we all agree on the need for more houses but just not here !!

[billysboy]

As title really , everyone seems to agree on the need for more houses regardless of type but doesnt want them here ,
Green belt is supposed to ring fence existing settlements , I like the idea mooted this morning about Wild Belts to encourage wildlife etc ,
I cannot see how this government or any other hopes to build there way out of a crisis where in a lot of places it seems to be 10 x income to get a foot on the ladder
Ultimately it would seem lower house prices would be good for everyone apart from those in negative equity or using housing as an investment rather than a place to call home and the only way to achieve this is to oversupply the market causing prices to remain static whilst wages / income catch up
I thinks its unreasonable how long planning can take on a small domestic extension let alone 300k + house s needed per annum so cannot see how Angela Raynor thinks she will achieve this

No easy answer on this one

Maybe there should be more homes available for older people to downsize into
my in laws live in a house far too big and unsuitable but have no intention of moving
now both in their eighties so probably too late

It's not just expensive, you have to deal with estate agents.

I don't think it's always due to finances, but no sense of any responsibility towards society and subsequent generations.

My mother has lived alone in a 3 story 5 bed detached House for 8 years since my DF died. In that time several bungalows on the same estate , including detached 3 bed with decent size garden and garage, have been on the market (she doesn't want to move area which is reasonable) but she decided that she will NEVER move. She is now late 70s and ongoing maintenance will no doubt increasingly fall on my DB who lives over an hour away and has a young child.

Neither my DB or I live in anything close to that size of property with our young families, despite both be graduates married to graduates, and all of us working.

It's generational selfishness, and one of the many problems affecting housing in this country.

She will no doubt be whining about the unfairness of loosing her winter fuel allowance too.

I would like to see a clamp down on holiday homes, second homes, empty investment homes and derelict homes before we start sprawling our towns and cities further.

There are so many houses on Rightmove that people could buy before building new ones on greenbelt.

You get get away with fewer houses if they built half decent ones people could live in properly for a decent amount of time.

Most of the people requiring homes currently have homes but those aren't suitable for their needs. New builds with enough bedrooms for opposite sex siblings, not designed for disabilities or ageing, too small, too big. Often too expensive with private landlords charging a fortune making them unaffordable when circumstances change.

Where will the people selling them go?

They need to build infrastructure to support any new builds. A new estate has been built near my MiL but no new GP practice and the one there is stretched to breaking point. It was so hard to get an appointment even before the new housing estate now it's near impossible according to MiL.

That would be a good start!

I want to downsize there are 3 of us rattling around in a 6 bedroom house but DH uses moving expenses and solicitors fees as an excuse for us not to move.

Notable where I live that there is empty ground floor commercial units in newer builds, which could easily have been ground floor flats.

Would there be any GPs to staff new practices?

The angry protestors are boomers who bought their house for 5 shillings in 1962 🙄

Maybe it's time to think of tax or other financial incentives to encourage under occupants to move to "right size" properties.

So, instead of building starter homes in established areas where long time residents want to stay, build bungalows and easy access smaller properties and maybe adapted flats etc in that community. Those in unsuitably large hard to manage properties can be offered generous incentives to move - within their existing community.

The Government could (just off the top of my head, not scientific!) pay any Stamp Duties, legal costs and removal expenses or a bit of all three or some of the moving costs if someone "right sizes" for their lifestyle and stage in life. Such developments to have easy access to public transport, GP, shops etc. without a car.

Only those who own their family home ONLY will qualify.

The original properties are then available for others who need the space more.

Switch it around. I know there are many flaws to my suggestion, but it's just that, a suggestion!

Bought their houses that were built in a field behind someone's else's house... In 1962!

Govt does not understand how property business work. They can get planning permission etc, but they won’t start building until they have deposits on a significant number of properties first. They need to be priced to make them a decent profit as they are only interested bottom line return, so the govt can promise 1.5m houses, but they will never find enough companies to invest and build them to that amount… not least because if there are suddenly 1m plus properties coming onto the market, the value of them will go down and they will have to lower the prices. It’s an unsustainable business model if the plan is to mass produce housing.

add to that the fact that we already have 750,000 uninhabited houses in the country already - tied up in probate or where owners (after a person dies) cannot be traced.

