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.
But rental yields in the South-East remain less than 5% typically (and are not rising). Thus a typical 1-bed flat which would cost say £300k to buy can be rented for £15k pa or £1,250 pm. The same property to buy with a 5% deposit at say 3.3% for 5-years fixed would cost £1,396 per month (capital+interest) but this is of course before stamp duty, legal fees, maintenance costs etc. (plus the opportunity cost of the deposit tied up in the property). And this is of course calculated whilst interest rates are at all-time lows.
There is an implicit assumption that young people have a 'right' to own a property but renting has meaningful advantages not least mobility. I appreciate that the problem doesn't exist solely in the South-East but unfortunately if young people don't have the earnings power to own property in arguably the world's best and most dynamic city then the simple fact is that they have to move somewhere where they can (or rent!).
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.
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.
I think only 6% of the land in the UK is built upon. Looks like that's plenty of space to me.
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.
The percentage of built land in the UK (and that includes roads, airports, car parks etc...) is 6.8%
54% of that 6.8% urban built on land is green - parks, sports pitches, golf courses and so on. If we add to rivers, lakes and private gardens the 6.8% built on reduces to 2.7%
So 97.3% of land in the UK not built on - more than enough room I would suggest.
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.
I think only 6% of the land in the UK is built upon. Looks like that's plenty of space to me.
How much of that is protected Green Belt land though...
Or should we eventually turn the Peak / Lake District etc. into concrete jungles?
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.
But rental yields in the South-East remain less than 5% typically (and are not rising). Thus a typical 1-bed flat which would cost say £300k to buy can be rented for £15k pa or £1,250 pm. The same property to buy with a 5% deposit at say 3.3% for 5-years fixed would cost £1,396 per month (capital+interest) but this is of course before stamp duty, legal fees, maintenance costs etc. (plus the opportunity cost of the deposit tied up in the property). And this is of course calculated whilst interest rates are at all-time lows.
There is an implicit assumption that young people have a 'right' to own a property but renting has meaningful advantages not least mobility. I appreciate that the problem doesn't exist solely in the South-East but unfortunately if young people don't have the earnings power to own property in arguably the world's best and most dynamic city then the simple fact is that they have to move somewhere where they can (or rent!).
I don't know how things are in New York, but the reality of renting for the young people I know who have to in London is awful. Revenge evictions if they ask for repairs. Having to move every 6 months with all its attendant costs. Agreeing a rent then seeing it increase by a hundred pounds a month. Being evicted if you lose your job because landlords won't accept tenants on benefits.
Renting could be fine, but the reality is that with no security of tenure, meaning you could be homeless again pretty soon after you've settled in. And forget starting a family unless you're one of the lucky few who can get social housing or have rich parents.
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.
I think only 6% of the land in the UK is built upon. Looks like that's plenty of space to me.
How much of that is protected Green Belt land though...
Or should we eventually turn the Peak / Lake District etc. into concrete jungles?
This is my fear. There are no real wild areas left in England and even in the Cairngorms national park there are new build estates nearing completion around Aviemore. As we already have seen building on flood plains is not a good idea. So what land should be used?
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.
But rental yields in the South-East remain less than 5% typically (and are not rising). Thus a typical 1-bed flat which would cost say £300k to buy can be rented for £15k pa or £1,250 pm. The same property to buy with a 5% deposit at say 3.3% for 5-years fixed would cost £1,396 per month (capital+interest) but this is of course before stamp duty, legal fees, maintenance costs etc. (plus the opportunity cost of the deposit tied up in the property). And this is of course calculated whilst interest rates are at all-time lows.
There is an implicit assumption that young people have a 'right' to own a property but renting has meaningful advantages not least mobility. I appreciate that the problem doesn't exist solely in the South-East but unfortunately if young people don't have the earnings power to own property in arguably the world's best and most dynamic city then the simple fact is that they have to move somewhere where they can (or rent!).
I don't know how things are in New York, but the reality of renting for the young people I know who have to in London is awful. Revenge evictions if they ask for repairs. Having to move every 6 months with all its attendant costs. Agreeing a rent then seeing it increase by a hundred pounds a month. Being evicted if you lose your job because landlords won't accept tenants on benefits.
Renting could be fine, but the reality is that with no security of tenure, meaning you could be homeless again pretty soon after you've settled in. And forget starting a family unless you're one of the lucky few who can get social housing or have rich parents.
I no longer live in New York but I suspect the main difference is that most young people (except the highest earners) aren't interested in buying an apartment in the city (typically wait until they inevitably move to the 'burbs to start a family).
I didn't buy my first property until I was 38 so have experiences of renting eight different properties in the two cities and in every case it was fine and a mutually respectful landlord/tenant relationship. Most of the examples you describe above sound illegal or at least irrational on the part of the landlord.
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.
I think only 6% of the land in the UK is built upon. Looks like that's plenty of space to me.
How much of that is protected Green Belt land though...
Or should we eventually turn the Peak / Lake District etc. into concrete jungles?
This is my fear. There are no real wild areas left in England and even in the Cairngorms national park there are new build estates nearing completion around Aviemore. As we already have seen building on flood plains is not a good idea. So what land should be used?
