New housing in the UK

[RichTea90]

Sorry this is a bit of a ranty post but I live in South East England I’m 33 years old. Trying to get on the property ladder with a 40k deposit and a joint income of £119k. We are looking at 3 bed new build as want to start a family but they’re all so expensive and about 30-40k out of our budget.

Why is the government letting all of these greedy house building companies build and sell properties that are just not affordable to normal, every day people / couples / families. I think it’s truly scandalous.

instead im staring at Rightmove looking at a lot of properties that are so outdated or falling down and we just don’t have enough money to / disposable income to then do the property up.

feeling rather stressed 😩 is anyone else in the same position or understands what I mean

It’s just some silly rule the wokerati brought in after Grenfell. I mean, it’s ridiculous to expect property developers to lose out on 30% profits just so fewer people burn to death. Health and safety gone mad.

Yes we have contemplated getting our kitchen done but not bothering because you don’t seem
to get your money back. There are plenty of 700k 4 beds with kitchens from the 90s in. And bathrooms! The thought of someone paying that yet still needing to update! Our house is 80s so has a downstairs loo so there’s no way I’m downgrading!

Yes it’s clear from Rightmove that some properties haven’t been updated in about 50 years!

Analyses have shown that risk reduction from the second staircase rule is absolutely miniscule. This then needs to be weighed against all the harms caused by the building that the SS rule is now preventing.

The UK has the oldest housing stock in the world; there are large numbers of premature deaths every year caused by damp, cold and mold because it’s really hard to insulate such ancient, problem-ridden housing stock properly (and even harder to get air con in, and many elderly and frail people are going to die in heat waves in the next decades due to lack of air con and hotter summers). And I am sure I do not need to point out that traffic deaths are a huge killer as well.

We could reduce both of the above issues if we got going on getting rid of more crappy old buildings that are simply not fit for purpose and replacing them with new and attractive buildings. We could also greatly reduce traffic deaths, improve air quality and reduce levels of degenerative disease (dementia, cardiovascular) if we made our cities less car-dependent by allowing denser development - things like 4-8 storey apartment blocks like so many European capitals have, which can be beautiful, provide tons of housing, avoid sprawl and work very well with public transport (they are sometimes called “missing middle” or “gentle density” housing - not a sprawly housing estate, but not a huge tower block either).

The second staircase rule is preventing new building and preventing “missing middle” housing, keeping people in old, moldy and dangerous buildings and encouraging the growth of car-dependent sprawl which then means more pollution, more accidents, more sleep deprived parents driving their toddlers to nursery, more teenagers having to start driving at 17 because their neighborhood is not designed for public transport…

https://redbrickblog.co.uk/2022/03/labour-must-lead-on-the-missing-middle/

https://www.bigissue.com/news/housing/winter-deaths-cold-damp-homes-uk/

By the way , the people whoa re critiquing the second staircase rule are not the sort of Brexity types who spend their lives moaning about “woke” stuff - the opposition has overwhelmingly come from urban planning people who want cities with more and better housing, more choice, a greater choice of apartments for those who enjoy/need city living, more biking and public transport, and less car-dependent sprawl.

The kind of people who describe things as “woke” all day long tend to be really against the above, and actually like rules like the second staircase rules because such rules make it so hard to build anything. These people are usually the ones who fiercely oppose any sort of building anywhere in their city. They don’t want any densification of their suburbs because they don’t want to share their green space. They don’t want the city to build apartment blocks closer to the center of town either, because they are aware that this will start to curb their ability to drive into the center of town and park there, and these people are obsessed with their ability to drive and park everywhere for free.

Avoid the newbuilds, you will be paying a premium and also have to deal with annoying snagging issues.

I suspect Romsey is a bit far out from London for you, but this is nice and only just over your budget (and in the current market you'll e offering under anyway): 3 bedroom terraced house for sale in Alma Road, Romsey Town Centre, Hampshire, SO51 (rightmove.co.uk)

Calcot near Reading so quite commutable: 3 bedroom semi-detached house for sale in Fernhurst Road, Calcot, Reading, RG31 (rightmove.co.uk)

Caversham, nice suburb of Reading:
3 bedroom semi-detached house for sale in Briants Avenue, Caversham, Reading, Berkshire, RG4 (rightmove.co.uk)

Lower Earley, another Reading suburb: 3 bedroom semi-detached house for sale in Trusthorpe Close, Lower Earley, Reading, Berkshire, RG6 (rightmove.co.uk)

We do have an issue that families prefer gardens so we build on green fields. Appartment are less needy of land but children get cooped up inside them. We really need to have a change of attitude towards housing but I’m not sure we will.

Is it literally a case of having a second staircase on a building? Can’t they have fire escape ones like they do in the USA? I’ve always wondered why we don’t have those as they seem to make sense to have a second exit. And it’s outside so doesn’t take up much room.

Yeah, I get that too. I personally think gardens are important for wellbeing. Also, we have a dog.

