Right to buy introduced by the Tories was a way to move the cost of maintaining council housing from the state onto the actual occupants. At the time, councils were prohibited from spending the proceeds on building replacement stock, hence the depletion in stock levels.
If it were truly that simple and transparently that obvious Blair and Brown would surely have addressed it?
As I say I think it’s more unintended consequences. Rent rises to unaffordable levels are the main issue I think. There needs to be some mechanism to limit rental amounts that landlords can get from councils : government.
There is, it's the LHA. Of course in many areas that isn't enough to cover the rent so needs topping up by the tenant.
In some respects I'd be for rent controls, but my fear would be unless councils/governments start buying up or building property it'll make the renting situation worse as people will begin to sell up, default on mortgages etc. I'm very conscious that were we to sell that's circa 52 generally families needing to find new homes that would likely cost 20% more if they can find them and afford that.
Right to buy introduced by the Tories was a way to move the cost of maintaining council housing from the state onto the actual occupants. At the time, councils were prohibited from spending the proceeds on building replacement stock, hence the depletion in stock levels.
If it were truly that simple and transparently that obvious Blair and Brown would surely have addressed it?
As I say I think it’s more unintended consequences. Rent rises to unaffordable levels are the main issue I think. There needs to be some mechanism to limit rental amounts that landlords can get from councils : government.
There is, it's the LHA. Of course in many areas that isn't enough to cover the rent so needs topping up by the tenant.
In some respects I'd be for rent controls, but my fear would be unless councils/governments start buying up or building property it'll make the renting situation worse as people will begin to sell up, default on mortgages etc. I'm very conscious that were we to sell that's circa 52 generally families needing to find new homes that would likely cost 20% more if they can find them and afford that.
I should have said limiting the total rent including what they got from government/ councils in some way (I don’t profess to know the detail of current legislation).
I don’t have the solution I hasten to add. But allowing top ups isn’t functioning as intended.
Right to buy introduced by the Tories was a way to move the cost of maintaining council housing from the state onto the actual occupants. At the time, councils were prohibited from spending the proceeds on building replacement stock, hence the depletion in stock levels.
If it were truly that simple and transparently that obvious Blair and Brown would surely have addressed it?
As I say I think it’s more unintended consequences. Rent rises to unaffordable levels are the main issue I think. There needs to be some mechanism to limit rental amounts that landlords can get from councils : government.
There is, it's the LHA. Of course in many areas that isn't enough to cover the rent so needs topping up by the tenant.
In some respects I'd be for rent controls, but my fear would be unless councils/governments start buying up or building property it'll make the renting situation worse as people will begin to sell up, default on mortgages etc. I'm very conscious that were we to sell that's circa 52 generally families needing to find new homes that would likely cost 20% more if they can find them and afford that.
I should have said limiting the total rent including what they got from government/ councils in some way (I don’t profess to know the detail of current legislation).
I don’t have the solution I hasten to add. But allowing top ups isn’t functioning as intended.
Which could happen, although I think there would certainly be a medium term negative effect as if you capped at the LHA level many many landlords, especially those they call accidental landlords would have no option but to sell, so to rectify that medium term negative effect government/councils would need to buy a fair proportion of those.
Again all perfectly doable in theory, just needs a lot of money initially.
The LHA varied from area to area as to how far behind they are, however as an example, Dartford where ours are, a 2 bed house LHA rate is a bit under £850 a month, you won't find a 2 bed house under £1200 unless you come to me!
Right to buy introduced by the Tories was a way to move the cost of maintaining council housing from the state onto the actual occupants. At the time, councils were prohibited from spending the proceeds on building replacement stock, hence the depletion in stock levels.
If it were truly that simple and transparently that obvious Blair and Brown would surely have addressed it?
As I say I think it’s more unintended consequences. Rent rises to unaffordable levels are the main issue I think. There needs to be some mechanism to limit rental amounts that landlords can get from councils : government.
There is, it's the LHA. Of course in many areas that isn't enough to cover the rent so needs topping up by the tenant.
In some respects I'd be for rent controls, but my fear would be unless councils/governments start buying up or building property it'll make the renting situation worse as people will begin to sell up, default on mortgages etc. I'm very conscious that were we to sell that's circa 52 generally families needing to find new homes that would likely cost 20% more if they can find them and afford that.
I should have said limiting the total rent including what they got from government/ councils in some way (I don’t profess to know the detail of current legislation).