Then you'll get people moaning about Foxes and wildlife going through their bins, making a mess on the pavements and digging up their gardens yet we've got remember that in a lot of cases, they were there first
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.
I think only 6% of the land in the UK is built upon. Looks like that's plenty of space to me.
How much of that is protected Green Belt land though...
Or should we eventually turn the Peak / Lake District etc. into concrete jungles?
Oh come on. Nobody is suggesting that vast areas of green belt land is used for housing. Especially land that is isolated and beautiful in the sense that you mean.
There is more land used for golf courses than that used for housing. There is plenty of land that is currently semi agricultural / industrial that could be used.
The real problem is that the vast majority of jobs are sited where the space to build on is most difficult.
No real point in building 50k new homes in eg. Lincolnshire when there are not enough jobs already.
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.
Very true.
A relative was showing me a fantastic photo album that had been produced about my local area, showing what the area looked like from between 30 to 100 years ago. Loads of areas that were otherwise undeveloped with plenty of green space, amenities and features, as well as low-impact housing, which has now all disappeared in favour of multiple flats and developments.
The real difference is the number of cars - you hardly see any, even in the more recent ones. Nowadays, more or less every residential street off a main road is jammed with cars mounting the pavement on both sides to fit as many in as possible, and now the council is building two multi-storey car parks to deal with the massive increase in people and motorists.
It's a shame, since I used to cycle around my parents' road when I was a kid, and cycle up to where one of my friends lived, but nowadays there are far too many drivers and cars to make it safe for a kid to do so.
The next generation is going to grow up not knowing what it is like playing football in the streets or cycling outside their front door. We're sacrificing what should be essential childhood memories in favour of the dream to concrete over as much of the land as possible so we can fit as many people into a square mile as is feasible, and that's not the only thing that will be affected; lifestyle, happiness, wellbeing, health, fitness, and mental state - these are all affected - negatively - by the loss of green space and being surrounded by cars, strangers and the pollution both bring in.
If the solution is to build new towns then build them, but trying to build on existing settlements that have already reached breaking point, while it might be easy, it is destroying our heritage.
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.
The percentage of built land in the UK (and that includes roads, airports, car parks etc...) is 6.8%
54% of that 6.8% urban built on land is green - parks, sports pitches, golf courses and so on. If we add to rivers, lakes and private gardens the 6.8% built on reduces to 2.7%
So 97.3% of land in the UK not built on - more than enough room I would suggest.
But none of it is where people actually want to live because there are no jobs there. There's plenty of "affordable housing" in Stoke. Here's an example going up for auction guide price £20k. rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-57920089.html
Much of the land is not usable, for one reason or another, like being in the Highlands of Scotland and at a 45 degree angle to the real world.
I'm a London boy. Back in the early 1970s I could not afford to buy a half-decent property in London. (Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.) So, I moved out. Over the years, I've moved further away and now live in deepest Essex. Still expensive in my view but a good deal cheaper than London. I'm really not that keen on concepts like people starting a family when they can't afford one and expect someone else to pick up the tab for them and their housing needs.
In truth, affordable housing is easily achievable. But housing/planning regs would need to change drastically and the price of the actual land is a large part of the costs. According to my insurance company, in the event of a fire, it would cost only approx. 40% of the value of my house to knock down the remnants and then rebuild it: I assume the balance is the "value" of the land?
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.
Very true.
A relative was showing me a fantastic photo album that had been produced about my local area, showing what the area looked like from between 30 to 100 years ago. Loads of areas that were otherwise undeveloped with plenty of green space, amenities and features, as well as low-impact housing, which has now all disappeared in favour of multiple flats and developments.
The real difference is the number of cars - you hardly see any, even in the more recent ones. Nowadays, more or less every residential street off a main road is jammed with cars mounting the pavement on both sides to fit as many in as possible, and now the council is building two multi-storey car parks to deal with the massive increase in people and motorists.
It's a shame, since I used to cycle around my parents' road when I was a kid, and cycle up to where one of my friends lived, but nowadays there are far too many drivers and cars to make it safe for a kid to do so.
The next generation is going to grow up not knowing what it is like playing football in the streets or cycling outside their front door. We're sacrificing what should be essential childhood memories in favour of the dream to concrete over as much of the land as possible so we can fit as many people into a square mile as is feasible, and that's not the only thing that will be affected; lifestyle, happiness, wellbeing, health, fitness, and mental state - these are all affected - negatively - by the loss of green space and being surrounded by cars, strangers and the pollution both bring in.
If the solution is to build new towns then build them, but trying to build on existing settlements that have already reached breaking point, while it might be easy, it is destroying our heritage.
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.
But rental yields in the South-East remain less than 5% typically (and are not rising). Thus a typical 1-bed flat which would cost say £300k to buy can be rented for £15k pa or £1,250 pm. The same property to buy with a 5% deposit at say 3.3% for 5-years fixed would cost £1,396 per month (capital+interest) but this is of course before stamp duty, legal fees, maintenance costs etc. (plus the opportunity cost of the deposit tied up in the property). And this is of course calculated whilst interest rates are at all-time lows.
