Currently discussing on newsnight - nothing short of the government stepping in and interfering in the free market will wheel this runaway train back in, certainly in London and the South east
No local authorities in south London or the south east can meet their housing targets (which are normally lower than their objectively assessed needs anyway). Almost all their Local Plans are out of date.
40% of all authorities in the UK have Local Plans that pre-date the NPPF! Hopeless.
This housing paper isn't a revolution but was never expected to be.
But even the properties being built aren't always going to reduce the shortage.
A neighbour told me that a recent development in Bromley is being marketed in the far east.
I pointed this out to a government inspector, who will be ruling over a proposed development near me and he just shrugged and said it was out of his hands and yet he will be basing his decision on the urgent need for greater development in urban areas.
What's the point of building more & more if the properties are being sold to (overseas) investors, or to any investors for that matter. It's a bloody disgrace. It's solving nothing if the properties are being built and left empty and someone needs to be doing something about it.
But even the properties being built aren't always going to reduce the shortage.
A neighbour told me that a recent development in Bromley is being marketed in the far east.
I pointed this out to a government inspector, who will be ruling over a proposed development near me and he just shrugged and said it was out of his hands and yet he will be basing his decision on the urgent need for greater development in urban areas.
What's the point of building more & more if the properties are being sold to (overseas) investors, or to any investors for that matter. It's a bloody disgrace. It's solving nothing if the properties are being built and left empty and someone needs to be doing something about it.
It'll still have affordable housing if it's big enough. Could have more affordable if Bromley got a plan together and weren't relying on one from 2006.
I really can't imagine empty properties are a massive factor toward the housing shortage. We do need to build more but there does need to be a acceptance from the government that the problem is demand-led too.
If a local authority can't meet its five year housing quota then a new housing development is practically impossible to prevent even in areas which lack infrastructure. Once planning permission is granted it can't be overturned. It's common up here for developers to obtain planning permission and to build just below the threshold at which they would be required to contribute to infrastructure upgrades. Or just not build until a time at which they think property prices are at their highest.
The house building is a joke. Not a mention on Newsnight about the infrastructure to support this. Schools. Hospitals.
The only people that are laughing are the developers.
#profit. And as CE implies, the profit probably goes out the country anyway in some cases.
Thatcher probably thought she was doing the right thing with right to buy but didn't envisage the savage greed of 21st century capitalism where the divide is widening faster than ever. Though privatisation should have given her an inkling.
Affordable housing is a joke, I went to a first time buyers fair 2 years ago and they had a gentleman speaking there, was a doctor from India, moved here to work after gaining degree back home, thought the first time buyer scheme was wonderful as he could get an "affordable" 2 bed flat in Greenwich for 425k, with a deposit of 20%. Laughable, how many young people do you know have 85k knocking about? He made a complete mockery of what the FTB thing was made for, and the so called affordability of places in the eyes of many people way above the breadline is ridiculously short sighted
I;m no socialist far from it, but when it comes to housing in this country something radical has to be done - along with proper funding of the NHS )re the "special" feature on the BBC News)
Taxes need to go up , especially for higher earners and the Government need to be looking at both these issues as loss leaders - house building should be seen like road building - major infrastructure that benefits everybody. Start up new apprentice schemes for school leavers & train them as Chippys or Sparky;s, Plumbers etc....get the youth off the street & into jobs. That money will then be spent in the economy.
As for selling flats off plan to overseas investors - it should be mandatory that if that property is not being occupied then the local council can take control of it & house those on their waiting lists.
But even the properties being built aren't always going to reduce the shortage.
A neighbour told me that a recent development in Bromley is being marketed in the far east.
I pointed this out to a government inspector, who will be ruling over a proposed development near me and he just shrugged and said it was out of his hands and yet he will be basing his decision on the urgent need for greater development in urban areas.
What's the point of building more & more if the properties are being sold to (overseas) investors, or to any investors for that matter. It's a bloody disgrace. It's solving nothing if the properties are being built and left empty and someone needs to be doing something about it.
