours, around 2,000. The infrastructure is not there, roads, doctors, school places, parking etc but the local council stated that once the house have been built and the shortfall recognised then they will look to improve the situation. You can't beat a bit of forward planning. Deeply depressing.
		
Click to expand...

thats the problem here, its an old town that is dissected by a canal, a river and a railway line. Between 10AM and 5PM there are 2 ways to cross it. One of those will be closed for 12 months due to the electrification of the railway line. They closed it for 5 months pre xmas and it was carnage. Add a possible 4000 cars to the morning commute and its screwed. Iat its worst, it took me an hour to get to one side of town to the other, thats about 2 miles maximum... There is talk of ANOTHER Newbury Bypass... Has anyone got Swampy's number? he might be back!


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jan 5, 2016)

Tashyboy said:



			Do we need a million homes in four years? Is there a million families looking for homes now ? Or in four years time ? Will it end in four years time the need to build any more houses? When the homes are filled will we need more homes for a larger population ? *when does house building actually stop?*

Click to expand...

Well it's been going on since Ugg the caveman thought his existing cave was a bit small for his expanding family and fancied a new gaff with a little more space and made out of dirt and animal hides .  So I doubt it will be stopping soon.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 5, 2016)

jp5 said:



			Do you own your home?

I'd say the desire to be a homeowner comes down to:

1. Preparing for the future - someone that owns their own home is likely to be in a stronger position in retirement than someone that needs to continue paying rent.
2. Stability - many people are vulnerable to the whim of their landlord to increase rent / repossess the house. Especially with young children attending local schools, it's not a nice worry to have.
3. Building a home - whether it be decorating or owning a pet, when owning your house you can make it a home.  I'd not be surprised if people felt a better sense of community amongst homeowners than renters, knowing that they are committed to the local area.
		
Click to expand...

...and all those young folk in continental Europe for whom renting is how it is - they don't have similar aspirations that are met by rental accommodation?

If you have a mortgage you have a huge debt.  When you rent you don't have any debt.  I'd have thought that for younger folks that would be not a bad thing.

Owning a property encourages borrowing on the basis of unrealised equity - and as we know that way lies trouble.  Renting you borrow on the basis of what you actually have.

Key to long term rental is realistic and affordable rents and ling term security of tenure.  And as far as I can see that can only come either through government setting rental bands or when the owner does not rely upon the rental income to service the borrowing that bought the property in the first place and is not simply in the rental business to buy-let and then sell at a profit.  Long term tenancy should enable those renting to do decoration etc to their own tastes and as and when they want - and provide the long term security for having children at school.

I'm only asking the question.  Many answers (including your own) to 'why ownership and not rental?' are predicated upon the current way we do renting in the the UK - and not how it should be done to meet the requirements you state.


----------



## doublebogey7 (Jan 5, 2016)

Sweep said:



			Not really sure why the government has to directly commission 13,000 new homes to be built over 5 sites. If these homes were so badly needed, surely the construction companies would be falling over themselves to build and no government intervention would be required.
A million homes by 2020? On a reasonable calculation, that is homes for 2 million people. *My question would be, where are these 2 million people now?* My fear is that a lot of land will be CPO'd for housing and the construction companies won't build, because housing on this scale will not be required.
National and regional governments have to understand that this isn't free council tax. Every single person living in these homes needs investment in schools, hospitals, surgeries, roads, electricity, gas, drains, sewers...... There is simply no point in planning new homes without first planning and implementing vastly improved infrastructure, especially bearing in mind the infrastructure we have now can barely cope.
		
Click to expand...

They've not been born yet,  they are living overseas or they are homeless.  The UK population grew by around 500,000 in 2015 and ther are around 30,000 registered as homeless.  On top of that you can add those living with friends or relatives who would rather have their own  pad and it is clear that the Government committment is insufficient.
As far as infrastructure is concerned there is no denying that there are problems,  though increased building does not create a  bigger problem as the people to fill the houses will be here anyway.  
The real problem of course is that if we are ever to have sufficient housing for our needs,  then house prices will go down(supply and demand). That is not seen to be in the interests of the economy and is most definately  against the interests of builders and land owners.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 5, 2016)

Sweep said:



			Not really sure why the government has to directly commission 13,000 new homes to be built over 5 sites. If these homes were so badly needed, surely the construction companies would be falling over themselves to build and no government intervention would be required.
A million homes by 2020? On a reasonable calculation, that is homes for 2 million people. My question would be, where are these 2 million people now? My fear is that a lot of land will be CPO'd for housing and the construction companies won't build, because housing on this scale will not be required.
National and regional governments have to understand that this isn't free council tax. Every single person living in these homes needs investment in schools, hospitals, surgeries, roads, electricity, gas, drains, sewers...... There is simply no point in planning new homes without first planning and implementing vastly improved infrastructure, especially bearing in mind the infrastructure we have now can barely cope.
		
