To be sick of hearing about 'the housing crisis'?

Spot the dodgy landlord.

You really think protections that require landlords to have safe electrics and no damp are the issue? What a load of crap.

"they should live above shops" - says the OP from the comfort of her nice semi-rural 1800s home which was allowed to be built because it was the 1800s and, well, because its hers.

Let them eat cake I say OP, are you with me?

The thing that worries me about this isn't so much the houses (and I say this as someone living near a planned massive development). It's that we're doing it now when there's a shrinking birth rate globally and massive issues around immigration. At some point our population will start to shrink and we will be left with a load of poorly built housing on the farmland that we really could have done with to supply food.

There was a scheme I heard of in Ireland where by banks would lend you the money to buy a property that needed work and also lend you the cost of doing it up so that you could pay tradesmen, etc. I thought this was a great idea - why don’t we do this in the UK? All those small terraces that need upgrading are perfect starter homes.

i guess there is more profit in management fees and selling off book to foreign buyers

Hundreds of houses built on farmland in the last few years here and just been informed of 100s more on the way again on prime farm land. Hospital is in crisis mode, schools rammed and a tiny incident and the roads are gridlocked. Building more houses is not going to solve anything, except a few people will become extremely rich.

So you think that legislation to prevent people having to live in dangerous mouldy flats or in a flat with dangerous electrics is a bad thing! Jesus!

It's not just land. It's other resources such as water, power, waste, health, education, public transport, roads, etc. Land mass is only part of it. But even with land, a huge amount simply isn't suitable for housing, i.e. steep valleys, mountain sides, moors, forests, bogs, marshes, etc. And don't forget, the more we build on, the less there is for farming (agriculture and animals).

There's no housing crisis. There are more than enough homes to go around.

There IS however a legislative crisis. That is to say the current hosuing "crisis" is entirely artificial, and exists only because the Goverment has legislated the sector to death. Forcing all casual and most private landlords out of the market. This nonsensical push for "better" rentals has done absolutely fuck all to help tenants. The ONLY result has been to push rental prices through the roof and create a nationwide shortage.

Fifteen years ago you could rent a two bed flat in the middle of Cardiff for £550 p/m, that same flat would now be closer to £2k. If you wanted even cheaper back then, you could rent a converted garage on the side of someone's house for £250 p/m. You could even splash out and pay a grand for a fancy apartment in the Bay. The reason rent was so cheap was because there was choice. Yes, maybe the "cheap" option was a bit damp, or had dodgy electrics, but it was an address, a home.

But you can't rent those cheap places anymore because the Government would rather you be homeless than have to open a window when you shower (must comply with the regulations now dont forget!).

What on earth did people think would happen when they insisted the rental market be regulated into oblivion?

Well here is some data that completely refutes the premise of the op that we are concreting over the countryside at a rate if knots:

Five mind-blowing facts about what the UK looks like
Ordnance Survey data suggests that all the buildings in the UK - houses, shops, offices, factories, greenhouses - cover 1.4% of the total land surface. Looking at England alone, the figure still rises to only 2%

I am hoever completely aware that facts and properly collected data at a population level will just be dismissed because ' Well it's only common sense......', or ' Well that data is incorrect because around where I live....'

It's frustrating when you see politicians talking about building houses and they have their hard hats on on some bog standard suburban estate.

What I'd like to see is affordable starter homes and rentals, and clever use of space. You can have something like a one up/one down in an interesting terrace with greenery, off-street parking/communal parking areas, and built to decent eco-standards.

Something like bedzed has appeal, but I remember someone muttering that their on-site combined heat and power unit was screwed or something. There could be some clever energy solutions.

We get the same in our area, a call for housing, promises of new schools and parks and what not, that then drop off the actual plans during the building phase. And all it ends up adding is extra pressure to the already burdened services.

Heck we even have big flats built. No provision for pedestrians or cyclists. A huge influx of traffic. The buildings are pretty ugly, even out the gate. A few years down the line they have aged appallingly.