That's absolutely disgusting. It's disgusting wherever it is, but when's it going to stop? We're no longer talking about Mayfair, Knightsbridge, Kensington and so on.. We're talking about areas that don't even have a tube station or a "London postcode" FFS.
A mate of mine and his wife are architects and we discussed the issue over a few bottles of wine and some whiskey; it was a thoroughly depressing discussion as I finally realised that these buildings are not an income stream - ala a traditional landlord - rather they're investments - akin to a stock. Ergo, if the money is still coming in then arguably the market is predicted to continue to rise?
With a rather perverse irony, I can almost see a silver lining to people investing in empty property. After all, the alternative scenario where the properties are lived in has the negative of continuing to stretch our infrastructure and transport services. After all, I certainly haven't seen any new schools popping up in the area, and SouthEastern don't seem particularly bothered about trains being crowded enough that people pass out. Not to mention the actual fights of KEEPING hospitals open.
The situation really requires a proper examination. Someone needs to come along and work out:
a) What's actually happening at the moment. b) The effect this has on the economy, local infrastructure and public services. c) What will happen if this situation continues. d) How long this is, if it even is at the moment, sustainable. e) What the current problems people are facing.
They then need to work out if there's a way of drawing up a real workable plan to fix it.
To drive the topic in a completely different direction, everyone seems to be aware of the north/south divide, and the difference in views outside of London.. Perhaps an attempt at making improvements to the huge areas of underdeveloped - and arguably neglected - urban landscape outside of London would reduce this divide in a multitude of ways. Not only by changing attitudes, but by sharing prosperity, creating new employment opportunities and evening out the housing market.
Still, Londons where the money is so I'm guessing it's not the first priority for your average developer with £££ in his sights.
Watched "inside London" last week, they were saying that the developers were building highrise flats along the river and selling them for millions, then giving the local council a lump sum for them to arrange social housing elsewhere in the borough.
I've worked with a builder for years, who has progressed from small repair contracts to building individual houses to building small developments.
His first small development was four houses and four flats for sale in Sittingbourne where he invested everything he had and came away 18 months later with a tidy profit and eight local families living in some lovely quality homes.
He then reinvested his profits into a larger development roughly twice the side, but has had to pay three times as much for the land - again just outside Sittingbourne.
Three months into the construction he was approached by far eastern broker out of the blue. He offered to buy every single property, off plan, at a 15% premium over a median valuation of each property.
He really struggled with this, but in the end agreed to the sale. Contracts were drawn up and the full amount went into his business account within 14 days of meeting the broker. The whole site had been bought by a Chinese investor who intended to rent every property.
Swale Council were unable to do a thing to prevent this.
The broker has said his client will buy every property that he develops in the future under the same terms.
I can't recall the affordable element, but the % was quite low and even "affordable" housing isn't affordable for most people.
That affordable housing in the Wembley development for a 2 bed flat was £1600-2000 pm. Wtf?
I saw that in the standard last night. The article starts with this big explosion about it being one of the largest purpose built sites for renters etc etc and then hits you with the fact that it will be between £1600-£2000 pcm. Fucking joke.
Also, it's nice to have amenities like purpose built gyms and cinemas and whatever other bollocks shit some clever marketeers come up with, but fuck all of that. I couldn't give a flying crap. I'd rather have an affordable place to rent minus all the shit. They somehow think that these added things suddenly seem to make it more attractive or justify and extreme price tag.
I can't recall the affordable element, but the % was quite low and even "affordable" housing isn't affordable for most people.
That affordable housing in the Wembley development for a 2 bed flat was £1600-2000 pm. Wtf?
I saw that in the standard last night. The article starts with this big explosion about it being one of the largest purpose built sites for renters etc etc and then hits you with the fact that it will be between £1600-£2000 pcm. Fucking joke.
Also, it's nice to have amenities like purpose built gyms and cinemas and whatever other bollocks shit some clever marketeers come up with, but fuck all of that. I couldn't give a flying crap. I'd rather have an affordable place to rent minus all the shit. They somehow think that these added things suddenly seem to make it more attractive or justify and extreme price tag.
Who cares
I might be wrong but aren't gas, electric, WiFi included??
I can't recall the affordable element, but the % was quite low and even "affordable" housing isn't affordable for most people.