I don’t have the solution I hasten to add. But allowing top ups isn’t functioning as intended.
Which could happen, although I think there would certainly be a medium term negative effect as if you capped at the LHA level many many landlords, especially those they call accidental landlords would have no option but to sell, so to rectify that medium term negative effect government/councils would need to buy a fair proportion of those.
Again all perfectly doable in theory, just needs a lot of money initially.
The LHA varied from area to area as to how far behind they are, however as an example, Dartford where ours are, a 2 bed house LHA rate is a bit under £850 a month, you won't find a 2 bed house under £1200 unless you come to me!
Not disagreeing with you necessarily. But not all would need to sell. Some might need to reset profit expectations.
My belief is simplistic and therefore open to challenge but generally we should buy a property to live in not to profit from.
But yes clearly councils need more stock and that comes at a cost. Unintended consequence of a policy as I stated earlier.
Right to buy introduced by the Tories was a way to move the cost of maintaining council housing from the state onto the actual occupants. At the time, councils were prohibited from spending the proceeds on building replacement stock, hence the depletion in stock levels.
If it were truly that simple and transparently that obvious Blair and Brown would surely have addressed it?
As I say I think it’s more unintended consequences. Rent rises to unaffordable levels are the main issue I think. There needs to be some mechanism to limit rental amounts that landlords can get from councils : government.
This from Wikipedia:
“The Labour Party was initially against the sales and pledged to oppose them at the 1983general election but dropped its official opposition to the scheme in 1985.[21] However, at the 1987 general election, the Conservative government claimed to voters that a Labour government would still abolish the scheme.[22]
When Labour returned to power at the 1997 general election, it reduced the discount available to tenants in local authorities which had severe pressure on their housing stock; this included almost the whole of London.
The Right to Buy rules were changed in 2005. Five years' tenancy was now required for new tenants to qualify, and properties purchased after January 2005 could no longer immediately be placed on the open market should the owner decide to sell. Such owners now had to approach their previous landlord (council or housing association) and offer them the right of first refusal. If the previous landlord was no longer in existence, for example in cases where the former landlord was a registered social landlord that has ceased business, then the property had to first be offered to the local housing authority.”
Incredibly given the damage done to the housing market by the RTB during the 1980s and 90s, in 2015 the Tories announced the extension of the policy to housing association tenants meaning further loss of social housing stock from 2016 when this was introduced.
Interestingly RTB was abolished in Scotland in 2016 and Wales in 2019.
Right to buy wasn't extended to Housing Associations - though stock transfer tenants still have it. The government of the day was going to fund it by forcing councils to sell any properties they owned worth more than a certain amount on the open market to subsidise it. So, almost all council stock left in London and the SE would have been sold to subsidise a policy aimed at giving away property owned by independent organisations for less than they're worth.
Part of the issue with housing is that there have been something like 24 housing ministers since 1997, some lasting as little as weeks. Politicians aren't interested in fixing things above local level IMO.
The question asked above, why didn't Blair and Brown do anything about it, they did. They hated council housing and invented ALMOs, housing PFIs and encouraged large scale stock transfers to try and finish it off. At best it's a mixed result. There are 4 ALMOs left in London, there will be 2 by the end of the year. And then Cameron's bonfire of regulations saw councils and especially housing associations escape any regulation. Even after the literal bonfires caused by his approach at Lakanal House and Grenfell, it's still something that is only now being reversed. It took the death of a 2 year old from mould in Rochdale for it to happen. And there are ever greater responsibilities on the social landlords and there isn't the money to meet them and build new homes. The government has a choice, encourage social housing to be built by subsidising it, or instead subsidise private landlords through housing benefit. New Labour were prepared to give subsidies for housing associations but not councils. The Tories post Brexit have actually been prepared to let councils build, but not on the scale to undo 40 years of right to buy and underinvestment.
I'm sure I'm not the only one here, but I don't expect my kids to ever be able to move out and stay in London. They'll never get social housing and never be able to afford private. As for buying, they'll have to wait for their parents to die. Not good is it? And this reality is spreading across the country - it's already true in tourist areas.
A host of reforms regarding landlords are coming soon such as the removal of no fault evictions but I do wonder what it will all do to costs. Ultimately property management attracts all the wrong kinds of people and they're just going to bump up their prices even further if there aren't strict caps in place.
