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

[GoldfinchFeather]

This is related to the thread about Angela Rayner wanting to build 1.5 million new homes. Is anyone else sick to the back teeth of hearing about the supposed housing crisis in this country?

I live in a semi-rural area, and the amount of house building around here over the last few years has been crazy. Hundreds of houses appearing on pretty much any vacant piece of land, turning what was once a small village into something that feels closer to a town in size. Roads getting busier and busier, and and all the while nothing has been done to provide any new facilities like doctors or schools.

I understand people's frustration of not being able to buy a home. But surely just concreting over more and more of the countryside is completely unsustainable?

If the housing crisis is really so bad, why isn't the Government taking more of an innovative approach? How many town centres/high streets have empty shops that could be converted to residential use? Or properties that have stood empty for years and haven't been brought back to market? Surely just through that, there would be an enormous surplus of homes available, and less need to concrete over more and more of the countryside?

At the risk of sounding glib, because it is a perfectly salient point, but presumably people who don't give a hoot about the price of your house 😛

This is the thing though. The UK is utterly consumed with certain things being a marker of how "well" the country is, to the point whereby they'll ignore the long-term pitfalls, then the answer when the shit hits the fan is invariably to borrow even more money and just exacerbate the issue longer-term.

The government financial intransigence in the UK is scandalous, and I'm not talking about PPI contracts or money wasted on HS2 and so on, the problem is we've been trading while insolvent since the 1950s at least, but no politician will address it because it's electoral suicide.

There is a housing crisis if there are hundreds and thousands of people in unsuitable or unaffordable accommodation, homelessness and people living in temporary accommodation. There are probably enough homes if we removed holiday lets and second homes, but many of these aren't the sort of homes required (in my area there are tons of 2 bed flats and not enough affordable family homes).

YABU for commenting on a problem saying it doesn't exist, when you very clearly don't understand the issue. It is very complicated. It is not just about the number of homes, but what sort of homes they are, where they are and who can afford them. 🙄

That's gross 🤮. I bet they had a 5 hygiene rating . The kebab shop below me did 😅

The fact is that people like Farage have actually created a bigger problem by pushing the Brexit agenda- most people coming from the EU in the last 15 years were coming as singles or young couples, living in shared houses, needing little in the way of education or housing or health and often going back to home country after a few years, frequently not staying long term- the Tory's then realised they had a huge gap in working people in essential services post Brexit and basically ramped up legal immigration to include whole families even when only 1 of the family was coming as a care worker etc - these families need all of the above and hence we have pressure on all those areas. Farage pretending it's nothing to do with him is a joke, he created the'anti forriner' feeling ( unless of course they were American bankers etc) -

There are so many factors that are causing issues, selling off social housing - in my opinion Blair should have put an immediate stop to that when he had a big majority- non control of rents, people wanting low tax but expecting scandi style services and social support, UC as it is - meaning lots of lower paid people especially if renting and with kids are actually not much worse off doing as few hours as they can getaway with ( all meaning less tax take and more money out the public purse) silly rules relating to childcare support - when we lived in Denmark it was simply 'cheap' regardless of income and so more women worked full time or as near as and you got more tax take .far more two income families meant far less need for UC type social support. Same with social housing, far more of it of good quality, but then far more expectations of it being kept in good order. We have so many feral people and families that are past giving a shit about standards of behaviour on private and public.

It would take a totally different mindset though and a lot of people's first reaction these days seems to be what can I claim , not suprising really when housing costs are as they are.

We have rapidly in the last 15 years turned into survival of the fittest - not unlike the USA, I put a lot of blame on our lack of regulation in media and press who are predominantly right wing controlled and determined to force the 'I'm all right Jack agenda' - let's have a go at anyone 'not like us'- let's 'create' the agenda , rather than just report actual news.

One big advantage when we lived in Denmark was the lack of seeing all that kind of shit on a daily basis or hearing the attitudes when out in public- in fact not speaking much Danish was great because whilst I got by nicely in English I never had to overhear conversations declaring Farage as the saviour etc.

I'm not a radical left winger either- I'm very much a centreist -

The PP was specifically referring to nature. I am suggesting that the areas picked for development aren't exactly boasting rich natural habitats. But yes, there is a GP surgery planned on site. Not that we have difficulty getting GP appointments in the area.
I am currently buying a house on another brown site development and there are two new schools being built within walking distance.
We haven't been able to get an NHS dentist within 100 miles radius for years so I don't believe building one extra clinic is going to make much of a difference. The problem is with dental funding and that's entirely divorced from housing situation. We have multiple dental clinics within walking distance, none of them are willing to accept NHS patients but have plenty of capacity for private work.

At the age of 20 I would have been delighted with a flat in a converted office block.

At the age of 55 with nearly 40 years of working hard, giving up stuff like holidays to pay for a nicer home and spending late nights and weekends working hard to make a home more valuable, I'll enjoy my hard earned and now mortgage free rural home.

I earned every penny of 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.

Nice strawman argument. My house was built before the 1800s. If you can't understand the basic concept that the population has increased massively since then, whilst also having much less space to accommodate people, I'm afraid I can't help you.

@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.

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

How old must a house be to meet your approval?

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.

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

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.

Why is this relevant?

Using the argument "well, you house must have been on fields in the past!" isn't really the "gotcha" you think it is.

I'm not saying stop all building immediately. But clearly, the greenbelt in particularly is a finite resource. It should only ever used as a last resort. And, when there are so many other ways to provide people with homes, it's lazy and short-sighted to keep using it at such a rate.

Someone said who wants to live above an empty shop. Well, if that was my choice rather than not having a place at all or being on the street, definitely!

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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....'

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?

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).