That affordable housing in the Wembley development for a 2 bed flat was £1600-2000 pm. Wtf?
I saw that in the standard last night. The article starts with this big explosion about it being one of the largest purpose built sites for renters etc etc and then hits you with the fact that it will be between £1600-£2000 pcm. Fucking joke.
Also, it's nice to have amenities like purpose built gyms and cinemas and whatever other bollocks shit some clever marketeers come up with, but fuck all of that. I couldn't give a flying crap. I'd rather have an affordable place to rent minus all the shit. They somehow think that these added things suddenly seem to make it more attractive or justify and extreme price tag.
Who cares
I might be wrong but aren't gas, electric, WiFi included??
I am troubled by the fact that a true housing shortage would be evidenced by rents rising as fast as house prices and millions of homeless, yet neither is apparent.
My view is that there is simply a shortage of properties for sale (since 'supply' includes both new homes and existing homes), and the abolition of stamp duty would solve this instantly by encouraging greater mobility.
I can't recall the affordable element, but the % was quite low and even "affordable" housing isn't affordable for most people.
That affordable housing in the Wembley development for a 2 bed flat was £1600-2000 pm. Wtf?
I saw that in the standard last night. The article starts with this big explosion about it being one of the largest purpose built sites for renters etc etc and then hits you with the fact that it will be between £1600-£2000 pcm. Fucking joke.
Also, it's nice to have amenities like purpose built gyms and cinemas and whatever other bollocks shit some clever marketeers come up with, but fuck all of that. I couldn't give a flying crap. I'd rather have an affordable place to rent minus all the shit. They somehow think that these added things suddenly seem to make it more attractive or justify and extreme price tag.
Who cares
I might be wrong but aren't gas, electric, WiFi included??
Yes, that's what they said on Newsnight.
What's that though in a two bed flat, £100-£150pm max.?
I genuinely cannot see any improvement in the access to reasonably priced housing for young people until Right to Buy is repealed...and that ain't going to happen any time soon.
Councils are currently dipping into reserves which could be used to build housing. But why would anybody do this when in a few years time you will be forced to sell that property, at less than it's market value, and a year or two after that end up having to subsidise the rent on what is now another property that has transferred into the private rental market.
No business on earth would adopt that model yet local authorities are expected to.
If RTB went I think we would see a lot more public housing available pretty quickly with the knock on effects this would have on the rest of the market.
I can't recall the affordable element, but the % was quite low and even "affordable" housing isn't affordable for most people.
That affordable housing in the Wembley development for a 2 bed flat was £1600-2000 pm. Wtf?
I saw that in the standard last night. The article starts with this big explosion about it being one of the largest purpose built sites for renters etc etc and then hits you with the fact that it will be between £1600-£2000 pcm. Fucking joke.
Also, it's nice to have amenities like purpose built gyms and cinemas and whatever other bollocks shit some clever marketeers come up with, but fuck all of that. I couldn't give a flying crap. I'd rather have an affordable place to rent minus all the shit. They somehow think that these added things suddenly seem to make it more attractive or justify and extreme price tag.
Who cares
I might be wrong but aren't gas, electric, WiFi included??
Yes, that's what they said on Newsnight.
What's that though in a two bed flat, £100-£150pm max.?
About that but I think it's only fair that it should be mentioned.
The house building is a joke. Not a mention on Newsnight about the infrastructure to support this. Schools. Hospitals.
The only people that are laughing are the developers.
#profit. And as CE implies, the profit probably goes out the country anyway in some cases.
Thatcher probably thought she was doing the right thing with right to buy but didn't envisage the savage greed of 21st century capitalism where the divide is widening faster than ever. Though privatisation should have given her an inkling.
I am troubled by the fact that a true housing shortage would be evidenced by rents rising as fast as house prices and millions of homeless, yet neither is apparent.
My view is that there is simply a shortage of properties for sale (since 'supply' includes both new homes and existing homes), and the abolition of stamp duty would solve this instantly by encouraging greater mobility.
