Cameron's housing plans

In my view the real need is not for more 'affordable' housing per se, but rather just more housing fullstop. Logically if you build enough houses in the right places then they should start to become affordable naturally, assuming that building costs are kept in check. One thing we will probably have to focus on in metropolitan areas is high-rise buildings to ensure we maximise living space per land area unit.

Part of the problem (if one can call it that) is that a generation of people have grown up expecting to own their own home at a relatively young age without being on a large salary. There seems to be an idea that people should be able to buy a house on an average salary even if they want to live in an expensive area. Yet if you look back historically the proportion of owner-occupiers is higher than it was 30+ years ago.

One of the slightly amusing things I noticed is that to be eligible you have to have a household income below £71k for a 2 bedroom property which means that getting a mortgage on a £450k home may not be that straightforward anyway. Even if you were able to borrow 5x household earnings you'd still need to find another £100k deposit from somewhere. It feels like the earnings threshold is too low relative to the maximum property price.

Not sure we want to be building all over the place though at the expense of the countryside, etc. - though high rise and other innovative developments would help there.

I think as much as there might be some increased expectation or even sense of entitlement at a younger age there is also a fairly big aspect of past generations enriching themselves at the expense of the ones that come after them which needs a certain amount of balancing out. (To a certain amount with commodities, etc. I'm not a fan of meddling but when it comes to housing ultimately its a basic right or should be).
 
Way above what is acceptable for their lack of education when compared to degree educated professionals IMO

I sense some butt hurt here, or am I reading it wrong?

I'm talking about professional degree's not media studies :roll eyes: you know the ones where you get a job, no plumber should earn more than a junior doctor

Why not? A persons work is worth whatever people are prepared to pay them. Why is a junior doctor worth more than a plumber? They are both valuable assets to the country as a whole.

But what does that prove, exactly? Do you know how many of those homes were bought to live in? It's theoretically possible (tho totally improbable) that every house you've seen sold was bought by a BTL landlord or overseas investor.

Current figures suggest that circa 50% of all sales both last year and so far this year have been by first time buyers.

The fact that houses are selling means what? Everything's OK?

No it means buying a house is possible and the problem, whilst still a major issue, is being somewhat exaggerated by people like you. People sitting on healthy cash sums but refusing to buy because they don't feel it is value for money, for example. Then those self same people bemoan the market and disingenuously claim they cannot afford to buy when the reality is that they simply don't want to because their sense of entitlement dictates they should be getting more for their money like their parents did.

The BoE is worried. Economists are worried. Heck, even estate agents are worried. And the whole market is only being sustained by interest rates close to 0%, along with schemes like HTB.

Yup, we need more houses to be built. But people need to put their money where their mouth is. NIMBYism is just as much of a threat to the housing situation as high property prices. It is OK to come on a forum and set the world to right but how many here would not oppose a new development on their doorstep that would likely reduce the value of their home? Would you? Or would you fight it tooth and nail to preserve your investment? Personally I have refused to to oppose two such proposals for my local town, and one is literally planned a stones throw from my house. So much so they want to put an access road through a house I can see from my front window and have offered the owner above market rate to sell. My neighbours are up in arms over the plans but I find it deliciously ironic that those same neighbours also tell me how their 20 something old kids are struggling to afford to buy a house. :rolleyes: Whilst I still have some serious reservations about the planning application in regards to the infrastructure, schools and local services and so forth these issues can't be tackled over night. In the long run, I think it will bring investment into the town.

Then factor in that the people who can buy are increasingly only able to do so with financial help from parents. And that the average age of first time buyers keeps going up. And that more and more people in their 30s are still living at home.

All these trends point to a healthy housing market, right?

This is a trend that will settle as people start to accept that buying a house needs to be a life priority and something that has to be planned for in advance. I can see how it is currently a shock for those who are so used to having everything right now at their whim, but you cant make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

So we need more properties to be built (obviously). Less NIMBYism. More forward planning by younger generations. Less of an entitlement attitude. Profit.

Not sure we want to be building all over the place though at the expense of the countryside, etc. - though high rise and other innovative developments would help there.