Click to expand...

You only putting an average of 2 folks in every home?  I'd have thought new homes would be built for couples and families.  Singletons don't need new houses.  So I'm guessing that 1,000,000 homes would house more like 3.5 million people.

Anyway - given the Tories want to slash immigration and slash the deficit to zero over the same timescales - who is going to build these 1,000,000 houses and who is paying?


----------



## ger147 (Jan 5, 2016)

The current average number of people per UK household is 2.4 according to the ONS.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jan 5, 2016)

jp5 said:



			~1.2million people have come to this country over the past 5 years - 330,000 this past year alone. Is that sustainable?
		
Click to expand...

Do you know how many Brits left the UK to become immigrants in other countries ?
Last I heard it was not a great deal different from those inward bound.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 5, 2016)

ger147 said:



			The current average number of people per UK household is 2.4 according to the ONS.
		
Click to expand...

In new houses?


----------



## FairwayDodger (Jan 5, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Singletons don't need new houses.
		
Click to expand...

Where do they stay?


----------



## Kellfire (Jan 5, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			Where do they stay? 

Click to expand...

In the existing buildings that would be vacated by families moving into more suitable sized living quarters.


----------



## Ethan (Jan 5, 2016)

Khamelion said:



			We are a small country, the urbans areas are creaking where the existing houses are, to create more housing, means more green belt and park areas becoming built on, which will just increase the flood risk to many areas.

A few years ago when Newcastle was hit bit a massive rain storm, houses which were built on land next to a dene, had to be demolished, this was due to the area being built on. Had there bee no houses the land would have absorbed the deluge, but with it being urbanised the water was concentrated into a torrent, which washed away foundations and left some of the housing unsafe.

Many new estates are being built on land that is liable to flooding, by building on fields that flood, you just bring misery to those who have bought there, misery to others down stream of the flood water as its got to go somewhere.

Forget building on new green field sites, leave the grass green, develop brown field sites, with modern high rises, encourage growth within the cities.
		
Click to expand...

We aren't too small. Plenty of room, just not in Surrey or London. I am not sure one anecdote about flooding in Newcastle says much other than the choice of cut-price land by the developer. 



jp5 said:



			~1.2million people have come to this country over the past 5 years - 330,000 this past year alone. Is that sustainable?
		
Click to expand...

By sustainable, do you mean is it OK if it continues in perpetuity? Probably not, but that isn't going to happen, though. 

In the short to medium term, though, not only is is sustainable, it is necessary. Germany is not taking all those Syrians out of the goodness of their teutonic hearts. They are doing it because they have a bad demographic imbalance between older non-working resource consuming people and younger wage earning, tax paying, lower resource consuming people and these immigrants will help redress that. The UK is not quite as bad as Germany, with a higher birth rate, but is on the spectrum. The better birth rate in the UK is largely driven by immigrants.


----------



## pendodave (Jan 5, 2016)

We can't keep building over our country for ever.

Government should actually plan and govern for a change.

Increase use of existing stock and prevent it being used as an investment vehicle for the wealthy :

- Legislate to allow local authorities to co-opt empty houses/flats. 
- Legislate to only allow only allow EU purchasers to residents of 10years or more (including brits, so non-discrimatory. I believe they do this in Copenhagen)

Get control of the population. Its madness to continue on our current path. 

- Actually deport people who shouldn't be here.
- Stop non- EU coming in and use EU 'special needs' clauses to stop the entire contents of Eastern Europe rocking up.
- Get a grip of the 'overseas students' nonsense.
- Pay people to have less kids. A lot cheaper than building all the infrastructure required to support them through life.

To paraphrase David Attenborough (national treasure) "There's no problem that wouldn't be more easily solved by reducing the number of people"....