There is an implicit assumption that young people have a 'right' to own a property but renting has meaningful advantages not least mobility. I appreciate that the problem doesn't exist solely in the South-East but unfortunately if young people don't have the earnings power to own property in arguably the world's best and most dynamic city then the simple fact is that they have to move somewhere where they can (or rent!).
I don't know how things are in New York, but the reality of renting for the young people I know who have to in London is awful. Revenge evictions if they ask for repairs. Having to move every 6 months with all its attendant costs. Agreeing a rent then seeing it increase by a hundred pounds a month. Being evicted if you lose your job because landlords won't accept tenants on benefits.
Renting could be fine, but the reality is that with no security of tenure, meaning you could be homeless again pretty soon after you've settled in. And forget starting a family unless you're one of the lucky few who can get social housing or have rich parents.
I no longer live in New York but I suspect the main difference is that most young people (except the highest earners) aren't interested in buying an apartment in the city (typically wait until they inevitably move to the 'burbs to start a family).
I didn't buy my first property until I was 38 so have experiences of renting eight different properties in the two cities and in every case it was fine and a mutually respectful landlord/tenant relationship. Most of the examples you describe above sound illegal or at least irrational on the part of the landlord.
Yet the places we are talking about as being completely unaffordable to buy include most of the suburbs. I don't know what the New York equivalent of Woolwich or Thamesmead is, but even in these least desirable areas of London the average house price (and really we mean flats rather than houses) is over 8 times average salary. And indeed rent. I get what you say about landlord/tenant relationship and there are bad ones on both sides, but the only tenure available in the UK except for social housing is for 6 months. Tenants in the UK have very few rights and can (and are) evicted with 4 weeks notice regardless of whether they've paid the rent. Deposit theft and the like are illegal, but happen all the time. The development at Wembley that has been talked about is the beginning of a new market I think for people who want to rent from a reliable landlord with professional standards and will pay a premium for this. I think a lot of younger people will have to rent as the idea of everyone owning a home is well and truly dead.
But this is an opportunity missed: these problems are solvable with political will. It's not the EU that says empty homes have to be sold to far eastern investors, to keep empty while they appreciate as assets: it's our own political class. It wouldn't happen elsewhere in Europe. Is it a coincidence that squatting in residential properties was made illegal a couple of years ago? I don't believe the city authorities in New York would stand for keeping homes empty in a time of scarcity, so why do they in London?
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.
Very true.
A relative was showing me a fantastic photo album that had been produced about my local area, showing what the area looked like from between 30 to 100 years ago. Loads of areas that were otherwise undeveloped with plenty of green space, amenities and features, as well as low-impact housing, which has now all disappeared in favour of multiple flats and developments.
The real difference is the number of cars - you hardly see any, even in the more recent ones. Nowadays, more or less every residential street off a main road is jammed with cars mounting the pavement on both sides to fit as many in as possible, and now the council is building two multi-storey car parks to deal with the massive increase in people and motorists.
It's a shame, since I used to cycle around my parents' road when I was a kid, and cycle up to where one of my friends lived, but nowadays there are far too many drivers and cars to make it safe for a kid to do so.
The next generation is going to grow up not knowing what it is like playing football in the streets or cycling outside their front door. We're sacrificing what should be essential childhood memories in favour of the dream to concrete over as much of the land as possible so we can fit as many people into a square mile as is feasible, and that's not the only thing that will be affected; lifestyle, happiness, wellbeing, health, fitness, and mental state - these are all affected - negatively - by the loss of green space and being surrounded by cars, strangers and the pollution both bring in.
If the solution is to build new towns then build them, but trying to build on existing settlements that have already reached breaking point, while it might be easy, it is destroying our heritage.
How do you get people to move them though?
I agree with @Baldybonce - there are far too many people, but as @bobmunro points out - there's also a hell of a lot of uninhabited land in this country. The solution is absolutely obvious - encourage movement outside of the crowded areas (London & SE?). I'm not entirely sure how you can make this an attractive proposition though; people want to be where it's cool and where there's money - and unfortunately, they'll pay any cost for that.
Consider Milton Keynes (I can't comment on the other "new towns"), I lived there for a few months and actually.. it was OK. I mean it was designed in a really modern grid, with an events venue, a nice complex to go out to of an evening, a football club, a shopping centre, a large area full of businesses and office space, and it even had a quality bus network and good rail links. However it's not really seen as the most attractive of options is it? In fact, the girl I went out with when I lived there now lives on a canal boat in London!
Or Ebbsfleet; it's time to build a new town, so in their infinite wisdom they decide to build it slap bang in an already busy area - an area served by a hospital that used to be plagued by horror stories, an area where school places are already at a premium, and an area where - despite modern transport links - commuter overcrowding is already an issue.
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.
Very true.
A relative was showing me a fantastic photo album that had been produced about my local area, showing what the area looked like from between 30 to 100 years ago. Loads of areas that were otherwise undeveloped with plenty of green space, amenities and features, as well as low-impact housing, which has now all disappeared in favour of multiple flats and developments.
The real difference is the number of cars - you hardly see any, even in the more recent ones. Nowadays, more or less every residential street off a main road is jammed with cars mounting the pavement on both sides to fit as many in as possible, and now the council is building two multi-storey car parks to deal with the massive increase in people and motorists.