A few points to challenge your argument:
- Private rental prices are rising much faster than house prices. - The latest statistics show 75,000 household in temporary accommodation (usually B&B). - There are now 3.3million 20-34 year-olds still living with parents, a 618,000 leap since 1996, the findings from the Office for National Statistics show. - A fifth of 25-to-29 year olds still living with their parents, and half of those aged 20-to-24 and one in 10 aged 30-to-34 are also in the same boat.
The explanation isn't a shortage of properties for sale - rather it's a combination of a shortage of affordable housing for both sale and rent in the areas where people need them.
Far too many people making far too much money out of the housing crisis for there to be any meaningful solution to be sought or implemented.
Unless local authorities are given the money and right to replenish the "council house" stock that has been eroded over the years, affordable housing in the south east will continue to be an impossible dream.
Modular housing is a cheap quick fix that will just store up the problem for the next generation.
Land needs to be freed up on both green and brownfield sites to build. There is plenty of space in this country.
I wonder how many of our MP's are landlords or on the boards of property development companies.
I genuinely cannot see any improvement in the access to reasonably priced housing for young people until Right to Buy is repealed...and that ain't going to happen any time soon.
Councils are currently dipping into reserves which could be used to build housing. But why would anybody do this when in a few years time you will be forced to sell that property, at less than it's market value, and a year or two after that end up having to subsidise the rent on what is now another property that has transferred into the private rental market.
No business on earth would adopt that model yet local authorities are expected to.
If RTB went I think we would see a lot more public housing available pretty quickly with the knock on effects this would have on the rest of the market.
Far too many people making far too much money out of the housing crisis for there to be any meaningful solution to be sought or implemented.
Unless local authorities are given the money and right to replenish the "council house" stock that has been eroded over the years, affordable housing in the south east will continue to be an impossible dream.
Modular housing is a cheap quick fix that will just store up the problem for the next generation.
Land needs to be freed up on both green and brownfield sites to build. There is plenty of space in this country.
I wonder how many of our MP's are landlords or on the boards of property development companies.
The first four words. ` `Far too many people'
For me that is the major factor in the housing crisis. The country is vastly over populated. And sorry Dave but there is not plenty of space in this country.
Comments
If anyone is watching it at the moment, the 3 cases they're are showing are nothing short of disgusting
40% of all authorities in the UK have Local Plans that pre-date the NPPF! Hopeless.
This housing paper isn't a revolution but was never expected to be.
A neighbour told me that a recent development in Bromley is being marketed in the far east.
I pointed this out to a government inspector, who will be ruling over a proposed development near me and he just shrugged and said it was out of his hands and yet he will be basing his decision on the urgent need for greater development in urban areas.
What's the point of building more & more if the properties are being sold to (overseas) investors, or to any investors for that matter. It's a bloody disgrace. It's solving nothing if the properties are being built and left empty and someone needs to be doing something about it.
I really can't imagine empty properties are a massive factor toward the housing shortage. We do need to build more but there does need to be a acceptance from the government that the problem is demand-led too.
Once planning permission is granted it can't be overturned.
It's common up here for developers to obtain planning permission and to build just below the threshold at which they would be required to contribute to infrastructure upgrades.
Or just not build until a time at which they think property prices are at their highest.
The house building is a joke. Not a mention on Newsnight about the infrastructure to support this. Schools. Hospitals.
The only people that are laughing are the developers.
#profit. And as CE implies, the profit probably goes out the country anyway in some cases.
Thatcher probably thought she was doing the right thing with right to buy but didn't envisage the savage greed of 21st century capitalism where the divide is widening faster than ever.
Though privatisation should have given her an inkling.
Taxes need to go up , especially for higher earners and the Government need to be looking at both these issues as loss leaders - house building should be seen like road building - major infrastructure that benefits everybody. Start up new apprentice schemes for school leavers & train them as Chippys or Sparky;s, Plumbers etc....get the youth off the street & into jobs. That money will then be spent in the economy.
As for selling flats off plan to overseas investors - it should be mandatory that if that property is not being occupied then the local council can take control of it & house those on their waiting lists.