I think as much as there might be some increased expectation or even sense of entitlement at a younger age there is also a fairly big aspect of past generations enriching themselves at the expense of the ones that come after them which needs a certain amount of balancing out. (To a certain amount with commodities, etc. I'm not a fan of meddling but when it comes to housing ultimately its a basic right or should be).

We have to build somewhere. What is more important, green spaces or housing for an ever increasing population? Or are you in favour of new housing projects just as long as they are not in your back yard?

The world was different for previous generations. As I mentioned in another thread a while back - house buyers in the 80's got clobbered with high interest rates, house prices tripling in the space of 10 years and high unemployment. They worked just as hard, if not harder than all of us. I certianly know my parents worked harder than I have, and got paid less. Some people here seem to have short memories, though.
 
Yup, we need more houses to be built. But people need to put their money where their mouth is. NIMBYism is just as much of a threat to the housing situation as high property prices. It is OK to come on a forum and set the world to right but how many here would not oppose a new development on their doorstep that would likely reduce the value of their home? Would you? Or would you fight it tooth and nail to preserve your investment?

Very true, on the local residents forum for my development a load of the posts are made by a handful of people who seem to regularly scan the local council website looking for new planning applications - they then start thread like:

no 33, random street to be converted into flats - please oppose this here

developers plan to build a block of flats on the old scrapyard off random lane

we have until X date to oppose these plans

Like they don't even give reasons half the time, they just automatically try to oppose any new development in the area.


I remember a few months ago some farmer was in the news because he'd supposedly turned down some huge sum (many millions) to sell off his farmland to developers - he was seemingly held up as a local hero by the villagers where he lived. Though it isn't like the developers were trying to build on some national park in an area of outstanding natural beauty or something... just farmland in a normal rural area. The objections were the usual, oh what about the local school etc.. Yes valid issues but things that will be issues for the country regardless. Frankly he could have allowed a bunch of much needed homes to be built and could have had a huge lump sum to ensure his kids, grand kids and probably their kids and grand-kids were going to be well looked after... instead he decided to become a local hero by pandering to a bunch of nimbys.
 
.


I remember a few months ago some farmer was in the news because he'd supposedly turned down some huge sum (many millions) to sell off his farmland to developers - he was seemingly held up as a local hero by the villagers where he lived. Though it isn't like the developers were trying to build on some national park in an area of outstanding natural beauty or something... just farmland in a normal rural area. The objections were the usual, oh what about the local school etc.. Yes valid issues but things that will be issues for the country regardless. Frankly he could have allowed a bunch of much needed homes to be built and could have had a huge lump sum to ensure his kids, grand kids and probably their kids and grand-kids were going to be well looked after... instead he decided to become a local hero by pandering to a bunch of nimbys.

Lol he's just holding out for a better payday. ;)

Local farmer near to me did that. Turned down offer after offer over 30 years and then finally walked into the pub with a cheque for £6.5m and clapped it down on the bar and said "now that is what you call a cheque" :D

Everybody has their price :)
 
Lol he's just holding out for a better payday. ;)

Local farmer near to me did that. Turned down offer after offer over 30 years and then finally walked into the pub with a cheque for £6.5m and clapped it down on the bar and said "now that is what you call a cheque" :D

Everybody has their price :)

And promptly got a kicking from the locals for being a sellout? :p
 
Lol he's just holding out for a better payday. ;)

Local farmer near to me did that. Turned down offer after offer over 30 years and then finally walked into the pub with a cheque for £6.5m and clapped it down on the bar and said "now that is what you call a cheque" :D

Everybody has their price :)

well this one has been approached a few times and supposedly offered 275 million:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-32706545
 
well this one has been approached a few times and supposedly offered 275 million:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-32706545

Well he's mental. None of that land is actually used for farming, it's left and some sort of backward grant or subsidy to keep them not growing is being taken. He probably has a few cattle so he can keep it as a farm and all the benefits like no inheritance tax etc.

That area isn't really a farming area it's prime for development with access to the M23 close by.