Right to buy introduced by the Tories was a way to move the cost of maintaining council housing from the state onto the actual occupants. At the time, councils were prohibited from spending the proceeds on building replacement stock, hence the depletion in stock levels.
If it were truly that simple and transparently that obvious Blair and Brown would surely have addressed it?
As I say I think it’s more unintended consequences. Rent rises to unaffordable levels are the main issue I think. There needs to be some mechanism to limit rental amounts that landlords can get from councils : government.
This from Wikipedia:
“The Labour Party was initially against the sales and pledged to oppose them at the 1983general election but dropped its official opposition to the scheme in 1985.[21] However, at the 1987 general election, the Conservative government claimed to voters that a Labour government would still abolish the scheme.[22]
When Labour returned to power at the 1997 general election, it reduced the discount available to tenants in local authorities which had severe pressure on their housing stock; this included almost the whole of London.
The Right to Buy rules were changed in 2005. Five years' tenancy was now required for new tenants to qualify, and properties purchased after January 2005 could no longer immediately be placed on the open market should the owner decide to sell. Such owners now had to approach their previous landlord (council or housing association) and offer them the right of first refusal. If the previous landlord was no longer in existence, for example in cases where the former landlord was a registered social landlord that has ceased business, then the property had to first be offered to the local housing authority.”
Incredibly given the damage done to the housing market by the RTB during the 1980s and 90s, in 2015 the Tories announced the extension of the policy to housing association tenants meaning further loss of social housing stock from 2016 when this was introduced.
Interestingly RTB was abolished in Scotland in 2016 and Wales in 2019.
Interesting revision detail I wasn’t aware of. What was the definition of immediate I wonder ? I don’t know if it acted as any deterrent to quick profiteering or indeed if councils used the restriction to buy back much property stock ? It wasn’t outright reversed I suppose I meant
Home ownership is still a good thing in my opinion and I guess Labour agreed too (and still do?) but as I say the rental sums have just become unimaginably high and some mechanism is needed to address that, but I’m not hearing any politicians make a strong case for how best to do that most equitably.
Anybody unravelled the secret as to what ‘affordable housing’ means to the greedy developers building modern slums?
It means pretty much anything up about 80 per cent of market rent - more than twice traditional council rents. It's a completely meaningless term but one swallowed by almost everyone covering the issue.
Even the more recently-built council housing in Greenwich and Lewisham is going for 50 per cent market rent ("London Affordable Rent"), which is usually justified by claiming that housing benefit will cover it.
I forgot to add that "affordable" housing also includes shared ownership (which still leaves you paying rent) and discount market sale, where developers are given money by local government to sell slightly cheaper homes.
The flats appearing behind the Jimmy Seed Sand, on an old car park in The Heights, are discount market sale - they get a grant from City Hall to sell them at a 20 per cent discount, so still not cheap. But still ticks the "affordable" box.
Anybody unravelled the secret as to what ‘affordable housing’ means to the greedy developers building modern slums?
It means pretty much anything up about 80 per cent of market rent - more than twice traditional council rents. It's a completely meaningless term but one swallowed by almost everyone covering the issue.
Even the more recently-built council housing in Greenwich and Lewisham is going for 50 per cent market rent ("London Affordable Rent"), which is usually justified by claiming that housing benefit will cover it.
I forgot to add that "affordable" housing also includes shared ownership (which still leaves you paying rent) and discount market sale, where developers are given money by local government to sell slightly cheaper homes.
The flats appearing behind the Jimmy Seed Sand, on an old car park in The Heights, are discount market sale - they get a grant from City Hall to sell them at a 20 per cent discount, so still not cheap. But still ticks the "affordable" box.
Anybody unravelled the secret as to what ‘affordable housing’ means to the greedy developers building modern slums?
It means pretty much anything up about 80 per cent of market rent - more than twice traditional council rents. It's a completely meaningless term but one swallowed by almost everyone covering the issue.
Even the more recently-built council housing in Greenwich and Lewisham is going for 50 per cent market rent ("London Affordable Rent"), which is usually justified by claiming that housing benefit will cover it.
I forgot to add that "affordable" housing also includes shared ownership (which still leaves you paying rent) and discount market sale, where developers are given money by local government to sell slightly cheaper homes.
The flats appearing behind the Jimmy Seed Sand, on an old car park in The Heights, are discount market sale - they get a grant from City Hall to sell them at a 20 per cent discount, so still not cheap. But still ticks the "affordable" box.