Where I live the second staircase rule has been used to excuse building horrible high rises (not pleasant 4-5 storey buildings) with zero social or affordable tenure. It’s nonsense. A single staircase is a single point of failure. There’s very little the Tories do that I support, but this is vital.

As long as safety is fine (and the safety aspect does look fine, from what I’ve seen), none of the things you mention are reasons for banning high-rise housing.

You might consider high-rises horrible - I live in one and love it. And that’s fine, we all have different tastes. Nobody is forcing you to live in a high rise flat. And building that high rise does not cause your suburban semi (or wherever you live) to somehow disappear from the face of the earth - those houses will still be there.

It does not matter if a housing development does not actually contain social/affordable housing; any new housing coming into the supply stream will ultimately create more affordability, because people will upgrade into those properties rather than something else, freeing up their current properties for other people. That in turn reduces waiting lists for social housing, making that more accessibly. Offering student housing means that fewer family homes have to be subdivided into student rentals, meaning that families can now have those homes. And so on. Gradually, it all percolates through.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/against-banning-buildings-with-just

https://www.treehugger.com/single-stair-buildings-united-states-5197036

Second one is US, but same principle.

The second staircase rule is a perfect example of a big scary news story causing a society to knee-jerk legislate into existence a rule that will make things worse, not better - “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Making it harder to build new properties is keeping UK people in moldering old housing with no proper insulation, damp and cold in winter, overheating in summer, dangerous and unhealthy mold/spore issues, faulty electrical wiring, and so on…

The principle of ‘more supply’ doesn’t hold true. https://www.economist.com/britain/2023/04/12/can-high-rise-buildings-solve-londons-housing-problems#

Nice attempt to disparage me with ‘suburban semi’, too, but no need to project whatever weird hang ups you have over not being able to afford a family home on to me. I used to live in a high rise (with 2 staircases) and the views were beautiful, especially on Bonfire Night, bur it was unsuitable for family life, as are the many under construction / being planned near me. The need where I am is for good quality family homes - which pokey, overpriced flats with no outside space starting at half a million doesn’t fill.

As for student flats - they are in favour now because the rules on size aren’t as strict as for permanent dwelling - so yet another way for developers to maximise profits. You’re very naive if you think it’s anything to do with not converting family homes.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/investing-in-student-accommodation-luxury-how-to-wv9vmhdh5

With all these developments, the infrastructure isn’t there to support such dense increases in population (even if they do get occupied, which isn’t a given). Communities are put under strain because there aren’t enough doctors or schools or buses or dentists or tube carriages. The pointless CI levy is either spent elsewhere or poorly managed so they tart up a few shop fronts instead of ensuring improvements or additional allocation of resources to these areas.

The ‘fines’ dished out for not meeting affordable targets are wasted and never used to invest in more social housing. Instead people are pushed out to areas hundreds of miles away.

Until we ban foreign investment in housing, we won’t ever solve the housing crisis. Foreigners buy flats as investments and leave them empty. Developers land bank. Idiots call for more and more building instead of fixing the existing housing stock. The same old tired merry-go-round.

The trickle-down down economics of housing is as ill-informed and incorrect as it is elsewhere in the economy.

The whole reason developers end up with land they cannot develop is due to lengthy planning delays. Years and years of delays. Throwing out a few words doesn’t tell the whole picture.

You cannot invest in “affordable housing” if you don’t get pp for the land. The developers either own the land or have options on it. They spend vast sums getting pp and are represented by KCs at planning inquiries. They forever to and fro with experts on both sides. Making quicker decisions would help. So much money is spent on this, corners are cut to get a profit. Not all developers make vast profits.

Local authorities barely develop anything due to lack of land and expertise. I do think estates often lack local shops but transport can be quite good. Few of us have access to a GP. Houses don’t make the population grow, they just shift it to a newly built area.

Again, not the case in my area. We are way above the national (and even city) average for patients per GP. Something like double (IIRC about 4000 patients per GP, average is about 2000). The council say they can’t make GPs move here, but are happily waving through plans for high rises that not only risk the local wildlife but far exceed the strategic plan in terms of numbers of people.

There is simply no need for multiple high rise developments here, nor the infrastructure to support it. The prices are eye-watering, starting at around £500k for a one-bed flat with no parking (at least that’s one good thing). Plenty of shops, so instead we have empty spaces underneath the new developments - because god forbid the council should insist that instead of retail space, they build somewhere suitable for a nursery or GP surgery.

What there is, because it’s an extremely sought after area, is buckets and buckets of cash waiting for the developers in the form of profits. And in return for their support, the local councillors can resign and take seats on the executive board.

How jolly for them.

So presumably London. As we don’t live in a communist state, companies are allowed to make money. House building is good for the economy. Housebuilding needs profits to fund land purchase and building. Then add in extremely expensive inquiries and fees resulting from those and companies really do need profits. Therefore there’s nothing wrong with profits and pension funds need a bouyant economy as they invest in companies.