It's a shame, since I used to cycle around my parents' road when I was a kid, and cycle up to where one of my friends lived, but nowadays there are far too many drivers and cars to make it safe for a kid to do so.
The next generation is going to grow up not knowing what it is like playing football in the streets or cycling outside their front door. We're sacrificing what should be essential childhood memories in favour of the dream to concrete over as much of the land as possible so we can fit as many people into a square mile as is feasible, and that's not the only thing that will be affected; lifestyle, happiness, wellbeing, health, fitness, and mental state - these are all affected - negatively - by the loss of green space and being surrounded by cars, strangers and the pollution both bring in.
If the solution is to build new towns then build them, but trying to build on existing settlements that have already reached breaking point, while it might be easy, it is destroying our heritage.
How do you get people to move them though?
I agree with @Baldybonce - there are far too many people, but as @bobmunro points out - there's also a hell of a lot of uninhabited land in this country. The solution is absolutely obvious - encourage movement outside of the crowded areas (London & SE?). I'm not entirely sure how you can make this an attractive proposition though; people want to be where it's cool and where there's money - and unfortunately, they'll pay any cost for that.
Consider Milton Keynes (I can't comment on the other "new towns"), I lived there for a few months and actually.. it was OK. I mean it was designed in a really modern grid, with an events venue, a nice complex to go out to of an evening, a football club, a shopping centre, a large area full of businesses and office space, and it even had a quality bus network and good rail links. However it's not really seen as the most attractive of options is it? In fact, the girl I went out with when I lived there now lives on a canal boat in London!
Or Ebbsfleet; it's time to build a new town, so in their infinite wisdom they decide to build it slap bang in an already busy area - an area served by a hospital that used to be plagued by horror stories, an area where school places are already at a premium, and an area where - despite modern transport links - commuter overcrowding is already an issue.
Spot on.
The answer to the encouragement is the provision of jobs. It needs joined up thinking which our politicians (of all hue) lack in abundance.
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.
Very true.
A relative was showing me a fantastic photo album that had been produced about my local area, showing what the area looked like from between 30 to 100 years ago. Loads of areas that were otherwise undeveloped with plenty of green space, amenities and features, as well as low-impact housing, which has now all disappeared in favour of multiple flats and developments.
The real difference is the number of cars - you hardly see any, even in the more recent ones. Nowadays, more or less every residential street off a main road is jammed with cars mounting the pavement on both sides to fit as many in as possible, and now the council is building two multi-storey car parks to deal with the massive increase in people and motorists.
It's a shame, since I used to cycle around my parents' road when I was a kid, and cycle up to where one of my friends lived, but nowadays there are far too many drivers and cars to make it safe for a kid to do so.
The next generation is going to grow up not knowing what it is like playing football in the streets or cycling outside their front door. We're sacrificing what should be essential childhood memories in favour of the dream to concrete over as much of the land as possible so we can fit as many people into a square mile as is feasible, and that's not the only thing that will be affected; lifestyle, happiness, wellbeing, health, fitness, and mental state - these are all affected - negatively - by the loss of green space and being surrounded by cars, strangers and the pollution both bring in.
If the solution is to build new towns then build them, but trying to build on existing settlements that have already reached breaking point, while it might be easy, it is destroying our heritage.
Jobs ?
You might have to elaborate on that one.
LuckyReds - make the houses cheap enough so people will want to move there. New towns aren't seen as ideal, particularly when they're horribly designed, but other countries seem to get this right. Unfortunately the building industry in this country seems to be cornered by companies that specialise in really shit, poorly designed and error-ridden developments.
The same issues of expensive housing, foreign demand, high/rising rents etc. are prevalent in every 'world class' city in the world. There is no shortage of housing in any of these places but a shortage of housing which the 'average person' can afford which isn't the same thing (and which simply building more will not solve due to Say's Law ie. supply creates its own demand).
Unfortunately the 'average person' doesn't have a divine right to live in any of these cities in the type of property and with the quality of life they desire, regardless of whether they were raised there. Unemployment is not especially high anywhere in the country (at least by continental European standards) so there are places to move to where incomes and cost of living are better matched.
As others have suggested, one either has to make sacrifices (live in a studio flat, share with flatmates, live longer with parents, tolerate a longer commute, rent for longer to save for a deposit etc.), find a way to increase one's income or consider alternative places to live.
The same issues of expensive housing, foreign demand, high/rising rents etc. are prevalent in every 'world class' city in the world. There is no shortage of housing in any of these places but a shortage of housing which the 'average person' can afford which isn't the same thing (and which simply building more will not solve due to Say's Law ie. supply creates its own demand).
Unfortunately the 'average person' doesn't have a divine right to live in any of these cities in the type of property and with the quality of life they desire, regardless of whether they were raised there. Unemployment is not especially high anywhere in the country (at least by continental European standards) so there are places to move to where incomes and cost of living are better matched.
As others have suggested, one either has to make sacrifices (live in a studio flat, share with flatmates, live longer with parents, tolerate a longer commute, rent for longer to save for a deposit etc.), find a way to increase one's income or consider alternative places to live.