Isn’t ’affordable’ supposed to be related to income? If not the minimum wage, or the London minimum wage, but at least the average wage? For full time employees the average wage is supposed to be £32,380 per year. Now if you take off tax and national insurance. Let alone interest rates rough disposable income would land around £27,000. Not including bills and rates and energy costs and possible repayment of student loans. So if a one bed flat in Catford was on the market for £200,000 that is about seven and a half times the annual take home pay of the average worker. Is that what ‘affordable’ means?
Always someone else’s fault. Heres a novel idea, try knocking on the door? Or open the letterbox and see if a swarm of flies fly out, or you are overcome by the smell.
This has all the hallmarks of let’s try and have a claim/get a move.
Isn’t ’affordable’ supposed to be related to income? If not the minimum wage, or the London minimum wage, but at least the average wage? For full time employees the average wage is supposed to be £32,380 per year. Now if you take off tax and national insurance. Let alone interest rates rough disposable income would land around £27,000. Not including bills and rates and energy costs and possible repayment of student loans. So if a one bed flat in Catford was on the market for £200,000 that is about seven and a half times the annual take home pay of the average worker. Is that what ‘affordable’ means?
The legal/political definition of "affordable" parted ways with the dictionary definition a long while ago. It's a completely meaningless term.
In practice, they'll say they're aiming shared ownership places at couples who are both on decent public sector wages, for example - so possibly a combined income of £80k. (This was the example given when the block in The Heights was given planning permission.)
Like I said, it's a completely meaningless term now.
Always someone else’s fault. Heres a novel idea, try knocking on the door? Or open the letterbox and see if a swarm of flies fly out, or you are overcome by the smell.
This has all the hallmarks of let’s try and have a claim/get a move.
Apparently they called the police who attended but didn't feel they had a good enough reason to knock the door down to get in. I would think someone telling you "I think they might be dead" would be a good reason?
Anybody unravelled the secret as to what ‘affordable housing’ means to the greedy developers building modern slums?
It means pretty much anything up about 80 per cent of market rent - more than twice traditional council rents. It's a completely meaningless term but one swallowed by almost everyone covering the issue.
Even the more recently-built council housing in Greenwich and Lewisham is going for 50 per cent market rent ("London Affordable Rent"), which is usually justified by claiming that housing benefit will cover it.
I forgot to add that "affordable" housing also includes shared ownership (which still leaves you paying rent) and discount market sale, where developers are given money by local government to sell slightly cheaper homes.
The flats appearing behind the Jimmy Seed Sand, on an old car park in The Heights, are discount market sale - they get a grant from City Hall to sell them at a 20 per cent discount, so still not cheap. But still ticks the "affordable" box.
Work on a housing development in Charlton that was launched by Greenwich councillors last year has ground to a halt after the building contractors went out of business.
The development of 48 flats on an old car park at The Heights, above Charlton Athletic’s stadium, has been left half-finished after Claritas Group went into liquidation last month.
Anybody unravelled the secret as to what ‘affordable housing’ means to the greedy developers building modern slums?
It means pretty much anything up about 80 per cent of market rent - more than twice traditional council rents. It's a completely meaningless term but one swallowed by almost everyone covering the issue.
Even the more recently-built council housing in Greenwich and Lewisham is going for 50 per cent market rent ("London Affordable Rent"), which is usually justified by claiming that housing benefit will cover it.
I forgot to add that "affordable" housing also includes shared ownership (which still leaves you paying rent) and discount market sale, where developers are given money by local government to sell slightly cheaper homes.
The flats appearing behind the Jimmy Seed Sand, on an old car park in The Heights, are discount market sale - they get a grant from City Hall to sell them at a 20 per cent discount, so still not cheap. But still ticks the "affordable" box.
Isn’t ’affordable’ supposed to be related to income? If not the minimum wage, or the London minimum wage, but at least the average wage? For full time employees the average wage is supposed to be £32,380 per year. Now if you take off tax and national insurance. Let alone interest rates rough disposable income would land around £27,000. Not including bills and rates and energy costs and possible repayment of student loans. So if a one bed flat in Catford was on the market for £200,000 that is about seven and a half times the annual take home pay of the average worker. Is that what ‘affordable’ means?
The definition of affordable housing is not defined with reference to average wages and is pretty rubbish. It's at least 20% below market rent or housing provided by a registered social landlord.
