Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just now, oldjamfan1 said:

The building of 'social housing' (I'm not keen on the term but can't come up with anything better) works pretty well in the devolved situation in Scotland, so it is possible. Many of the builders and contractors operate across both countries as well, so they are obviously willing and able to still make money out of it. It just requires a bit of impetus from the politicians really, but the Tories by-and-large don't seem to have much desire to boost that sector. Home ownership is still the be-all and end-all for them.

I can only speak from experience in my area, but as a slight indication as to the market, in the Midlands / Shropshire region I am currently looking after 3 housing development sites.

2 are private, with one consisting of 98 dwellings and the other 36 for phase 1 and a further 45 planned for phase 2 with a possible phase 3 mentioned.

My social housing site in Wolverhampton has 22 dwellings, 4 of which are maisonettes. They are tiny in comparison to the private build jobs happening. Funnily enough, my scheme at Wolverhampton also managed to value engineer every car charging port out too, whereas the private developers didn't. So, in a sense, if you require "social housing" (I know you dislike the term) you are generally less well off than if you can buy your property, but good luck in 2040 when diesel / petrol cars are outlawed because you have no charging facility at your home unless, of course, the council pays the excessive charges our industry will levy on them to go and fit them in retrospect. It's wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My other issue is that people who require social housing are often without cars anyway and yet they persist in building housing estates on land that is out o town and without transport links. Theres little point in including social housing on those estates anyway as they make travel to work etc difficult. I have real issues with all the fields around us being used for building and think far more effort should go into finding sites that are no longer required for all that office space that were told will be surplus to requirements closer to town centres. Here in Clitheroe weve seen 3 huge housing estates being built along with several smaller ones and more in the pipeline. Theres been no increase in primary school places, health centres etc. No infrastructure to support any of the new arrivals. The whole housing/social housing thing is badly thought out and there is no system apparent. Yes I know I sound like a NIMBY  and to some extent I am, but largely because there is so little thought going into how towns like ours accommodate newcomers, how we provide suitable housing for a whole range of people, including our own young people, who cant afford houses here. I couldn't afford to move into one of the new builds here despite owning a 4 bedroom house with a large garden that's been recently reroofed, rewired and largely plastered. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, gumboots said:

My other issue is that people who require social housing are often without cars anyway and yet they persist in building housing estates on land that is out o town and without transport links. Theres little point in including social housing on those estates anyway as they make travel to work etc difficult. I have real issues with all the fields around us being used for building and think far more effort should go into finding sites that are no longer required for all that office space that were told will be surplus to requirements closer to town centres. Here in Clitheroe weve seen 3 huge housing estates being built along with several smaller ones and more in the pipeline. Theres been no increase in primary school places, health centres etc. No infrastructure to support any of the new arrivals. The whole housing/social housing thing is badly thought out and there is no system apparent. Yes I know I sound like a NIMBY  and to some extent I am, but largely because there is so little thought going into how towns like ours accommodate newcomers, how we provide suitable housing for a whole range of people, including our own young people, who cant afford houses here. I couldn't afford to move into one of the new builds here despite owning a 4 bedroom house with a large garden that's been recently reroofed, rewired and largely plastered. 

The first sentence is not necessarily true but the rest of your post is spot on. And the same mistakes have been made for decades, hence you end up with an estate in Glasgow (Castlemilk) that housed 60,000 people at its peak and had two shops, one pub and a half-hourly bus service into Glasgow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, den said:

Okay, thanks. So we know that by leaving the EU with no deal, that would put farmers livelihoods at risk. It would also put at risk the jobs and prosperity of any business hit by tariffs - I think we can take that for granted? Of course we need replacement trade deals, primarily with the USA.

so do you think that the U.K. exporters hit by tariffs  (such as Lamb, Beef and chicken - which is where we started in this discussion)) could sell those products into the states while maintaining our current high food standards and associated costs?

 

We need trade deals with all countries possibly, I would be getting a trade deal with Japan and far east done quickly and India. Plus other deals

Yes it would cost some farmers jobs if we get a no deal with EU but we havent got a no deal yet.

