A Million New Homes by 2020

[Ethan]

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"....

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

 

[ger147]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

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

 

[jp5]

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.

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]

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.

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 £375k to £650k. Madness.

 

[Rooter]

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 £375k to £650k. Madness.

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

 

[Khamelion]

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

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]

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?

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

 

[Deleted member 3432]

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]

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

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]

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 £375k to £650k. Madness.

Currently, yes - and that's similar to my road, where you certainly won't get change for £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]

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

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]

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?

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]

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?

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.