I think we'd better having a national initiative, lots of existing housing is past its sell by date, we could re-purpose entire areas given some imagination and incentives. You never see a wild re-imagining of the high street. That could involve housing options and not end up looking like Crawley.

There's too much artificial value in real estate, the UK has gotten into a right mess. The basics could be catered for reasonably cheaply.

While the only x% is built on - apart from the need for countryside for - food, flooding, rivers and water, oxygen etc you also have to accept that there is a % that cannot be used for food or building due to mountains, hills etc eg a lot of the Pennines, lake district, Welsh mountains, Highlands etc

You obviously think age of the house is relevant. You brought up how old yours is for some reason.
Why don't you go and live above a shop then? I'm sure that's been an option since the 1800s. But you didn't want to did you? So surely you can understand why other people would prefer a nice house instead. Telling other people they should just lower their standards so you can enjoy your nice house in peace isn't a convincing argument.

Additionally- there are whole swathes of derelict areas which the builders don't want as it is more expensive to develop that than a green field- there should be no building on green fields until all brownfield sites are used!

Yabu - because it is at absolute crisis point and global warming will only make it worse with increased immigration.

Yanbu - government's have turned a blind eye to land banking in cities for decade's and allowed developers to build in fields which they prefer because it's easier.

However Labour's changes to the Town and Country Planning Act essentially make building in the green belt not cost effective. They now have to provide lots and lots of social housing and infrastructure if they wat to do that.

Check it out it's quite refreshing.

Bungalows with large driveways and large gardens are incredibly inefficient use of land. Keep in mind lots of people will now fully pave their front gardens and astro turf their back gardens so it could be an ecological disaster as well as the obvious financial implications of each house needing such a big plot.

Realistically I think we need to look at more mid rise housing of around 3-4 floors which is popular in places like Paris. This has the right kind of density in terms of making efficient use of land and is much easier to live in compared to high rise flats. We need small gardens but more communal greens spaces for everyone to use. Thoughtful design and consideration for things like parking.

instead of detached houses in the countryside we need to build up in the cities. It's not realistic that everyone can have a detached house with garden in the country. There is no "local need" for the houses either - most of the ones where we live are bought by people outside the area who then commute into London.

I paid stamp duty as a FtB. 6k but still money.

Try living it.
I'm in a tiny rented house with children (1500pcm) which believe it or not is cheap for my area and we are riddled with damp and mould. House is also an embarrassment.
Would give my right arm for a council home or even a cheaper private rental.

I can’t help thinking if developments were more thought out people would have fewer objections.
like 1930’s developments. Bungalows, maisonettes as well as semis.
Large driveways, bigger gardens than the current new builds, solar panels and green roofs, rainwater capture and use. Well landscaped with trees and wildlife corridors that are actually planned not left.
environmental impact reports carried out on anything needing planning so that they can protect what’s there and increase biodiversity
surely that’s where we should be heading.

more social housing, get those that need into secure tenancies. Which would decrease supply on the rental market. If you want to rent, crack on. But let that be a choice not your only option.

How old must a house be to meet your approval?

What % of land used for development, and what % of that classed as housing, would you say defines the uk as “full”?

@Winter2028

"It's really expensive to move with stamp duty and all..most people in my generation are aiming to buy their forever home as FTBs because of that. I think I would be in my starter flat for at least 2 more years which would make it 7 years I have lived here. Very likely to be 10 years (son would be 4 by then). Thank goodness its a 2 bed."

Yes it is, it has always been. SDLT is a killer and always has been, but we still managed. At least its not payable on smaller value homes for FTBs.

I've paid it on 6 homes and saved hard for it.

They use around 16 billion litres of water per year in the UK, most of it clean drinking water, and vast amounts of pesticides and fertilisers. They might have improved their eco credentials in recent years but the golf green itself is still a waste of space and resources.