Some people would welcome better high standards of foods in USA like Restuarants and businesses. Yes cost is factor but so is quality.

12 hours ago, Sparks Rover said:

Do you think that people should be given the choice?  It says clearly on packaging where the food is from. You could always avoid American meat if it ever ends up on the shelves with lowered standards...(if thats true)

Yes people should be given a choice of the product they want. I wouldn't be buying it cos I would be supporting British Local butchers, fruit and veg shops. . 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, gumboots said:

My other issue is that people who require social housing are often without cars anyway and yet they persist in building housing estates on land that is out o town and without transport links. Theres little point in including social housing on those estates anyway as they make travel to work etc difficult. I have real issues with all the fields around us being used for building and think far more effort should go into finding sites that are no longer required for all that office space that were told will be surplus to requirements closer to town centres. Here in Clitheroe weve seen 3 huge housing estates being built along with several smaller ones and more in the pipeline. Theres been no increase in primary school places, health centres etc. No infrastructure to support any of the new arrivals. The whole housing/social housing thing is badly thought out and there is no system apparent. Yes I know I sound like a NIMBY  and to some extent I am, but largely because there is so little thought going into how towns like ours accommodate newcomers, how we provide suitable housing for a whole range of people, including our own young people, who cant afford houses here. I couldn't afford to move into one of the new builds here despite owning a 4 bedroom house with a large garden that's been recently reroofed, rewired and largely plastered. 

You mention about office buildings being used that are empty and not used for ages, well the government is wanting to charge the planning and building laws so they can used that for apartments and houses. 

You live the Ribble Valley does you? If you do then I know there is a number of new housing sites being started and the cost aren't cheap but people should want to buy their own house eventually owned it. But thats why the government have to help people get their 1st house on the market whether it a grant or part ownership of the house.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Developers quite often circumvent the need for community payback by doing something completely medial like redeveloping a neighbours garden or resurfacing the access road. All bullshit really, for want of a better phrase.

Personally I think the housing market is a joke. Help to Buy ISAs are required for first-time owners because of how excessive the housing market is; however, for all this talk of giving 25% of the value, has anyone considered how much of the houses value is inflated beyond its legitimate worth? It's no wonder if in London you can get up to 40% equity loans on property because they know full well it is inflated beyond belief and unsustainable without propping up.

All it is doing is placing an additional debt burden on to new buyers. The Help to Buy scheme is good because it is cost free, however these new fangled equity loans just seem another way of locking a generation into debt.

Housing is one of my biggest gripes with the Conservative party, even though I do like the idea of the Right to Buy scheme (although someone on here did put me right on some of the negatives to this not long back). I think everyone should be entitled to own their own home but I don't think it should be at the cost with which the Tory party seems to be happy with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

You mention about office buildings being used that are empty and not used for ages, well the government is wanting to charge the planning and building laws so they can used that for apartments and houses. 

You live the Ribble Valley does you? If you do then I know there is a number of new housing sites being started and the cost aren't cheap but people should want to buy their own house eventually owned it. But thats why the government have to help people get their 1st house on the market whether it a grant or part ownership of the house.   

The problem with this Chaddy is that first time buyers are forced into buying a new build property. You can't get much of this government aid if not, especially not through the ISA scheme which is now expired.

This means that all of these new build properties built on greenbelt land is being incentivised by the government by forcing the hand of first-time buyers. It is also part of the reason why a lot of young people are locked into the rental market. I know lots of friends that could probably afford to cash in their ISA on a new build but are currently enjoying living in the city centre, with which new build properties are rare. If that ISA was extended to allowing people to buy wherever they please then you'd probably see a lot less people renting in city / town centres and ultimately paying inflated rental charges. Again though, this doesn't seem to benefit the Tory electorate because truth be told a fair chunk of them are probably private landlords also.

