Angela Rayner and building more houses.

[upinaballoon]

I believe she's going to make a statement today or soon, about plans for house-building.

What would you like her to take into consideration as she makes these plans and implements them?

Would you send her an e-mail to say what you think about it all?

[email protected]
[email protected]

Build them into new towns, not near other people that have bought their house based on the area/environment/demographics/infrastructure please.

Where, exactly? Once every last bit of greenery is built on?

Why? People have a right to decent accommodation, they don't have a right to buy. The state should house people, not give them cheap properties at the expense of other taxpayers.

The state needs to work with the banks to make mortgages

This building obsession is utter madness with the climate change we're having.

I was out today and the difference when walking on in the sun in a built up area and when walking in under trees is tremendous. Trees and green spaces are a natural air conditioning system. We are building our way into climate and nature diversity catastrophe.

And for what? Foreign investors and to provide for the soaring immigration numbers who already have their homes somewhere else?

I hope they stop big corporates like Tesco from buying huge plots of land, and then sitting on them for decades doing nothing with it while they wait to see if they want to build on it.

I'd like more opportunities for people to build a home on their own land and not get turned down because a barn was for a horse not a sheep . It would cut down travel , give local builders / trades employment and free up an existing home to sell onto someone else .

Don’t build on them- turn them into public parks. Green spaces are so important for people’s mental health and wellbeing, and so much land is ring fenced for a very small group.

Also, stop bungalows from being converted into 2 story houses. The reason it’s so difficult to persuade older people to downsize is that they are understandably reluctant to give up their gardens. There aren’t enough bungalows for everyone who wants one, so they stay put in the bigger houses, and more and more families who then can’t buy the bigger houses they need resort to converting bungalows instead. It’s a ridiculous vicious circle.

Build and invest in the north. Stop building in the south, I'm sure they've had enough of losing their green spaces, can some of this investment come north please!

Or build more ground floor garden flats if there's no space for bungalows.

All of the above. And make more 'mixed' developments, with different sized houses, flats and bungalows for all ages to avoid ghettos. Maybe zone them, so there are playing fields near the school and starter homes, away from the bungalows, with larger family homes in the middle.

As others have said, make sure the infrastructure is in place before building starts, and include a community hub of some sort and shops. Some sort of central area so that people don't have to sit in the house all day, but have somewhere to go to mix with others, and something for children to do that doesn't involve alcohol. Definitely transport links to the nearest town and/or industrial estate.

No Air B&Bs, no RTB and plenty of decent social housing.

I think this is a good call . Jobs and housing are so needed in the north to help people

You can't even call that an unintended consequence. It's just really badly designed policy designed to satisfy some tick box idea of education.

And remove the rtb might help council housing stocks
Scotland ended rtb in 2015.

More retirement complexes for people to downsize to. Decent two bed flats for those with disabilities or over 75s to move to. With on-site facilities and care providers so more people can remain independent but in more appropriate accommodation.

Make it possible to sell housing direct to the council - potentially as a below market rate in exchange for speedy sales.

Give tenants far more rights and make social rent the norm not the basic. Decent secure tenancies where people can truly be at home. With a good rent to buy scheme in place.
Private rentals for those who want shorter tenancies, luxury standards and something above what is available more widely. Give current landlords the chance to sell direct to the housing associations. Weed out the cowboys and the 'accidental' landlords.

Build more disabled friendly homes - all new housing required to have one downstairs room that could be used as a bedroom and a ground floor accessible bathroom.
All new housing to be insulated to a high level and as environmentally friendly as possible. Solar panels as standard and economical heating.

They should be more creative in the way they build, full stop. Garden apartments and roof gardens. Underground parking so the surface land can be gardened upon rather than concrete. They think too much about minimising costs and maximising return, and not enough about what makes a good home that people want to stay in.

No point building any new houses if landlords, second home owners, and non UK citizens can purchase them.
I’m also not a fan of local families being pushed into new builds so the “heritage” houses can be snapped up for holiday homes.

Where, exactly? Once every last bit of greenery is built on?

There's plenty of brownfield acreage. The idea that all development is going to have to be on green fields is nonsense.

Admittedly the density might have to be higher than in the past.

Anyway, people need houses. X sized population news Y number of houses. The tenure won't effect the number needed. So it won't do any harm of private tenants become social tenants and social tenants are given the chance to buy and become owner occupiers. The number of extra dwellings needed remains the same.

This

And restrictions on second homes, and an end to flats without ground floor ones which end up being empty commercial properties.

Create also more town centre housing by tackling low use commercial buildings alleged to be fronts for money laundering.

I have no idea why non-residents are allowed to buy property. Lots of countries forbid it. It hugely contributes to overheating the market.

Maybe build housing like they did in the past, solidly built and a decent sized garden. No wonder people are so unhappy living in tiny new builds.

This.
But I genuinely don't know where they'll get the construction workers from to build them unless they are built to a lower standard which would be awful. Maybe need to look at prefabricated building methods.

They really need to ensure surveyors and other professionals really are checking the quality of workmanship properly as there are already some shockingly bad new builds!

Builders and other trades really are in short supply, there needs to be more done to incentivise all sizes of building companies to take on apprentices - tax relief for smaller companies? But then there is a shortage of teaching staff in the colleges.

It's not going to happen quickly!

Developers should have to complete the infrastructure sections and social housing (and these be checked) before being able to build the private housing.

If they end RTB, or being the discount back down to negligible like Brown did, the two tier society of a huge divide between rich and poor will just get much worse, much more quickly. Even Help to Buy has gone now, so people without family money really struggle to save a sufficient deposit, even if their rent is "affordable".

And FFS Build homes for the climate we have now not the climate we had in 1965 I live in a Sanctuary sweat box one bedroom flat. I cant unload the washing machine without sweating my guts out. If animals were transported in the temperatures flats get up to there would be prosecutions. We need cooler homes.

And adjust housing policy Why should the childless/child free be expected to live like this and be treated like battery hens just because we havent reproduced.