----------



## jp5 (Jan 5, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Do you know how many Brits left the UK to become immigrants in other countries ?
Last I heard it was not a great deal different from those inward bound.
		
Click to expand...

The 1.2m over 5 years and 330,000 last year are the net figures. 

Gross figures for last year were 660,000 in - 330,000 out.


----------



## Ethan (Jan 5, 2016)

pendodave said:



			We can't keep building over our country for ever.

Government should actually plan and govern for a change.

Increase use of existing stock and prevent it being used as an investment vehicle for the wealthy :

- Legislate to allow local authorities to co-opt empty houses/flats. 
- Legislate to only allow only allow EU purchasers to residents of 10years or more (including brits, so non-discrimatory. I believe they do this in Copenhagen)

Get control of the population. Its madness to continue on our current path. 

- Actually deport people who shouldn't be here.
- Stop non- EU coming in and use EU 'special needs' clauses to stop the entire contents of Eastern Europe rocking up.
- Get a grip of the 'overseas students' nonsense.
- Pay people to have less kids. A lot cheaper than building all the infrastructure required to support them through life.

To paraphrase David Attenborough (national treasure) "There's no problem that wouldn't be more easily solved by reducing the number of people"....
		
Click to expand...

Is that an early draft of the UKIP manifesto for 2016?


----------



## ger147 (Jan 5, 2016)

Some other interesting UK household stats from the ONS survey:

- 29% of UK households consist of a single person living alone.
- 20% of UK households consist of 4 or more people.
- There are 26.4 million UK houseeholds.
- There are 18.2 million families with 7.7 million (42%) with dependent children.
- The average number of dependent children is 1.7.


----------



## TheDiablo (Jan 5, 2016)

One of the major problems we have in Surrey is the older generation, who paid next to nothing for their homes 20+ years ago, sat in 3/4 bedroom houses with huge equity now living on their own and restricting the supply. We were fortunate enough to buy 18 months ago thanks to significant help from my parents, which is obviously not available to all. We bought from a guy who had the property 57 years, been on his own for the last 12 and previous to that just him and wife for 15 years. Next door one side, an elderly lady needing care, on her own. The other, a couple in their 70s, who are next to an elderly gent. Opposite, an elderly lady, who lives next to an elderly gentlemen, also on his own. So that's 5 houses, with 6 occupants all over 70 - and nowhere 'affordable' for young families to move to on the street.

Now I am not for 1 second saying these people should be forced from their homes, they are fully entitled to live as they please, but the government should be offering some very significant incentives for them to sell up and downsize to a more suitable property and get some liquidity in  the market. However, the Govt is so concerned with protecting the retired vote (typically Mail/Express reading Tories, especially in SE), that they won't take the risk of a potentially controversial measure. This should in turn alleviate some of the pressure of building new homes in unsuitable locations in the area.


----------



## jp5 (Jan 5, 2016)

Ethan said:



			By sustainable, do you mean is it OK if it continues in perpetuity? Probably not, but that isn't going to happen, though. 

In the short to medium term, though, not only is is sustainable, it is necessary. Germany is not taking all those Syrians out of the goodness of their teutonic hearts. They are doing it because they have a bad demographic imbalance between older non-working resource consuming people and younger wage earning, tax paying, lower resource consuming people and these immigrants will help redress that. The UK is not quite as bad as Germany, with a higher birth rate, but is on the spectrum. The better birth rate in the UK is largely driven by immigrants.
		
Click to expand...

I wouldn't look to Germany for sensible policy. Merkel seems to flip-flop whichever way the wind is blowing.

Isn't correcting a demographic imbalance with immigration just pushing the problem down the road? Whereby even more people will be required to fund the previous generation?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 5, 2016)

Kellfire said:



			In the existing buildings that would be vacated by families moving into more suitable sized living quarters.
		
Click to expand...

tick in the box for that...:thup:


----------



## jp5 (Jan 5, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			If you have a mortgage you have a huge debt.  When you rent you don't have any debt.  I'd have thought that for younger folks that would be not a bad thing.
		
Click to expand...

A huge debt which will eventually be paid off, and you'll own your own shelter.