Edited by Dreams of 1995

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Housing is one of my biggest gripes with the Conservative party, even though I do like the idea of the Right to Buy scheme (although someone on here did put me right on some of the negatives to this not long back). I think everyone should be entitled to own their own home but I don't think it should be at the cost with which the Tory party seems to be happy with. 

Ha ha that was probably me Dreams, but for a good few years it was literally my job to know every negative aspect of it as we pursued its abolition in Scotland. Successfully, I might add. Your last sentence here is absolutely bang on the money, and echoes my own view on low cost home ownership incentives generally. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, oldjamfan1 said:

The Tories by-and-large don't seem to have much desire to boost that sector. Home ownership is still the be-all and end-all for them.

The big building companies are huge Tory party donors and always have been. Looks at shenighans with Desmond and Jenrick last week. Developers will spend as little as they can get away with to maximise profit....Desmond/Jenrick in Tower Hamlets was a perfect example with the social housing content reduced to make way for multi-million pounds apartments, making Desmond £120m richer. 

The housing and the Tory party go hand in glove. Both are corrupt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Developers quite often circumvent the need for community payback by doing something completely medial like redeveloping a neighbours garden or resurfacing the access road. All bullshit really, for want of a better phrase.

Personally I think the housing market is a joke. Help to Buy ISAs are required for first-time owners because of how excessive the housing market is; however, for all this talk of giving 25% of the value, has anyone considered how much of the houses value is inflated beyond its legitimate worth? It's no wonder if in London you can get up to 40% equity loans on property because they know full well it is inflated beyond belief and unsustainable without propping up.

All it is doing is placing an additional debt burden on to new buyers. The Help to Buy scheme is good because it is cost free, however these new fangled equity loans just seem another way of locking a generation into debt.

Housing is one of my biggest gripes with the Conservative party, even though I do like the idea of the Right to Buy scheme (although someone on here did put me right on some of the negatives to this not long back). I think everyone should be entitled to own their own home but I don't think it should be at the cost with which the Tory party seems to be happy with. 

The help to buy equity loans can really catch people out and I dont think enough is done to highlight or manage the risks around them 

After a lot of research and spreadsheets and sensitivity analysis, I decided to get one. It makes sense for me and basically means that for the next 5 years 20% of my mortgage is interest free. Our mortgage advisor says he often turns people away when they start talking H2B loans because they just use it as a way to stretch themselves beyond their means (thankfully he was happy that I was going into it with my eyes wide open) and a friend of mine who is a mortgage advisor also wont deal with help to buy loans. I also know of people who have had to sell up because they've been massively caught out by the scheme. Dangerous things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely nothing wrong with right to buy, everyone should aspire to buy a home if they wish, but you have to replace that social housing stock for the next generation.

An extremely simple concept the Tories have never go to grips with.

Sell the social housing and the social landlords struggle to survive, sell the social housing and the next generation are living on the streets or in shipping containers.

Not difficult to understand...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rental market is another which is cripplingly over inflated. I was paying £625.00 p/m excl council tax, utilities and broadband for a one bedroom apartment in Great Barr, Birmingham. Well, it was Great Barr prices but right on the border of Kingstanding. If I wanted to move to the nicer park farm estate rental prices varied from £800 - £1500.

It probably extended my 'journey to buying' by a few years. After bills and CT I was paying in excess of £850.00 a month for an apartment with 4 rooms, and the bathroom was hardly big enough to swing a cat. It didn't even have a bath.

Even that is a drop in the ocean to some of the prices in Brum city centre. You can easily pay best part of £500.00 per month for a 'studio flat', which is basically a living room, bedroom and kitchen in one room and a separate room for a bathroom. Disgusting when you think about it. I think I read an article that this generation of youngsters are paying more per m2 than any before it.

Out of curiosity I also looked up my mums house on rightmove. There's a tool that lets you see the historic sale value. Someone bought my mums house for £60,000 in 97 and shipped it off to my mum for £110,000 in 2002. My mum has it valued now at over 150,000. Ridiculous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Gav said:

Absolutely nothing wrong with right to buy, everyone should aspire to buy a home if they wish can afford to, but you have to replace that social housing stock for the next generation.

