Will bigger houses become cheaper

[Wantarest]

I've been wondering whether the high cost of energy and maintenance will mean people will want more moderate spaces rather than large houses.

One of my friend has said she regrets their renovation which massively increased the footprint of their house (from a 3 bedroom to a 6 bedroom plus a basement) but they do not use a lot of the space. One of their two children has already left home.

I believe back in the days (many decades ago), people did not want houses with many windows or large footprints because of the costs (tax for windows and keeping the spaces warm).

Just curious how lifestyle might change and adapt in the years to come because of the move to Net Zero, higher utility bills, and people having fewer kids. How will that affect the type of houses/space that we value the most.

That said, planning laws changed not too long ago to make it possible to build massive 6m box extensions both at the top and bottom and that has really change the look of many period properties, with some become bottom heavy and in some case top heavy.

Is the plan to charge land tax on all land or just residential? What about the huge estates that still own vast tracks of the country? A move away from a calculation of what proportion of services a residential home uses to how much space they take up with the same bin collection etc would be very controversial. It would be massively unfair if owning land in general wasn’t similarly taxed. A massive amount of that land still sits in the Norman conquest and Tudor allocations of estates. Yet as a country we lap Downton Abbey etc up. If bigger picture thinking is needed maybe focus on those holdings because they are absolutely enormous

No, I don't think so. Space is at such a premium. And builders insist of putting up such tiny boxes.

We have a 4 bed 2200 sq. ft house for ds & I. It was bought for when we were a bigger family but I've never been tempted to sell despite the cost of heating. We have plenty of parking, We can host 14 for dinner comfortably. We can sleep 4 couples with room for dcs and so I tend to host wider family get-together.

It has been a lovely home as well as a good investment. I shall be sorry to let it go when I retire.

Depends. As people say, a big house in a city centre, you can turn it into flats/hmo and pass the energy costs onto the tenants - until the government decides to enforce minimum energy standards that is. 4 adults in a house are generally capable of supporting higher energy bills that a typically 2 adult family.

Large older houses though in areas away from work and transport though, I think those are going to be strongly hit. Upgrading a 1930s 4/5 bed detached to decent energy standards costs a fortune so either you pay out a ton of cash upgrading it, or you pay a ton of cash heating it. A pretty stark choice.

I see a lot of older houses falling into ruin because the occupants simply don't have the will or money to maintain them, either the repair or the running costs.

There are no plans - just wishful thinking I'm afraid. But yes, in my outline I talked about different types of land - not just residential - and also the total land area in England.

There would be some work to do on the non-standard non-residential cases, but it really wouldn't be that difficult to work out how to address those if it was your job to come up with a plan.

The beauty of the LVT is that the owners can't take the land with them overseas!

@CountryCob personally I think the big estates are a good thing as they care for the land properly. We see it loads round here - fields get sold off and you immediately get trees cut down, hedgerows ripped out, and a housing estate put up. You need people with a long term view too which is what you get when land stays in the same family for generations.

We've noticed 4+ beds went up more 2019-2022 and have dropped more now. It's just all settling back to 2021 ish prices so far.

Some estate owners are great and others not so. I already talked about having different rates for land turned over to wildlife. I'd probably go further and have different rates depending on whether the land is open-access or closed. It's a privilige to own the land. If they don't want to pay the cost of that then they can sell to someone who will.

@XVGN'I'd probably go further and have different rates depending on whether the land is open-access or closed. It's a privilige to own the land. If they don't want to pay the cost of that then they can sell to someone who will.'

Please remember that a lot of land is closed to access because it is essentially a factory - it grows your food. Or it is closed to access because livestock has been attacked for fun (there are some truly sick buggers out there), or livestock, especially cows with calves at foot are dangerous and the public needs to be protected. Or to prevent livestock being stolen and slaughtered in back street abattoirs.

The countryside is not a playground. It is a working and essential part of our economy.

@TheSeasonalNameChange are the estates selling land near you? I was under the impression they generally hadn’t sold any off since the 1920s introduction of inheritance tax? I agree that well maintained land is desirable but the big land banks held in the estates could do a lot to help the country.

Yep. I know. I talked about different rates for arable land and pasture.

They’ve already paid the cost of that. When they paid stamp duty when buying the property.

Thus the only way it works fairly is to introduce it for new purchases only after the point of introduction. Which is probably the fastest way ever to completely decimate the UK housing market. Or to refund stamp duty to all homeowners which would bankrupt the country.

I would rather have a small cosy warm house than a huge big cold one

Small spaces can also sometimes be easier to decorate than vast big spaces

I think I will downsize when I’m older and get a small lovely warm apartment…well that’s the plan anyway

Every purchaser has been assessed for stamp duty. It wouldn't bother me to convert to a LVT even though I had paid SDLT in the past. It's just a much fairer, better and more progressive tax.