As opposed to renting, where the monthly commitment will continue into retirement. Not sure what pensioner's income would get you round here. A garage perhaps.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 5, 2016)

TheDiablo said:



			One of the major problems we have in Surrey is the older generation, who paid next to nothing for their homes 20+ years ago, sat in 3/4 bedroom houses with huge equity now living on their own and restricting the supply. We were fortunate enough to buy 18 months ago thanks to significant help from my parents, which is obviously not available to all. We bought from a guy who had the property 57 years, been on his own for the last 12 and previous to that just him and wife for 15 years. Next door one side, an elderly lady needing care, on her own. The other, a couple in their 70s, who are next to an elderly gent. Opposite, an elderly lady, who lives next to an elderly gentlemen, also on his own. So that's 5 houses, with 6 occupants all over 70 - and nowhere 'affordable' for young families to move to on the street.

*Now I am not for 1 second saying these people should be forced from their homes, they are fully entitled to live as they please, but the government should be offering some very significant incentives for them to sell up and downsize to a more suitable property and get some liquidity in  the market.* However, the Govt is so concerned with protecting the retired vote (typically Mail/Express reading Tories, especially in SE), that they won't take the risk of a potentially controversial measure. This should in turn alleviate some of the pressure of building new homes in unsuitable locations in the area.
		
Click to expand...

This is all very well but the various-sized 3-bed 'family home' properties that would be released in my road would go on the market for Â£375k to Â£650k.  Madness.


----------



## Rooter (Jan 5, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			This is all very well but the various-sized 3-bed 'family home' properties that would be released in my road would go on the market for Â£375k to Â£650k.  Madness.
		
Click to expand...

In arguably the top 10% in income areas in the UK, its relative SILH...


----------



## Khamelion (Jan 5, 2016)

Ethan said:



			I am not sure one anecdote about flooding in Newcastle says much other than the choice of cut-price land by the developer.
		
Click to expand...

I've no idea what the land would've cost the developer, but the anecdote as you put was meant as an example of what happens when land that would've normally absorbed high amounts of rain is built on. Instead of soaking in to the ground, rain gets concentrated down paths and channels it wouldn't normally take, over whelming drainage and sewers.

While new affordable housing may be required, building without thought, or selling flood plains off because it's cheap land is folly and as I wrote above it'll only bring misery to hundreds if not thousands of home owners who bought houses in those places.

City centre regeneration is one way to go, but land in the towns and cities comes at a premium price, so not really an option for those on low incomes or for those councils being forced by government to provide new accommodation.


----------



## bluewolf (Jan 5, 2016)

jp5 said:



			I wouldn't look to Germany for sensible policy. Merkel seems to flip-flop whichever way the wind is blowing.

Isn't correcting a demographic imbalance with immigration just pushing the problem down the road? Whereby even more people will be required to fund the previous generation?
		
Click to expand...

Yes..... Who could have possibly thought that successive Governments would practice Short Termism politics?


----------



## Deleted member 3432 (Jan 5, 2016)

And how are going to build these homes?

Huge skills and manpower shortage in the contruction industry over the last 20 odd years. I was a time served tradesman for twenty years before a career change and over that period saw a massive decline in skill levels and don't get me started on quality of materials used in modern house building. Most new builds I have had a look around during the last few years are rubbish.

Great polititical statement to make but as usual with such statements by modern polititions full of hot air.


----------



## jp5 (Jan 5, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			Yes..... Who could have possibly thought that successive Governments would practice Short Termism politics?
		
Click to expand...

I genuinely don't know what the solution is. Certain infrastructure needs planning on a generational scale, not < 5 years. An elected upper chamber with longer terms perhaps?


----------



## TheDiablo (Jan 5, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			This is all very well but the various-sized 3-bed 'family home' properties that would be released in my road would go on the market for Â£375k to Â£650k.  Madness.
		
Click to expand...

Currently, yes - and that's similar to my road, where you certainly won't get change for Â£375k on a 3-bed semi. But many young families are on the ladder, albeit in something not suitable and in need of an upsize, and with so few properties at the next step coming on the market the prices continue to inflate (ours has gone up 10-15% in 16 months). With more supply at this level, those families would have a better chance of securing the next step on the ladder, allowing first time buyers more options at their level - essentially adding increased liquidity at various levels of the ladder. 

The key to this is the right incentives - I'm no economist or politician so not even going to attempt to guess, but it will never happen anyway due to the aforementioned short termism of the govt's and protection of votes.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 5, 2016)

Rooter said:



			In arguably the top 10% in income areas in the UK, its relative SILH...
		
Click to expand...