An extremely simple concept the Tories have never go to grips with.

Sell the social housing and the social landlords struggle to survive, sell the social housing and the next generation are living on the streets or in shipping containers.

Not difficult to understand...

 

I know you and I are on roughly the same page on this issue Gav, but I have added an important caviat to your first sentence there. 

Incidentally this research is what I used while giving evidence in the Scottish Parliament to abolish RTB in Scotland. https://extra.shu.ac.uk/ppp-online/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/consequences_local_housing_allowance.pdf 

If you take all the ex-social rented properties that were bought under RTB and are now rented out in the private rented sector at much higher rents, the additional housing benefit that is paid out EVERY YEAR is approximately £2 billion. That is absolutely shocking. 

Edited by oldjamfan1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

The problem with this Chaddy is that first time buyers are forced into buying a new build property. You can't get much of this government aid if not, especially not through the ISA scheme which is now expired.

This means that all of these new build properties built on greenbelt land is being incentivised by the government by forcing the hand of first-time buyers. It is also part of the reason why a lot of young people are locked into the rental market. I know lots of friends that could probably afford to cash in their ISA on a new build but are currently enjoying living in the city centre, with which new build properties are rare. If that ISA was extended to allowing people to buy wherever they please then you'd probably see a lot less people renting in city / town centres and ultimately paying inflated rental charges. Again though, this doesn't seem to benefit the Tory electorate because truth be told a fair chunk of them are probably private landlords also.

Yes that is a problem but at least its a help. When I wanted to buy my 1st house I couldn't due to couldn't affording the deposit. 3 and half years ago things were very different as I have the money for a deposit. I bought a terrace house in Clayton Le Moors. We look at new build houses but we didn't like the layout of the house and we wanting it near my step daughter secondary school and a nice peaceful neighbour which we got with the terrace house. 

I agree with should help people with house they want to buy whether its new build or a apartment in a town centre which isn't new,  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gav said:

Absolutely nothing wrong with right to buy, everyone should aspire to buy a home if they wish, 

I don't know why anyone would want to rent if the money and finances to buy their own house. Something we should encourage if people can afford it

1 hour ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

The rental market is another which is cripplingly over inflated. I was paying £625.00 p/m excl council tax, utilities and broadband for a one bedroom apartment in Great Barr, Birmingham. Well, it was Great Barr prices but right on the border of Kingstanding. If I wanted to move to the nicer park farm estate rental prices varied from £800 - £1500.

Some of the pricing basic 3 bedroom terrace house in my area is between £450 to £625 to rent per month. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paid 27,500 for our 4 bedroom 2 bathroom house with big garden when we bought it. To buy a similar property new build in the Ribble Valley now would be in the region of 400,000. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First time buyers need serious help with getting a deposit together. Most can afford mortgage payments as renting is often more expensive. Help to buy ISAs are a good start but you cant actually use it towards a deposit but it really helps with legal costs etc and to spend on the house when you move in. 

Without parental help it's hard these days to save a deposit whilst paying rent. I think the help to buy equity loans are a good thing but need to be used right and possibly changed. There should be controls in place to make sure people arent stretching themselves too far. I took one out with a 5% deposit but I have the capacity to make regular overpayments (mortgage =575 but my previous rent was 700 so just overpay 125) so by the time my 5 years is up I will be able to remortgage at atleast 85% Ltv. They work if used right and should be adapted to help people get their foot on the ladder. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

I don't know why anyone would want to rent if the money and finances to buy their own house. Something we should encourage if people can afford it

Many people around the country simply can't afford to buy a house chaddy thats the point, so renting is the only option for them really.

We need much more social housing built across the country, but as I said earlier, the social housing build this financial year won't even meet the demand in Wakefield.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Gav said:

Many people around the country simply can't afford to buy a house chaddy thats the point, so renting is the only option for them really.

We need much more social housing built across the country, but as I said earlier, the social housing build this financial year won't even meet the demand in Wakefield.