A mate of mine and his wife are architects and we discussed the issue over a few bottles of wine and some whiskey; it was a thoroughly depressing discussion as I finally realised that these buildings are not an income stream - ala a traditional landlord - rather they're investments - akin to a stock. Ergo, if the money is still coming in then arguably the market is predicted to continue to rise?
With a rather perverse irony, I can almost see a silver lining to people investing in empty property. After all, the alternative scenario where the properties are lived in has the negative of continuing to stretch our infrastructure and transport services. After all, I certainly haven't seen any new schools popping up in the area, and SouthEastern don't seem particularly bothered about trains being crowded enough that people pass out. Not to mention the actual fights of KEEPING hospitals open.
The situation really requires a proper examination. Someone needs to come along and work out:
a) What's actually happening at the moment.
b) The effect this has on the economy, local infrastructure and public services.
c) What will happen if this situation continues.
d) How long this is, if it even is at the moment, sustainable.
e) What the current problems people are facing.
They then need to work out if there's a way of drawing up a real workable plan to fix it.
To drive the topic in a completely different direction, everyone seems to be aware of the north/south divide, and the difference in views outside of London.. Perhaps an attempt at making improvements to the huge areas of underdeveloped - and arguably neglected - urban landscape outside of London would reduce this divide in a multitude of ways. Not only by changing attitudes, but by sharing prosperity, creating new employment opportunities and evening out the housing market.
Still, Londons where the money is so I'm guessing it's not the first priority for your average developer with £££ in his sights.
His first small development was four houses and four flats for sale in Sittingbourne where he invested everything he had and came away 18 months later with a tidy profit and eight local families living in some lovely quality homes.
He then reinvested his profits into a larger development roughly twice the side, but has had to pay three times as much for the land - again just outside Sittingbourne.
Three months into the construction he was approached by far eastern broker out of the blue. He offered to buy every single property, off plan, at a 15% premium over a median valuation of each property.
He really struggled with this, but in the end agreed to the sale. Contracts were drawn up and the full amount went into his business account within 14 days of meeting the broker. The whole site had been bought by a Chinese investor who intended to rent every property.
Swale Council were unable to do a thing to prevent this.
The broker has said his client will buy every property that he develops in the future under the same terms.
Also, it's nice to have amenities like purpose built gyms and cinemas and whatever other bollocks shit some clever marketeers come up with, but fuck all of that. I couldn't give a flying crap. I'd rather have an affordable place to rent minus all the shit. They somehow think that these added things suddenly seem to make it more attractive or justify and extreme price tag.
Who cares
My view is that there is simply a shortage of properties for sale (since 'supply' includes both new homes and existing homes), and the abolition of stamp duty would solve this instantly by encouraging greater mobility.
What's that though in a two bed flat, £100-£150pm max.?
Councils are currently dipping into reserves which could be used to build housing. But why would anybody do this when in a few years time you will be forced to sell that property, at less than it's market value, and a year or two after that end up having to subsidise the rent on what is now another property that has transferred into the private rental market.
No business on earth would adopt that model yet local authorities are expected to.
If RTB went I think we would see a lot more public housing available pretty quickly with the knock on effects this would have on the rest of the market.
- Private rental prices are rising much faster than house prices.
- The latest statistics show 75,000 household in temporary accommodation (usually B&B).
- There are now 3.3million 20-34 year-olds still living with parents, a 618,000 leap since 1996, the findings from the Office for National Statistics show.
- A fifth of 25-to-29 year olds still living with their parents, and half of those aged 20-to-24 and one in 10 aged 30-to-34 are also in the same boat.
The explanation isn't a shortage of properties for sale - rather it's a combination of a shortage of affordable housing for both sale and rent in the areas where people need them.
Unless local authorities are given the money and right to replenish the "council house" stock that has been eroded over the years, affordable housing in the south east will continue to be an impossible dream.
Modular housing is a cheap quick fix that will just store up the problem for the next generation.
Land needs to be freed up on both green and brownfield sites to build. There is plenty of space in this country.
I wonder how many of our MP's are landlords or on the boards of property development companies.
`Far too many people'
For me that is the major factor in the housing crisis. The country is vastly over populated.
And sorry Dave but there is not plenty of space in this country.