Agreed - but still plenty of folks with decent wages will struggle to buy what are essentially just not very big victorian/edwardian 3 bed terrace or semi-d houses.  And as far as London...I still don't understand how anyone can afford to buy a house...wages just couldn't possibly cover the loans required assuming multipliers of even 4x.

But 1,000,000 homes built in five years.  Cos Davie said that's what he'll do. So sorted - but as he'll be gone by then he won't be that bothered if it doesn't happen.  Anyway - the clock is ticking.


----------



## Ethan (Jan 5, 2016)

jp5 said:



			Isn't correcting a demographic imbalance with immigration just pushing the problem down the road? Whereby even more people will be required to fund the previous generation?
		
Click to expand...

Pushing problems down the road? That is what Governments do every day. 

How would you suggest they fix it otherwise? Kill old people, enforced reproduction, move the retirement age to 75?


----------



## Sweep (Jan 6, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			You only putting an average of 2 folks in every home?  I'd have thought new homes would be built for couples and families.  Singletons don't need new houses.  So I'm guessing that 1,000,000 homes would house more like 3.5 million people.

Anyway - given the Tories want to slash immigration and slash the deficit to zero over the same timescales - who is going to build these 1,000,000 houses and who is paying?
		
Click to expand...

I am only putting an average of 2 people per home, if it's more per home we need less houses and certainly not a million in 4 years. In answer to your question, no-one is going to build these homes.
However, one of the main reasons for the, I believe inflated, housing shortage and often unreported is that a big proportion of homes are now single occupied and this is due to the breakdown of family life. Too much emphasis on working and less on bringing up children, people getting married later or not at all, divorce rate up etc etc.


----------



## Sweep (Jan 6, 2016)

TheDiablo said:



			One of the major problems we have in Surrey is the older generation, who paid next to nothing for their homes 20+ years ago, sat in 3/4 bedroom houses with huge equity now living on their own and restricting the supply. 
Now I am not for 1 second saying these people should be forced from their homes, they are fully entitled to live as they please, but the government should be offering some very significant incentives for them to sell up and downsize to a more suitable property and get some liquidity in  the market. However, the Govt is so concerned with protecting the retired vote (typically Mail/Express reading Tories, especially in SE), that they won't take the risk of a potentially controversial measure. This should in turn alleviate some of the pressure of building new homes in unsuitable locations in the area.
		
Click to expand...

 I think its a bit cynical to say that the government is protecting its retired vote. It's more to do with letting people keep what they worked and paid for and absolutely nothing to do with the Daily Mail. anyway, in Surrey, if you paid for an old biddy to leave her 4 bed house to live in a one bed flat, her house would just be bought by some Russian oligarch, which kind of highlights the main cause of the problem.


----------



## Sweep (Jan 6, 2016)

doublebogey7 said:



			They've not been born yet,  they are living overseas or they are homeless.  The UK population grew by around 500,000 in 2015 and ther are around 30,000 registered as homeless.  On top of that you can add those living with friends or relatives who would rather have their own  pad and it is clear that the Government committment is insufficient.
As far as infrastructure is concerned there is no denying that there are problems,  though increased building does not create a  bigger problem as the people to fill the houses will be here anyway.  
The real problem of course is that if we are ever to have sufficient housing for our needs,  then house prices will go down(supply and demand). That is not seen to be in the interests of the economy and is most definately  against the interests of builders and land owners.
		
Click to expand...

Of course increased building creates a bigger problem with the infrastructure if the 2 million plus people we are catering for aren't here yet. More people = more cars, drains, sewers, schools, doctors etc
If the 2 million people (or more) that are going to occupy these homes aren't living here yet and we are worried about their housing and the infrastructure, then we have a choice. Control the number of people we allow in or at least control the numbers per year to a level we can cater for OR build the houses and improve the infrastructure. You cannot build houses and not improve everything else.
if we have 30,000 homeless now then let's get them housed. 13,500 directly commissioned houses announced by DC on Monday will solve that problem. Then sort out those that don't want to live with the mother in law. Not sure how many that is, but it's nowhere near a million houses. Get control of immigration and worry about housing for that issue at the pace you are comfortable with.
in considering this you have to understand why the government is so keen on building and not so keen on controlling immigration. The answer lies in the question of how we keep finding employment for this rapidly expanding population. The answer is jobs create jobs in a service led economy. Every office worker for example needs an office to be built, a sandwich bar, a rail card, a stationary supplier etc. And what do more jobs equal? More tax revenue.