Better model would be to forcibly seize properties left empty for over, say, 12m and sell them/allocate them to social housing; deduct costs for renovation/building regs and but the balance in escrow for if the owners/descendants appear within 5 years. Voila, hundreds of thousands of already built houses back in circulation.

Round us the growth in housing has already been immense and many more houses are proposed. The infrastructure cannot cope unless it’s planned well. Our GP practice was at one stage writing letters of objection about the building of more houses because they physically can’t expand the surgery as it’s in the central part of town. Notable how much the surgery has gone downhill since I’ve been living here as a result of them going ahead anyway. It then creates resentment with people moving in for the lovely community and then getting aggro cos they’re on a new estate.

I don't really understand why rather than building huge soulless new housing estates with no amenities, where everyone has to drive and use the existing services of the nearest town, they don't spread it around. So each village gets say 15 new houses, each large village 20, small town 100, medium sized town 150.. then it would be easier to deal with and nowhere would feel overwhelmed or like their services can't cope.

Also if a house is empty for more then 5 years it should be compulsorily purchased and put back into housing stock. Brownfield sites should not be allowed to be left decaying.

It's very easy to say ooh move up north it's cheap, but people don't necessarily want to move away from their families and where they grow up. And if all the southerners moved up north the property prices would shoot up and then the northerners wouldn't be able to afford them! You'd just end up like London and the South east.

People talk about needing more schools GP surgeries etc… but we have a shortage of staff for those places! No point in building lovely new GP surgery with no GPs to put in it.

I do think we need to abolish stamp duty, and reform the process for buying and selling which is ridiculously long and expensive. And yes re think the types of properties being built.

I don't really understand why rather than building huge soulless new housing estates with no amenities, where everyone has to drive and use the existing services of the nearest town, they don't spread it around. So each village gets say 15 new houses, each large village 20, small town 100, medium sized town 150.. then it would be easier to deal with and nowhere would feel overwhelmed or like their services can't cope.

the big house builders won't do this because it's not profitable. The economics of small housing developments are very difficult and near me several small developments by smaller local companies are running out of money.

Its a hugely complicated issue, and NIMBYs are not really the problem although they have been demonised by the mass house builders for years.

I don't think Labour have the first clue what the problems are, they don't seem to realise that they can't 'force' councils to build more homes without giving them money to do it.

A good first move would be to limit non-residential property purchases, especially by foreign investors. That's a way bigger factor that second homes.

All they have to do in the short term is get the builders to build on the land they already have permission for. And to build out quickly. Near me they are building 500, at a rate of 100 a year! They can build faster, but if they do it means prices will start to come down as there are more houses. Developers don’t want that

I want to downsize there are 3 of us rattling around in a 6 bedroom house but DH uses moving expenses and solicitors fees as an excuse for us not to move.

But downsizing would presumably mean a cheaper property which would more than cover the costs of moving, the resultant reduction in utility costs and lower council tax would repay the moving fees in time.

I don't agree on the need for more houses at all.

I feel very strongly that the primary policy should be reducing the population. We are hugely overpopulated and this is the primary reason for the huge strain and failing of all public services - electricity, water, NHS hospitals, GPs, schools etc. Flooding of homes (which comes at a huge public cost to us all in terms of clear up and rescue) is in part caused by mad building on flood plains. Too many people trying to use services designed for far fewer.

There is no point in just keeping building houses anyway because what is built is unpleasant (tiny boxes to maximise profit all on top of each other, claustrophic) where no one would want to live really and no one can afford to buy them anyway..

I honestly thought it was impossible to have a worse government than the last lot, but this Labour lot leave them in the dust. It's terrible and going to get worse. Once green land is gone its gone. Once you have 50 houses at £400,000 each built on a field, the cost of returning that field to a field is out of reach of society.

The problem is that ‘Little Britain’ mentality starts at the top. The ruling classes are thick and small minded.

We dont’need 100 houses here and 200 there on small patches of land. We need to build whole towns.

After all, we are importing a million people a year.

Talking of 1 million net immigration, we definitely should build homes in the backyards of those woke warriors who are proponents of high migration.

I was thinking about this while walking the dog. 2 new builds houses were built on a plot between two houses, near to me. The build finished in May, one sold in August, and the other remains unsold. Actually, they look nice, good size, good garden and fit in with surroundings. Obviously overpriced as they would have sold. A property is only worth what someone will pay.
Unsold property should be handed/loaned to council for rental.