Is there no argument that heritage or protected-status reasons cannot be considered along with whether one can afford to live there? The main reason why property prices are sky high in London is due to wealthy outsiders speculating on the property market and the cost of this speculation is human as opposed to financial. Why should families that have lived in an area for generations make way for wealthy outsiders? Or alternatively, some areas that have historically been culturally and racially diverse may have that threatened because the ones with all the money predominantly belong to a particular background.
The same issues of expensive housing, foreign demand, high/rising rents etc. are prevalent in every 'world class' city in the world. There is no shortage of housing in any of these places but a shortage of housing which the 'average person' can afford which isn't the same thing (and which simply building more will not solve due to Say's Law ie. supply creates its own demand).
Unfortunately the 'average person' doesn't have a divine right to live in any of these cities in the type of property and with the quality of life they desire, regardless of whether they were raised there. Unemployment is not especially high anywhere in the country (at least by continental European standards) so there are places to move to where incomes and cost of living are better matched.
As others have suggested, one either has to make sacrifices (live in a studio flat, share with flatmates, live longer with parents, tolerate a longer commute, rent for longer to save for a deposit etc.), find a way to increase one's income or consider alternative places to live.
Is there no argument that heritage or protected-status reasons cannot be considered along with whether one can afford to live there? The main reason why property prices are sky high in London is due to wealthy outsiders speculating on the property market and the cost of this speculation is human as opposed to financial. Why should families that have lived in an area for generations make way for wealthy outsiders? Or alternatively, some areas that have historically been culturally and racially diverse may have that threatened because the ones with all the money predominantly belong to a particular background.
But it's a bit of a circular argument - the foreign money began to flow here in the first place because London is/was an economic powerhouse (driven by the City, but other industries too). These attributes have obviously also benefited 'proper Londoners' whether through increased wealth (mainly via house prices), better job opportunities, improved infrastructure etc. The same foreign money doesn't flow to say Madrid or Manchester because they wouldn't be so described.
With regard to your last point, nobody forced say first or second generation immigrant families in Notting Hill to up sticks and move out when the City/foreign money started flowing in but I suspect it gave many the opportunity to better their quality of life by selling up and moving further out.
I travel around England quite a lot. Virtually everywhere I go, especially around medium/middle sized towns and cities, a lot of housebuilding is going on, as well as warehouses, industrial units and office blocks. Infrastructure is being built. The problem of affordability is tied in with buy to let and interest rates. The lower the rates, the higher the price to buy, the more incentives to buy to let, the higher the price. Emphasis should be aimed at rent controls on private lets, then, investors who see that they can't make so much as they had hoped by buying to let will go and invest elsewhere, (hopefully) the price of houses will decrease accordingly and the money not invested in housing will be invested somewhere else in the general economy and people on an 'average' wage can afford to live in a decent home whilst having security of tenure and not being ripped off by greedy house owners. The main issue with this is that rent controls must strike a balance between being fair to both landlord and tenant.
I've rented (£750pcm) in Maidstone for 8 years now whilst saving for a deposit and finally ready to buy this autumn at 32 years old. I've been able to afford a mortgage for a while now (with working wife of course - on my own would be a different matter), but the killer is the deposit. Saving £30k whilst renting has taken a long, long time (as I've not wanted to stop enjoying life completely) and have got married in that time, but I've had the same 2nd hand Car since 2006, take packed lunches every day, have done additional jobs etc. at weekends etc. etc. but it's a long slog.
Yet I see youngsters (18-25: earning circa £20k) at my place now moaning they can't afford to buy, whilst living at home with Parents and financing a brand new Car, doing all inclusive holidays to the Caribbean every summer.
I do think some of the latest generations aren't prepared to go without quite so much as prior generations, but maybe they just see it as an impossible task, so don't really bother, or in the case of some wait for a family member to peg it and pocket a deposit overnight - lucky them!
Then you get silly incentives like Help to Buy ISA - a good idea in theory but only applicable for houses up to £250k in the SE. Now it might work for some, but what I want (3 bed EOT in a reasonable area - nout special) will cost over £250k, so I want a house for say circa £280k and I don't get the bonus. Very helpful!!!
Ultimately there is housing out there (a quick looks now for a 3bed in Maidstone brings loads of options) but it's not affordable for most who don't have help and aren't prepared to slog for a decade to get it.
And for those unfortunate to have been brought into the world without a good support network and opportunities available it must be nigh on impossible to ever buy a place.
The same issues of expensive housing, foreign demand, high/rising rents etc. are prevalent in every 'world class' city in the world. There is no shortage of housing in any of these places but a shortage of housing which the 'average person' can afford which isn't the same thing (and which simply building more will not solve due to Say's Law ie. supply creates its own demand).
Unfortunately the 'average person' doesn't have a divine right to live in any of these cities in the type of property and with the quality of life they desire, regardless of whether they were raised there. Unemployment is not especially high anywhere in the country (at least by continental European standards) so there are places to move to where incomes and cost of living are better matched.
As others have suggested, one either has to make sacrifices (live in a studio flat, share with flatmates, live longer with parents, tolerate a longer commute, rent for longer to save for a deposit etc.), find a way to increase one's income or consider alternative places to live.