----------



## TheDiablo (Jan 6, 2016)

Sweep said:



			I think its a bit cynical to say that the government is protecting its retired vote. It's more to do with letting people keep what they worked and paid for and absolutely nothing to do with the Daily Mail. anyway, in Surrey, if you paid for an old biddy to leave her 4 bed house to live in a one bed flat, *her house would just be bought by some Russian oligarch, which kind of highlights the main cause of the problem*.
		
Click to expand...

Absolute tripe, and I won't even start on the irony you opening the post calling me cynical and closing it with that comment! 

The housing market here is completely stuck - we either need to build an enormous number of new homes (with limited space) or get liquidity back into the market - I was suggesting one logical way of achieving this. That generation have been mortgage free for 20+ years, something my generation will sadly never be. They are sat in the homes that they brought their families up in, but in doing so denying the next generation of the same luxury. Why do 7 people need 6 houses and 18 bedrooms?! I'm completely for free will, and in no way hold them accountable for the mess - it's successive governments who have had the opportunity to do something and just simply bury their head in the sand, protecting votes and failing to propose anything slightly controversial toward elderly people.


----------



## Sweep (Jan 6, 2016)

TheDiablo said:



			Absolute tripe, and I won't even start on the irony you opening the post calling me cynical and closing it with that comment! 

The housing market here is completely stuck - we either need to build an enormous number of new homes (with limited space) or get liquidity back into the market - I was suggesting one logical way of achieving this. That generation have been mortgage free for 20+ years, something my generation will sadly never be. They are sat in the homes that they brought their families up in, but in doing so denying the next generation of the same luxury. Why do 7 people need 6 houses and 18 bedrooms?! I'm completely for free will, and in no way hold them accountable for the mess - it's successive governments who have had the opportunity to do something and just simply bury their head in the sand, protecting votes and failing to propose anything slightly controversial toward elderly people.
		
Click to expand...

Wow! What is it about this forum where people are so keen to fall out and jump down one another's throat? Seriously, wind your neck in and chill out! I merely said that I thought it was a bit cynical to suggest the government were protecting their retired vote by not forcing people out of their homes, something which you said you weren't in favour of anyway? And what is cynical about saying all the big properties in Surrey are being bought by Russian oligarchs? It's not cynical. It's fact. And it's one of the main causes of the problem. Wealthy foreigners buying houses in the UK have had a direct influence on house prices in this country. The price you just paid for your house will have been higher because of it.


----------



## Stuart_C (Jan 6, 2016)

How many of these houses are going to be affordable?


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Jan 6, 2016)

Stuart_C said:



			How many of these houses are going to be affordable?
		
Click to expand...


Surely anything and everything is affordable if you have the money? Perhaps the question should be "how many of these houses will be low cost"?


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jan 6, 2016)

How do they stop people from buying them cheaply and then re-selling them at a profit, ie market rate, shortly after?


----------



## TheDiablo (Jan 6, 2016)

Sweep said:



			Wow! What is it about this forum where people are so keen to fall out and jump down one another's throat? Seriously, wind your neck in and chill out! I merely said that I thought it was a bit cynical to suggest the government were protecting their retired vote by not forcing people out of their homes, something which you said you weren't in favour of anyway? And what is cynical about saying all the big properties in Surrey are being bought by Russian oligarchs? It's not cynical. It's fact. And it's one of the main causes of the problem. Wealthy foreigners buying houses in the UK have had a direct influence on house prices in this country. The price you just paid for your house will have been higher because of it.
		
Click to expand...

The Government will go a *very *long way to protect the retired vote - claiming otherwise is naive. And the retired vote is exactly why they (and I) are sh*t scared of the EU referendum! 

You have a cynical view of the housing market in Surrey (and other similar areas), which is why I used the adjective cynical; in no way whatsoever was your statement fact - show me a 'Russian Oligarch' who would choose to live in a Suburban 1950s 3-bed semi and I'll happily retract the comment! This isn't Chelsea and Kensington we're talking about here (although I obviously agree that foreign investment in London has driven up prices across SE - but that isn't anywhere near the main cause of the housing shortage).