His kids will sell it though :p
 
I remember a few months ago some farmer was in the news because he'd supposedly turned down some huge sum (many millions) to sell off his farmland to developers - he was seemingly held up as a local hero by the villagers where he lived. Though it isn't like the developers were trying to build on some national park in an area of outstanding natural beauty or something... just farmland in a normal rural area. The objections were the usual, oh what about the local school etc.. Yes valid issues but things that will be issues for the country regardless. Frankly he could have allowed a bunch of much needed homes to be built and could have had a huge lump sum to ensure his kids, grand kids and probably their kids and grand-kids were going to be well looked after... instead he decided to become a local hero by pandering to a bunch of nimbys.

I remember this one. Chris Evans was calling the man a national hero on the Radio 2. Have to say, I was somewhat ****ed off about that aspect, to be honest.

Too many see it as the "heroic" thing to stand in the way of developers, when their heroism is contributing to so many people being unable to buy their own home, or otherwise pushing up rental prices.
 
No it means buying a house is possible and the problem, whilst still a major issue, is being somewhat exaggerated by people like you. People sitting on healthy cash sums but refusing to buy because they don't feel it is value for money, for example. Then those self same people bemoan the market and disingenuously claim they cannot afford to buy when the reality is that they simply don't want to because their sense of entitlement dictates they should be getting more for their money like their parents did.
To be perfectly honest, you need to drop the 'sense of entitlement' argument. That may be true for some people (council tenants for example..) but using that as a catch-all argument is wrong and quite patronising. It's starting to wind me up.

The reason people such as myself are on here moaning is not because we're not doing anything about our personal circumstances, but because this is a forum where we're free to whinge and moan about the way the cookie has crumbled. And you know what? We've got a point. I could spit all sorts of links out proving there is a massive housing issue, our parents had it easier, we'll never be as rich as them etc. until the cows come home. But to say that we are exaggerating the issue is just ridiculous. Like I said pages and pages ago, I wouldn't buy a Nissan Micra for £100k if I could afford it, because it's not good value for money. Neither is £500k for a 2 bedroom flat in zone 3. That my friend is what you call 'market value'. It works the other way you know. If people refuse to buy a 2 bedroom flat at £500k, what happens? The price goes down. To say we are somehow not helping the cause by doing so is just hilarious.

And you know what? We are entitled. Entitled to complain about the situation we're in. Paying so much on rent for an insecure tenure, paying off someone else's mortgage whilst they take advantage of a corrupt market. Not having anything remotely resembling a decent pension. Not being able to redecorate. Not having anywhere make your own home. Not thinking about settling into a community because you could be handed your notice at any time. Seeing council tenants that have already paid under market rates for their whole life get massive discounts on nonsensical Right-to-Buy. Having already worked incredibly hard in a career, only to have know-it-alls constantly tell you that you haven't done enough. You know what? All these things are worth complaining about and absolutely will continue to. You complain hard enough and things will change. It's only a matter of time.

/rant
 
Yup, we need more houses to be built. But people need to put their money where their mouth is. NIMBYism is just as much of a threat to the housing situation as high property prices. It is OK to come on a forum and set the world to right but how many here would not oppose a new development on their doorstep that would likely reduce the value of their home? Would you? Or would you fight it tooth and nail to preserve your investment? Personally I have refused to to oppose two such proposals for my local town, and one is literally planned a stones throw from my house. So much so they want to put an access road through a house I can see from my front window and have offered the owner above market rate to sell. My neighbours are up in arms over the plans but I find it deliciously ironic that those same neighbours also tell me how their 20 something old kids are struggling to afford to buy a house. :rolleyes: Whilst I still have some serious reservations about the planning application in regards to the infrastructure, schools and local services and so forth these issues can't be tackled over night. In the long run, I think it will bring investment into the town.

Down here, the biggest NIMBY's are the council themselves. They have rejected countless applications for new housing, to the point where central government has had to step in and force it on them.