This is the kick in the teeth though. You mentioned in one of your earlier posts an example re: a one bed in the south east at £1,250pcm to rent. I don't expect nor do I believe I have a devine right to own a house in the area I grew up, which is south east london, but when 100s of people that are born in these areas, work hard, do what they are supposed to do (college, uni, get a job etc), what a punch it is in the face to say, you're unlikely to now own, and you can pay through the nose to now rent in such an area. It's getting to the point where you're taking away some pretty basic intrinsic human desires such as settling down and starting a family, and 1000s living hand to mouth. It's not good.
The same issues of expensive housing, foreign demand, high/rising rents etc. are prevalent in every 'world class' city in the world. There is no shortage of housing in any of these places but a shortage of housing which the 'average person' can afford which isn't the same thing (and which simply building more will not solve due to Say's Law ie. supply creates its own demand).
Unfortunately the 'average person' doesn't have a divine right to live in any of these cities in the type of property and with the quality of life they desire, regardless of whether they were raised there. Unemployment is not especially high anywhere in the country (at least by continental European standards) so there are places to move to where incomes and cost of living are better matched.
As others have suggested, one either has to make sacrifices (live in a studio flat, share with flatmates, live longer with parents, tolerate a longer commute, rent for longer to save for a deposit etc.), find a way to increase one's income or consider alternative places to live.
This is the kick in the teeth though. You mentioned in one of your earlier posts an example re: a one bed in the south east at £1,250pcm to rent. I don't expect nor do I believe I have a devine right to own a house in the area I grew up, which is south east london, but when 100s of people that are born in these areas, work hard, do what they are supposed to do (college, uni, get a job etc), what a punch it is in the face to say, you're unlikely to now own, and you can pay through the nose to now rent in such an area. It's getting to the point where you're taking away some pretty basic intrinsic human desires such as settling down and starting a family, and 1000s living hand to mouth. It's not good.
I'm sure that someone who went to college/uni and is now employed will be in a position to buy a place in the South-East eventually - as @The Organiser rightly described, it requires some sacrifices.
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.
Very true.
A relative was showing me a fantastic photo album that had been produced about my local area, showing what the area looked like from between 30 to 100 years ago. Loads of areas that were otherwise undeveloped with plenty of green space, amenities and features, as well as low-impact housing, which has now all disappeared in favour of multiple flats and developments.
The real difference is the number of cars - you hardly see any, even in the more recent ones. Nowadays, more or less every residential street off a main road is jammed with cars mounting the pavement on both sides to fit as many in as possible, and now the council is building two multi-storey car parks to deal with the massive increase in people and motorists.
It's a shame, since I used to cycle around my parents' road when I was a kid, and cycle up to where one of my friends lived, but nowadays there are far too many drivers and cars to make it safe for a kid to do so.
The next generation is going to grow up not knowing what it is like playing football in the streets or cycling outside their front door. We're sacrificing what should be essential childhood memories in favour of the dream to concrete over as much of the land as possible so we can fit as many people into a square mile as is feasible, and that's not the only thing that will be affected; lifestyle, happiness, wellbeing, health, fitness, and mental state - these are all affected - negatively - by the loss of green space and being surrounded by cars, strangers and the pollution both bring in.
If the solution is to build new towns then build them, but trying to build on existing settlements that have already reached breaking point, while it might be easy, it is destroying our heritage.
Jobs ?
You might have to elaborate on that one.
LuckyReds - make the houses cheap enough so people will want to move there. New towns aren't seen as ideal, particularly when they're horribly designed, but other countries seem to get this right. Unfortunately the building industry in this country seems to be cornered by companies that specialise in really shit, poorly designed and error-ridden developments.
All I'm saying that it's all well and good building new or expanding existing towns all over the country but the reality is that those people need jobs if they are going to be encouraged to move there.
Where there is space to build there are fewer jobs. Where people want to live which is predominantly London and the south east there is not so much space.
Housing shortage Social Care crisis NHS Regional development Job creation Industrial strategy Progressive education Nurse training Checks and balances on private sector Trains inc. times, safety, prices Infrastructure planning Regional policies Speculative asset stripping Banking regulation etc. etc.
All are within the gift of government to do something about. But they don't and we seem to let them off the hook.
This is what we have lost control of, do enough people care. We seem to have chosen to sleepwalk away from what democracy and representation actually means.
The same issues of expensive housing, foreign demand, high/rising rents etc. are prevalent in every 'world class' city in the world. There is no shortage of housing in any of these places but a shortage of housing which the 'average person' can afford which isn't the same thing (and which simply building more will not solve due to Say's Law ie. supply creates its own demand).
Unfortunately the 'average person' doesn't have a divine right to live in any of these cities in the type of property and with the quality of life they desire, regardless of whether they were raised there. Unemployment is not especially high anywhere in the country (at least by continental European standards) so there are places to move to where incomes and cost of living are better matched.
As others have suggested, one either has to make sacrifices (live in a studio flat, share with flatmates, live longer with parents, tolerate a longer commute, rent for longer to save for a deposit etc.), find a way to increase one's income or consider alternative places to live.