Of course I am not in favour of the Government 'forcing' people from their homes - what I am hugely in favour of and have been stating all along is the Govt offering incentives for people to move out into more suitably sized properties for their needs, and thus allowing young families to move into the vacated properties and subsequently allowing first time buyers more choice at that end - liquidity! Incentive schemes are offered at the bottom of the ladder to help first time buyers, so it must be something that has been considered on other rungs too.

However, in my opinion (which you may view as cynical) Govts avoid potential controversial policies toward the retired/elderly, especially those that can be spun into a witch-hunt by the Mail.


----------



## Sweep (Jan 6, 2016)

TheDiablo said:



			The Government will go a *very *long way to protect the retired vote - claiming otherwise is naive. And the retired vote is exactly why they (and I) are sh*t scared of the EU referendum! 

You have a cynical view of the housing market in Surrey (and other similar areas), which is why I used the adjective cynical; in no way whatsoever was your statement fact - show me a 'Russian Oligarch' who would choose to live in a Suburban 1950s 3-bed semi and I'll happily retract the comment! This isn't Chelsea and Kensington we're talking about here (although I obviously agree that foreign investment in London has driven up prices across SE - but that isn't anywhere near the main cause of the housing shortage).

Of course I am not in favour of the Government 'forcing' people from their homes - what I am hugely in favour of and have been stating all along is the Govt offering incentives for people to move out into more suitably sized properties for their needs, and thus allowing young families to move into the vacated properties and subsequently allowing first time buyers more choice at that end - liquidity! Incentive schemes are offered at the bottom of the ladder to help first time buyers, so it must be something that has been considered on other rungs too.

However, in my opinion (which you may view as cynical) Govts avoid potential controversial policies toward the retired/elderly, especially those that can be spun into a witch-hunt by the Mail.
		
Click to expand...

In hindsight my choice of the word cynical could well be taken as harsher than I intended. I should have probably said that I thought you were being a bit harsh on the government, which as a cornerstone of it's political standpoint is in favour of aspiration. Simply put, if people think they will lose or be put under pressure to give up what they have worked for and invested in, they won't work hard and invest in the first place. You only have to look at the flak the government has received on the "bedroom tax" where they have tried to move people on benefit to more appropriate sized housing for their needs to get an idea of how unpopular such a strategy would be, especially considering that it was tax payers money that was paying for larger houses than people needed in the bedroom tax case. Another emotive example is inheritance tax. People quite rightly would like to think that they can keep what they have earned when they have already paid tax on those earnings. TBH I don't really see how you can incentify people to move to a smaller property. At the very least they will want the market value for their home and most of course will intend to leave their house to their kids. In any case, even if you could persuade people to downsize, the house would still go on the market for the market rate. No-one in their right mind is going to sell it for less than its worth.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 6, 2016)

In Glasgow we live in a 'valley'.  On one side in the last ten years a huge amount of new housing has been built on the top of the hill heading south of Glasgow.  In the heavy rains of last few weeks the flooding of the streets and gardens of homes around us is the worse it has *ever *been.  Are the two in any way related?  

Even with us - both neighbours in the semi next door have paved their driveways and they do not have any 'lateral' drainage off their drives  They are both slightly higher than us.  Water was pouring down the driveways and then from the bottom of their driveways into the gardens of our home and those further down from us - and our garden and those of our lower neighbours were flooded worse than they have ever been.  That's how it works.


----------



## ger147 (Jan 6, 2016)

Wettest Demember since records began apparently...

http://news.sky.com/story/1616989/december-2015-the-wettest-since-records-began


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 6, 2016)

TheDiablo said:



			The Government will go a *very *long way to protect the retired vote - claiming otherwise is naive. And the retired vote is exactly why they (and I) are sh*t scared of the EU referendum! 

You have a cynical view of the housing market in Surrey (and other similar areas), which is why I used the adjective cynical;* in no way whatsoever was your statement fact - show me a 'Russian Oligarch' who would choose to live in a Suburban 1950s 3-bed semi and I'll happily retract the comment! This isn't Chelsea and Kensington we're talking about here (although I obviously agree that foreign investment in London has driven up prices across SE *- but that isn't anywhere near the main cause of the housing shortage).

Of course I am not in favour of the Government 'forcing' people from their homes - what I am hugely in favour of and have been stating all along is the Govt offering incentives for people to move out into more suitably sized properties for their needs, and thus allowing young families to move into the vacated properties and subsequently allowing first time buyers more choice at that end - liquidity! Incentive schemes are offered at the bottom of the ladder to help first time buyers, so it must be something that has been considered on other rungs too.