If there’s no housing that’s high rise, where do you honestly think should take houses with gardens? More use of farmland? Or what about flood plains? We have to accept we need housing and the state doesn’t provide it. Of course if you are anti immigration, say so. We already have a low birth rate so what do you think we should do to curb demand?

Nice attempt to disparage me with ‘suburban semi’, too, but no need to project whatever weird hang ups you have over not being able to afford a family home on to me.

Not sure what you are talking about. I own my own home.

As for student flats - they are in favour now because the rules on size aren’t as strict as for permanent dwelling - so yet another way for developers to maximise profits. You’re very naive if you think it’s anything to do with not converting family homes.

It doesn't matter what the intention is or whether profits are made along the way. The actual effect is to free up other properties. I've seen this with the landlords I know in my home town - they used to rent out houses, divided up, to students - now the students are in purpose-build accom and they are letting to families instead.

Until we ban foreign investment in housing, we won’t ever solve the housing crisis. Foreigners buy flats as investments and leave them empty. Developers land bank. Idiots call for more and more building instead of fixing the existing housing stock. The same old tired merry-go-round.

No. I am afraid you are incorrect if you believe that the UK's housing crisis is to do with properties being left empty. The UK actually has one of the lowest vacancy rates in the developed world - in fact, it's about as low as it's possible to get (if the vacancy rate got any lower than the current rate, it would mean that there would not be enough flex in the market for anybody to move house without a massive chain).

The. UK. Has. A. Supply. Problem.

You. Need. To. Build. More. Homes.

I agree - supply problem.

but it’s an affordable supply problem!!

Never said you didn’t own your home, I said a flat in a high rise is not what I would consider a family home, but you crack on with your vertical living. Hope you have some decent playgrounds nearby.

It does matter about the type of housing built. Where I am, the shortage is for family homes, ie 3+ bedrooms with gardens - you know, the kind of place people actually want to bring up their children.

Yet the only dwellings being built are either student lets with eye watering rents (and of course not adding to the purchasable housing stock) and horrible, pokey, overpriced high rise flats, with criminally low % of affordable (not that it’s actually affordable in any way for the average family, let alone single person) tenure properties.

There has been significant building in London - 20k a year - but prices continue to rise, and it’s not going to change unless they stop foreign investment and start building more houses instead of flats. Doesn’t affect me personally, of course - I’m simply building equity in my sought-after family home whilst those hoping to sell their new build flat are finding themselves unable to because of oversupply.

Empty properties are increasing - 60,000 more homes in the last 5 years. There are more than 1 million standing empty. 1.2 million households are on the social housing waiting lists, with approx 105,000 in temporary accommodation.

So there isn’t a massive supply issue across the country.

The issues are concentrated in places like London, but the solution isn’t to stick giant towers on every available plot, it’s to diversify our economy so it isn’t all concentrated in one place.

A study from 2021 showed that pre-global crash, the average profit on a completed home was £30k. By 2017 it was £62k. In 2021, Persimmon made £67k profit per home. You might think the doubling of profits is acceptable whilst shirking legal duties to provide social tenure homes; I don’t.

Funny you should mention flood plains - that’s exactly where they’re building some towers near me. They’re also trying to restrict some Metropolitan Open Land (same protections as green belt).

There is no excuse for profits of around 30%, whilst at the same time pleading poverty as an excuse to reduce or remove social tenure homes from developments.

Best of luck with your search OP. Have you tried Newbury? That might tick the boxes (although its not cheap and commute might still be too far).

Don't listen to the person criticising you for wanting a study- its different these days with WFH and especially full time WFH I don't think a study is too much to ask!

Have a look at the "Own New" scheme, this might help you too. Although its not for everyone of course.

It is really really difficult to just “move jobs” to other bits of the country. Levelling up has not worked - in fact, the southeast and the rest of the country have actually diverged even further than they have ten years ago. London and the southeast need a lot more housing. Of all types.

The fact that levelling up has been poorly managed isn’t a reason to keep cramming everyone into the south east. And the fact remains that building high rise flats rather than family homes isn’t the way to solve the housing crisis.

She’s indicated in several posts that she’s happy to look at older houses - she’s just not finding nice ones that aren’t doer uppers in her budget. I don’t see it as spoiled for a couple in their thirties who are hoping to start a family and have previously owned property, on a combined income of £120k with a £40k deposit, to want something bigger than a 2 bed flat. If that’s all they can afford, there’s something seriously amiss with the housing market - because what do the couples on a combined income of £45k do?! Buy a shed?

Thank you.

thsnks for understanding about wfh - you are right, it is so different. I work as a therapist, and I practice from home, so it’s important I have privacy. I can’t just work from a dining table in an open plan kitchen/diner!!

haven’t considered Newbury but I’ll look into it. The Own New scheme seems okay-ish