This is the kick in the teeth though. You mentioned in one of your earlier posts an example re: a one bed in the south east at £1,250pcm to rent. I don't expect nor do I believe I have a devine right to own a house in the area I grew up, which is south east london, but when 100s of people that are born in these areas, work hard, do what they are supposed to do (college, uni, get a job etc), what a punch it is in the face to say, you're unlikely to now own, and you can pay through the nose to now rent in such an area. It's getting to the point where you're taking away some pretty basic intrinsic human desires such as settling down and starting a family, and 1000s living hand to mouth. It's not good.
I'm sure that someone who went to college/uni and is now employed will be in a position to buy a place in the South-East eventually - as @The Organiser rightly described, it requires some sacrifices.
Unbelieveable Jeff - can I offer this up to the government as strategic advice for consultation on the white paper. I'd love to hear Javid lead with this
The same issues of expensive housing, foreign demand, high/rising rents etc. are prevalent in every 'world class' city in the world. There is no shortage of housing in any of these places but a shortage of housing which the 'average person' can afford which isn't the same thing (and which simply building more will not solve due to Say's Law ie. supply creates its own demand).
Unfortunately the 'average person' doesn't have a divine right to live in any of these cities in the type of property and with the quality of life they desire, regardless of whether they were raised there. Unemployment is not especially high anywhere in the country (at least by continental European standards) so there are places to move to where incomes and cost of living are better matched.
As others have suggested, one either has to make sacrifices (live in a studio flat, share with flatmates, live longer with parents, tolerate a longer commute, rent for longer to save for a deposit etc.), find a way to increase one's income or consider alternative places to live.
This is the kick in the teeth though. You mentioned in one of your earlier posts an example re: a one bed in the south east at £1,250pcm to rent. I don't expect nor do I believe I have a devine right to own a house in the area I grew up, which is south east london, but when 100s of people that are born in these areas, work hard, do what they are supposed to do (college, uni, get a job etc), what a punch it is in the face to say, you're unlikely to now own, and you can pay through the nose to now rent in such an area. It's getting to the point where you're taking away some pretty basic intrinsic human desires such as settling down and starting a family, and 1000s living hand to mouth. It's not good.
I'm sure that someone who went to college/uni and is now employed will be in a position to buy a place in the South-East eventually - as @The Organiser rightly described, it requires some sacrifices.
Unbelieveable Jeff - can I offer this up to the government as strategic advice for consultation on the white paper. I'd love to hear Javid lead with this
Comments
There is an implicit assumption that young people have a 'right' to own a property but renting has meaningful advantages not least mobility. I appreciate that the problem doesn't exist solely in the South-East but unfortunately if young people don't have the earnings power to own property in arguably the world's best and most dynamic city then the simple fact is that they have to move somewhere where they can (or rent!).
54% of that 6.8% urban built on land is green - parks, sports pitches, golf courses and so on. If we add to rivers, lakes and private gardens the 6.8% built on reduces to 2.7%
So 97.3% of land in the UK not built on - more than enough room I would suggest.
Or should we eventually turn the Peak / Lake District etc. into concrete jungles?
Renting could be fine, but the reality is that with no security of tenure, meaning you could be homeless again pretty soon after you've settled in. And forget starting a family unless you're one of the lucky few who can get social housing or have rich parents.
As we already have seen building on flood plains is not a good idea. So what land should be used?
I didn't buy my first property until I was 38 so have experiences of renting eight different properties in the two cities and in every case it was fine and a mutually respectful landlord/tenant relationship. Most of the examples you describe above sound illegal or at least irrational on the part of the landlord.
There is more land used for golf courses than that used for housing. There is plenty of land that is currently semi agricultural / industrial that could be used.
The real problem is that the vast majority of jobs are sited where the space to build on is most difficult.
No real point in building 50k new homes in eg. Lincolnshire when there are not enough jobs already.
A relative was showing me a fantastic photo album that had been produced about my local area, showing what the area looked like from between 30 to 100 years ago. Loads of areas that were otherwise undeveloped with plenty of green space, amenities and features, as well as low-impact housing, which has now all disappeared in favour of multiple flats and developments.
The real difference is the number of cars - you hardly see any, even in the more recent ones. Nowadays, more or less every residential street off a main road is jammed with cars mounting the pavement on both sides to fit as many in as possible, and now the council is building two multi-storey car parks to deal with the massive increase in people and motorists.
It's a shame, since I used to cycle around my parents' road when I was a kid, and cycle up to where one of my friends lived, but nowadays there are far too many drivers and cars to make it safe for a kid to do so.
The next generation is going to grow up not knowing what it is like playing football in the streets or cycling outside their front door. We're sacrificing what should be essential childhood memories in favour of the dream to concrete over as much of the land as possible so we can fit as many people into a square mile as is feasible, and that's not the only thing that will be affected; lifestyle, happiness, wellbeing, health, fitness, and mental state - these are all affected - negatively - by the loss of green space and being surrounded by cars, strangers and the pollution both bring in.
If the solution is to build new towns then build them, but trying to build on existing settlements that have already reached breaking point, while it might be easy, it is destroying our heritage.
Much of the land is not usable, for one reason or another, like being in the Highlands of Scotland and at a 45 degree angle to the real world.
I'm a London boy. Back in the early 1970s I could not afford to buy a half-decent property in London. (Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.) So, I moved out. Over the years, I've moved further away and now live in deepest Essex.