 

Not much point building more social housing if the Tories are going to sell them all off again. The Thatcher bribe to buy votes has wrecked social housing for a lifetime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gav said:

Many people around the country simply can't afford to buy a house chaddy thats the point, so renting is the only option for them really.

We need much more social housing built across the country, but as I said earlier, the social housing build this financial year won't even meet the demand in Wakefield.

 

Gav, People can afford the mortgage payments as they are similar or less then the rent they paid. When me and the missus was renting we were paying £450 per month but now we got a mortgage we are paying 30 pounds less a month and the property is our. So we can put own ideas on our property. With the rented property we couldnt't

People need help with deposit for mortgage whether its a saving scheme for people who want to sign up to a such scheme should be allow as possible idea. I am sure people will have different ideas. 

 

I enjoyed PM Johnson speech today and that he was to level up the country and build more houses, hospitals or school. Invest in rail or roads in the North. He is following through his promises and manifesto from the last election. 

here an article from the FT saying the new Deal the Conservatives have show the scale of Labour challenge

https://www.ft.com/content/ac6ad3ae-13b3-4727-bf14-614353563528

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

£5bn isnt much at all but it's better than nothing. 

One positive thing for me which emerged pre-lockdown was when I was speaking to colleagues who were coordinating the spending review for the company (I work at an ALB) there was genuine interest from government for us to identify "spend to save" opportunities which the team hadnt really come across in the past 15 years. so there was hints of sensible economic policy but we'll see if that offer is on the table now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gav said:

Absolutely nothing wrong with right to buy, everyone should aspire to buy a home if they wish, but you have to replace that social housing stock for the next generation.

An extremely simple concept the Tories have never go to grips with.

Sell the social housing and the social landlords struggle to survive, sell the social housing and the next generation are living on the streets or in shipping containers.

Not difficult to understand...

 

Trouble is, with right to buy came right to sell.

And Councils only got a fraction of what the home they built was worth.

And they couldn't build anymore.

Arguably the worst government decision of the later 20th century 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, RoverDom said:

£5bn isnt much at all but it's better than nothing. 

One positive thing for me which emerged pre-lockdown was when I was speaking to colleagues who were coordinating the spending review for the company (I work at an ALB) there was genuine interest from government for us to identify "spend to save" opportunities which the team hadnt really come across in the past 15 years. so there was hints of sensible economic policy but we'll see if that offer is on the table now. 

it will be much more over the years I believe but the chancellor will announce more next week. 

The statement in the house of commons much be made 1st

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, 47er said:

Trouble is, with right to buy came right to sell.

And Councils only got a fraction of what the home they built was worth.

And they couldn't build anymore.

Arguably the worst government decision of the later 20th century 

Quite. And if we are being honest it was the right to DISCOUNT that was the problem really, not so much the ideology of the right to BUY. Had local authorities received enough of a capital receipt to build a new house to replace the one they had just sold off it might (with a huge emphasis on ‘might’) have worked. But you don’t need to be a mathematician, an economist or a clairvoyant to predict that selling off your assets with massive discounts and not replacing them and also waiving the repayment of the discount on resale in a relatively short space of time was going to lead to trouble!

Edited by oldjamfan1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

I enjoyed PM Johnson speech today and that he was to level up the country and build more houses, hospitals or school. Invest in rail or roads in the North. He is following through his promises and manifesto from the last election. 

here an article from the FT saying the new Deal the Conservatives have show the scale of Labour challenge

https://www.ft.com/content/ac6ad3ae-13b3-4727-bf14-614353563528

The worst economic crisis in hundreds of years is coming with unemployment set to be even higher than the Thatcher years and Johnson is going to fix it with £5bn??

Alot of the money he is pledging to spend would not have been necessary if the Tories had not neglected national assets in the name of "austerity" and most of the £5bn is not "new" money anyway......just a rehash of previousy announced schemes.

You seem an intelligent fellow ... why can't you see past these charlatans?

 

Edited by jim mk2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.