Anybody unravelled the secret as to what ‘affordable housing’ means to the greedy developers building modern slums?
It means pretty much anything up about 80 per cent of market rent - more than twice traditional council rents. It's a completely meaningless term but one swallowed by almost everyone covering the issue.
Even the more recently-built council housing in Greenwich and Lewisham is going for 50 per cent market rent ("London Affordable Rent"), which is usually justified by claiming that housing benefit will cover it.
I forgot to add that "affordable" housing also includes shared ownership (which still leaves you paying rent) and discount market sale, where developers are given money by local government to sell slightly cheaper homes.
The flats appearing behind the Jimmy Seed Sand, on an old car park in The Heights, are discount market sale - they get a grant from City Hall to sell them at a 20 per cent discount, so still not cheap. But still ticks the "affordable" box.
Isn’t ’affordable’ supposed to be related to income? If not the minimum wage, or the London minimum wage, but at least the average wage? For full time employees the average wage is supposed to be £32,380 per year. Now if you take off tax and national insurance. Let alone interest rates rough disposable income would land around £27,000. Not including bills and rates and energy costs and possible repayment of student loans. So if a one bed flat in Catford was on the market for £200,000 that is about seven and a half times the annual take home pay of the average worker. Is that what ‘affordable’ means?
The definition of affordable housing is not defined with reference to average wages and is pretty rubbish. It's at least 20% below market rent or housing provided by a registered social landlord.
Yes. The word affordable seems to be slung around to make people nod and accept or agree, when it does not stand up to scrutiny in relation to what even well paid people earn.
If the proposed rent capping comes in to affect, I suspect the outcomes the Government are looking to achieve won't be realised as many investors will simply sell up. If the properties are not bought up to rent out supply will dwindle further and rents will only go one way because of dwindling stock.
Not sure there's any commitment to rent controls in either of the main parties, both stuffed full of landlords and property speculators. We need a property crash.
I can't see rent controls coming in anytime soon by either main party, the markets already on a knife edge with many BTL landlords selling up, that'd be a massive tipping point.
We've a property coming up soon (just being refurbished, won't be ready until around late August) and already have a waiting list and we've not even advertised it.
nowadays land is so expensive and 'precious' that I doubt that many purpose built 'social' dwellings will ever be built .. unless the UK gets a proper left wing/socialist government one a these days
Had to walk from Lewisham station to Belmont Hill yesterday. Lewisham is a complete shithole at the moment but I bet it'll look good when it's finished....
Literally couldn't even walk around from all the hoardings around construction sites blocking everything, especially around the bus stop.
Dozens of people waiting for the pauper transporters blocking the way standing in the most illogical places. Terrible.
Had to walk from Lewisham station to Belmont Hill yesterday. Lewisham is a complete shithole at the moment but I bet it'll look good when it's finished....
Literally couldn't even walk around from all the hoardings around construction sites blocking everything, especially around the bus stop.
Dozens of people waiting for the pauper transporters blocking the way standing in the most illogical places. Terrible.
Or puts a stop to people expecting one by their child churn out, or arriving illegally.
Lincs is right though. Get the socialist minded government in first to divert resources appropriately, build the social housing, AND educate those who think the poor and foreigners are to blame. Lots to be getting on with!
Comments
There is, it's the LHA. Of course in many areas that isn't enough to cover the rent so needs topping up by the tenant.
In some respects I'd be for rent controls, but my fear would be unless councils/governments start buying up or building property it'll make the renting situation worse as people will begin to sell up, default on mortgages etc. I'm very conscious that were we to sell that's circa 52 generally families needing to find new homes that would likely cost 20% more if they can find them and afford that.
I don’t have the solution I hasten to add. But allowing top ups isn’t functioning as intended.
Again all perfectly doable in theory, just needs a lot of money initially.
The LHA varied from area to area as to how far behind they are, however as an example, Dartford where ours are, a 2 bed house LHA rate is a bit under £850 a month, you won't find a 2 bed house under £1200 unless you come to me!
“The Labour Party was initially against the sales and pledged to oppose them at the 1983general election but dropped its official opposition to the scheme in 1985.[21] However, at the 1987 general election, the Conservative government claimed to voters that a Labour government would still abolish the scheme.[22]
When Labour returned to power at the 1997 general election, it reduced the discount available to tenants in local authorities which had severe pressure on their housing stock; this included almost the whole of London.