Still expensive in my view but a good deal cheaper than London. I'm really not that keen on concepts like people starting a family when they can't afford one and expect someone else to pick up the tab for them and their housing needs.
In truth, affordable housing is easily achievable. But housing/planning regs would need to change drastically and the price of the actual land is a large part of the costs. According to my insurance company, in the event of a fire, it would cost only approx. 40% of the value of my house to knock down the remnants and then rebuild it: I assume the balance is the "value" of the land?
But this is an opportunity missed: these problems are solvable with political will. It's not the EU that says empty homes have to be sold to far eastern investors, to keep empty while they appreciate as assets: it's our own political class. It wouldn't happen elsewhere in Europe. Is it a coincidence that squatting in residential properties was made illegal a couple of years ago? I don't believe the city authorities in New York would stand for keeping homes empty in a time of scarcity, so why do they in London?
I agree with @Baldybonce - there are far too many people, but as @bobmunro points out - there's also a hell of a lot of uninhabited land in this country. The solution is absolutely obvious - encourage movement outside of the crowded areas (London & SE?). I'm not entirely sure how you can make this an attractive proposition though; people want to be where it's cool and where there's money - and unfortunately, they'll pay any cost for that.
Consider Milton Keynes (I can't comment on the other "new towns"), I lived there for a few months and actually.. it was OK. I mean it was designed in a really modern grid, with an events venue, a nice complex to go out to of an evening, a football club, a shopping centre, a large area full of businesses and office space, and it even had a quality bus network and good rail links. However it's not really seen as the most attractive of options is it? In fact, the girl I went out with when I lived there now lives on a canal boat in London!
Or Ebbsfleet; it's time to build a new town, so in their infinite wisdom they decide to build it slap bang in an already busy area - an area served by a hospital that used to be plagued by horror stories, an area where school places are already at a premium, and an area where - despite modern transport links - commuter overcrowding is already an issue.
The answer to the encouragement is the provision of jobs. It needs joined up thinking which our politicians (of all hue) lack in abundance.
LuckyReds - make the houses cheap enough so people will want to move there. New towns aren't seen as ideal, particularly when they're horribly designed, but other countries seem to get this right. Unfortunately the building industry in this country seems to be cornered by companies that specialise in really shit, poorly designed and error-ridden developments.
Unfortunately the 'average person' doesn't have a divine right to live in any of these cities in the type of property and with the quality of life they desire, regardless of whether they were raised there. Unemployment is not especially high anywhere in the country (at least by continental European standards) so there are places to move to where incomes and cost of living are better matched.
As others have suggested, one either has to make sacrifices (live in a studio flat, share with flatmates, live longer with parents, tolerate a longer commute, rent for longer to save for a deposit etc.), find a way to increase one's income or consider alternative places to live.
With regard to your last point, nobody forced say first or second generation immigrant families in Notting Hill to up sticks and move out when the City/foreign money started flowing in but I suspect it gave many the opportunity to better their quality of life by selling up and moving further out.
https://theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/30/revealed-housebuilders-sitting-on-450000-plots-of-undeveloped-land
The problem of affordability is tied in with buy to let and interest rates. The lower the rates, the higher the price to buy, the more incentives to buy to let, the higher the price.
Emphasis should be aimed at rent controls on private lets, then, investors who see that they can't make so much as they had hoped by buying to let will go and invest elsewhere, (hopefully) the price of houses will decrease accordingly and the money not invested in housing will be invested somewhere else in the general economy and people on an 'average' wage can afford to live in a decent home whilst having security of tenure and not being ripped off by greedy house owners.
The main issue with this is that rent controls must strike a balance between being fair to both landlord and tenant.
Yet I see youngsters (18-25: earning circa £20k) at my place now moaning they can't afford to buy, whilst living at home with Parents and financing a brand new Car, doing all inclusive holidays to the Caribbean every summer.
I do think some of the latest generations aren't prepared to go without quite so much as prior generations, but maybe they just see it as an impossible task, so don't really bother, or in the case of some wait for a family member to peg it and pocket a deposit overnight - lucky them!
Then you get silly incentives like Help to Buy ISA - a good idea in theory but only applicable for houses up to £250k in the SE. Now it might work for some, but what I want (3 bed EOT in a reasonable area - nout special) will cost over £250k, so I want a house for say circa £280k and I don't get the bonus. Very helpful!!!
Ultimately there is housing out there (a quick looks now for a 3bed in Maidstone brings loads of options) but it's not affordable for most who don't have help and aren't prepared to slog for a decade to get it.
And for those unfortunate to have been brought into the world without a good support network and opportunities available it must be nigh on impossible to ever buy a place.
Where there is space to build there are fewer jobs. Where people want to live which is predominantly London and the south east there is not so much space.
Social Care crisis
NHS
Regional development
Job creation
Industrial strategy
Progressive education
Nurse training
Checks and balances on private sector
Trains inc. times, safety, prices
Infrastructure planning
Regional policies
Speculative asset stripping
Banking regulation
etc. etc.
All are within the gift of government to do something about. But they don't and we seem to let them off the hook.
This is what we have lost control of, do enough people care. We seem to have chosen to sleepwalk away from what democracy and representation actually means.