However, in my opinion (which you may view as cynical) Govts avoid potential controversial policies toward the retired/elderly, especially those that can be spun into a witch-hunt by the Mail.
		
Click to expand...

This is true.  And in the London commuting belt where a few of us on here live - prices are increasing inexorably - driven by the budgets of those wishing to move (with their young family) out of London  The Â£500,000 stamp duty step up applied some measure of restraint but that has gone now.  So houses that were previously on at just under Â£500k (such as 3 bed 1950s semis!) are now on the market for >Â£500k.  And of course as we are surrounded by green belt the opposition to new housing is significant.


----------



## TheDiablo (Jan 6, 2016)

Sweep said:



			In hindsight my choice of the word cynical could well be taken as harsher than I intended. I should have probably said that I thought you were being a bit harsh on the government, which as a cornerstone of it's political standpoint is in favour of aspiration. Simply put, if people think they will lose or be put under pressure to give up what they have worked for and invested in, they won't work hard and invest in the first place. You only have to look at the flak the government has received on the "bedroom tax" where they have tried to move people on benefit to more appropriate sized housing for their needs to get an idea of how unpopular such a strategy would be, especially considering that it was tax payers money that was paying for larger houses than people needed in the bedroom tax case. Another emotive example is inheritance tax. People quite rightly would like to think that they can keep what they have earned when they have already paid tax on those earnings. TBH I don't really see how you can incentify people to move to a smaller property. At the very least they will want the market value for their home and most of course will intend to leave their house to their kids. In any case, even if you could persuade people to downsize, the house would still go on the market for the market rate. No-one in their right mind is going to sell it for less than its worth.
		
Click to expand...

I'm personally a Tory, for many of the reasons you outline above (aspiration), so this isn't necessarily aimed at the current govt, but all govts in the last 20 years. 

As I stated, I am no economist and don't have the silver bullet, but still believe incentives can be offered to get things moving. Perhaps something even in combination with relief on inheritance tax of x% for downsizing to a 1/2 bed. I also don't buy that people want to leave their house to their kids - many of their kids will have their own houses and kids of their own - what they want is to leave the maximum capital to their kids. With an incentive to release much of that capital earlier through inheritance tax relief of some kind it may just give a few people a nudge, which could domino. 

And of course, they should receive market rate. But this may control the unsustainable rise in prices in the area - the 3 bed semi I bought was worth 50k less 1 year beforehand, and a year later is worth 50k more, with absolutely no change to the area to influence this - where will this end!!

So I think we're getting closer to the same page   and apologies if my language also came across as harsher than it was intended. I'm just passionate that the govt should at least be trying _something _to change the situation for my generation, rather than being so terribly passive about the crisis!


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jan 6, 2016)

ger147 said:



			Wettest Demember since records began apparently...

http://news.sky.com/story/1616989/december-2015-the-wettest-since-records-began

Click to expand...

Oh stop bringing in weather related evidence into a discussion about why there has been a lot of flooding recently.  It's the immigrants fault stupid.  Or The Governments. Or Donald Trumps possibly, I've slightly lost track of the discussion to be honest.


----------



## ger147 (Jan 6, 2016)

Hacker Khan said:



			Oh stop bringing in weather related evidence into a discussion about why there has been a lot of flooding recently.  It's the immigrants fault stupid.  Or The Governments. Or Donald Trumps possibly, I've slightly lost track of the discussion to be honest.
		
Click to expand...

I know, it'll never catch on...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 6, 2016)

Yes it rained - it does in Glasgow - but it most certainly was the fact that our neighbours had both paved their driveways that made the flooding in our garden and under the house worse.  Previously their drives were gravel and rainwater didn't flow down them and into our garden as it did recently.


----------



## ger147 (Jan 6, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Yes it rained - it does in Glasgow - but it most certainly was the fact that our neighbours had both paved their driveways that made the flooding in our garden and under the house worse.  Previously their drives were gravel and rainwater didn't flow down them and into our garden as it did recently.
		
Click to expand...

It rained in Glasgow more in December 2015 than it has in any of the previous 104 years since they started keeping records. That is the only fact I am aware of, the rest is merely speculation.


----------