I'd expect to be a "loser". I have an ex-LHA semi in the middle of town with a great garden. I pay band B council tax. It's exactly the same as my neighbour whose garden is less than half the size, and it's much cheaper than the band C/D new builds on the edge of town with postage stamp gardens. None of us pay fair amounts on a relative basis.

I would rather have a small cosy warm house than a huge big cold one

Small spaces can also sometimes be easier to decorate than vast big spaces

Same here. Quite surprised at all the people who say they want tons of space even if it's cold! Maybe all the space is useful if you intend to have lots of guests, but then if your house is cold most people will make excuses to avoid visiting. I know a couple of people who have freezing cold houses and I avoid going there unless it's summer. I hate being cold.

Anyway, with ever cheaper renewables and storage solutions coming down the pipeline and hopefully lots of modern clean safe nuclear as well, I don't think about the future and think "Oooh, there'll be far less energy to use and we'll all struggle to heat our homes."

I think a bigger issue is that eventually household gas lines are going to get discontinued (this is quite a way in the future mind you--maybe in the 2040s) and the bad news about woodburners/health will have become impossible to ignore, so everyone will have a choice of heat pump heating or acquiring gas through some other means, so houses which are really hard to retrofit with insulation and double/triple glazing are going to become less popular as we approach this date. I don't think this means the houses won't sell though; more likely, some of them would be pulled down and replaced with new buildings on those nice large plots of land.

@Kokeshi123 yes, our housing stock is terribly energy inefficient. I can't believe that our illustrious builders are still erecting homes without the full gamut of energy saving products and materials. I won't look at them until they start doing that. I'm hoping to make my last move to a new energy efficient bungalow in around 10 years time.

I have been working with a developer trying to build with all the new technologies and they have looked at the numbers from every direction and it's just impossible to make the numbers work. (And they are a charitable organisation don't need to make a profit, just break even). And theres a surprising paucity of grant funding or other support etc. This needs to be led far more by the government

Absolutely agree (and thank you for trying to make it work!).

It's just another example where our hopeless politicians are unable or unwilling to see and address the bigger picture. I suspect that the Builders lobby is just too powerful at present. Perhaps the Bates effect may shake things up in government?

It is all about figures on building, people won’t or can’t pay for better materials. New houses are built with mock heritage looks but the most basic plasterboard/ no soundproofing etc etc. changing the plasterboard to insulated for example alone makes a massive difference. Better quality insulated glass is possible. It looks exactly the same though and the insulated board actually marginally reduces the interior dimensions of the room. I don’t think builders alone are the issue it’s about how low quality many products are nowadays and judgement is really superficial.

But this isn't beyond a decent government to resolve.

For example, perhaps you employ architects to develop a utilitarian 2 bed home model that is nothing fancy to look at but full of all the best materials. One design for the whole country and roll it out as much as possible. A simple design means that standard components can be developed as inexpensively as possible. Only sell them to people under the age of 30 and at 50% of build cost. That will start to address the demographic nightmare in this country.

Of course people must be free to buy large, old and draughty homes, but must expect to pay a premium for doing so.

And where is your magic money pig to sell these houses at 50 percent of cost? You do realise the taxpayer is then being asked to buy people’s houses for them. Behave.

Magic money “pot” presumably.

But it might as well be a magic money pig. It’s about as realistic a proposal!

This type of thinking is what keeps us mired in the current state - young people less able to leave home, start families and move for work, poor quality new build homes, no solutions to fundings crises, etc. You need to get in the kitchen and start throwing some pasta against the wall to see what sticks.

It would be very easy to pilot the approach at low cost to see whether or not the benefits outweigh the costs, or whether you're right instead.

And the introduction of progressive LVT could be used to offset some of the cost. The overall benefits to the economy and society would be immense.

The adults may want to downsize ti release equity and reduce the utility bills - but in reality the children won’t be able to afford to leave… and yes as PP pointed out, there will be a need for the children to wfh as well! Nightmare scenario!

I don't think so. The mistake many people made was to have open plan living. I've seen too many homes with big kitchen - diner- living spaces. You can't shut off doors to keep noise/cooking smells out, and heat in.

I think we will see more and more kids leaving home later. Wfh is so prevalent now that there isn’t as much need for the majority of people to move to completely different areas of the country. Even if their workplace is an hour or so away that doesn’t matter as much if it’s only twice a week. I know very junior lawyers living almost two hours from the workplace. That just wouldn’t have been possible previously given the long hours, the need to be seen to be at your desk at all hours and generally poor work life balance but with wfh they now just live at home and deal with the commute once or twice a week.

@XVGN but why SELL them at 50% of cost? If there were to be government funded house building programme, even as a pilot, why wouldn’t they be rented?

Selling at 50% of costs is either a massive gift to the lucky recipients or just shared ownership.

I think that modular design, high building standards etc are good but selling at a reduced cost to the great benefit of a small group wouldn’t solve anything.(I would end all right to buy as well by the way).