The Right to Buy rules were changed in 2005. Five years' tenancy was now required for new tenants to qualify, and properties purchased after January 2005 could no longer immediately be placed on the open market should the owner decide to sell. Such owners now had to approach their previous landlord (council or housing association) and offer them the right of first refusal. If the previous landlord was no longer in existence, for example in cases where the former landlord was a registered social landlord that has ceased business, then the property had to first be offered to the local housing authority.”
Incredibly given the damage done to the housing market by the RTB during the 1980s and 90s, in 2015 the Tories announced the extension of the policy to housing association tenants meaning further loss of social housing stock from 2016 when this was introduced.
Interestingly RTB was abolished in Scotland in 2016 and Wales in 2019.
Part of the issue with housing is that there have been something like 24 housing ministers since 1997, some lasting as little as weeks. Politicians aren't interested in fixing things above local level IMO.
The question asked above, why didn't Blair and Brown do anything about it, they did. They hated council housing and invented ALMOs, housing PFIs and encouraged large scale stock transfers to try and finish it off. At best it's a mixed result. There are 4 ALMOs left in London, there will be 2 by the end of the year. And then Cameron's bonfire of regulations saw councils and especially housing associations escape any regulation. Even after the literal bonfires caused by his approach at Lakanal House and Grenfell, it's still something that is only now being reversed. It took the death of a 2 year old from mould in Rochdale for it to happen. And there are ever greater responsibilities on the social landlords and there isn't the money to meet them and build new homes. The government has a choice, encourage social housing to be built by subsidising it, or instead subsidise private landlords through housing benefit. New Labour were prepared to give subsidies for housing associations but not councils. The Tories post Brexit have actually been prepared to let councils build, but not on the scale to undo 40 years of right to buy and underinvestment.
I'm sure I'm not the only one here, but I don't expect my kids to ever be able to move out and stay in London. They'll never get social housing and never be able to afford private. As for buying, they'll have to wait for their parents to die. Not good is it? And this reality is spreading across the country - it's already true in tourist areas.
Home ownership is still a good thing in my opinion and I guess Labour agreed too (and still do?) but as I say the rental sums have just become unimaginably high and some mechanism is needed to address that, but I’m not hearing any politicians make a strong case for how best to do that most equitably.
The flats appearing behind the Jimmy Seed Sand, on an old car park in The Heights, are discount market sale - they get a grant from City Hall to sell them at a 20 per cent discount, so still not cheap. But still ticks the "affordable" box.
For full time employees the average wage is supposed to be £32,380 per year.
Now if you take off tax and national insurance. Let alone interest rates
rough disposable income would land around £27,000.
Not including bills and rates and energy costs and possible repayment of student loans.
So if a one bed flat in Catford was on the market for £200,000 that is about seven and a half times the annual take home pay of the average worker.
Is that what ‘affordable’ means?
Heres a novel idea, try knocking on the door?
Or open the letterbox and see if a swarm of flies fly out, or you are overcome by the smell.
This has all the hallmarks of let’s try and have a claim/get a move.
In practice, they'll say they're aiming shared ownership places at couples who are both on decent public sector wages, for example - so possibly a combined income of £80k. (This was the example given when the block in The Heights was given planning permission.)
Like I said, it's a completely meaningless term now.
Work on a housing development in Charlton that was launched by Greenwich councillors last year has ground to a halt after the building contractors went out of business.
The development of 48 flats on an old car park at The Heights, above Charlton Athletic’s stadium, has been left half-finished after Claritas Group went into liquidation last month.
https://853.london/2023/07/04/pocket-living-affordable-housing-scheme-stalls-after-builders-go-bust/
We've a property coming up soon (just being refurbished, won't be ready until around late August) and already have a waiting list and we've not even advertised it.
Literally couldn't even walk around from all the hoardings around construction sites blocking everything, especially around the bus stop.
Dozens of people waiting for the pauper transporters blocking the way standing in the most illogical places. Terrible.
https://environment-analyst.com/brn/108986/available-brownfield-land-in-england-increases-by-6#:~:text=An analysis of 344 brownfield,to provide 1.2 million homes.
There are plenty of "empty" homes
https://www.actiononemptyhomes.org/news/national-empty-homes-week-2023-sees-call-for-action-on-one-million-homes-nobody-lives-in
The government makes a choice not to act on it. And is delighted when people blame the poor and foreigners.