But therein lies another problem. Traffic and infrastructure. With the new housing to be built by 2030, our city (Truro) will almost double in size (7000 new houses). Truro is not like a spiderweb, it is more like a line (the main road) with housing on either side. The traffic is already close to standstill, and proposed new roads to partly bypass the city have been scrapped, citing lack of money to build them. The developers rejected the idea that they should help finance any new roads (got to love developers, eh?)

The latest commissioned report stated that no new roads would be needed at all, which everybody knows is completely wrong. The previous report they commissioned stated that existing roads would not be able to cope - so their solution was to commission another report. They liked the findings of the 2nd report better (it said more traffic lights would solve everything) :p

So here we're damned if we do, damned if we don't. We certainly need the housing, there's no doubt. And I won't oppose it at all. But the way it's being built with no thought to how all these extra cars will impact the area is a serious concern. It will soon take over an hour to drive from one end of Truro to the other, and the distance is only about 6 miles.
 
Well he's mental. None of that land is actually used for farming, it's left and some sort of backward grant or subsidy to keep them not growing is being taken. He probably has a few cattle so he can keep it as a farm and all the benefits like no inheritance tax etc.

I saw a program about this on TV a few years ago - basically there are loads of people with plots of land all over the UK which they pretend is farmland so they can keep receiving a government subsidy for it. Pretty scandalous, and IIRC it tended to be a bunch of wealthy posh boys doing it.
 
Personally I think that the fixation for owning one house is crazy and we shouldn't push for it. House ownership binds people to location very strongly and prevents them from moving to more suitable housing when their situations change. Maybe you get unemployed: It is more difficult to downsize if you own your house. Maybe you find a job on the other side of the country -> again more hassle if you own your house.

Of course the owners want some return on their equity, but the reality is that when base rates are super low, ROCE's of housing should be low as well.

And I feel that it is quite justifiable to ask that why owners should be able to pocket the increases of house valuation? Obviously if you renovate an old house completely, increased valuation is due to yous investment. But in most cases if you own a lonely house somewhere and other people build town / city around your house, the value of your land & house goes up without you doing or contributing to the increase in any way or fashion. If government builds a better sewage system, nicer street & telephone company lays a fiber to the cabinet next door -> valuation of your house goes up without you paying anything. Why are you as a owner entitled to pocket the value increase?

Personally I feel that urban property and land owners are pampered and the real benefactors of the wave of urbanization that is running around the world.

And these thoughts from someone who owns two flats with the land under them in a growing urban area (outside of UK of course)

Searching for population density brought up an interesting page.
http://www.citymetric.com/skylines/8-more-ways-visualising-londons-growth-question-density-676

Personally I don't quite understand the concept of nimbyism regarding development. It seems to apply almost universally (not quite, but almost) that the more densely packed an area is, the more valuation housing has. But maybe people are just in general against change, regardless of what it brings.
 
Last edited:
To be perfectly honest, you need to drop the 'sense of entitlement' argument. That may be true for some people (council tenants for example..) but using that as a catch-all argument is wrong and quite patronising. It's starting to wind me up.

The reason people such as myself are on here moaning is not because we're not doing anything about our personal circumstances, but because this is a forum where we're free to whinge and moan about the way the cookie has crumbled. And you know what? We've got a point. I could spit all sorts of links out proving there is a massive housing issue, our parents had it easier, we'll never be as rich as them etc. until the cows come home. But to say that we are exaggerating the issue is just ridiculous. Like I said pages and pages ago, I wouldn't buy a Nissan Micra for £100k if I could afford it, because it's not good value for money. Neither is £500k for a 2 bedroom flat in zone 3. That my friend is what you call 'market value'. It works the other way you know. If people refuse to buy a 2 bedroom flat at £500k, what happens? The price goes down. To say we are somehow not helping the cause by doing so is just hilarious.

And you know what? We are entitled. Entitled to complain about the situation we're in. Paying so much on rent for an insecure tenure, paying off someone else's mortgage whilst they take advantage of a corrupt market. Not having anything remotely resembling a decent pension. Not being able to redecorate. Not having anywhere make your own home. Not thinking about settling into a community because you could be handed your notice at any time. Seeing council tenants that have already paid under market rates for their whole life get massive discounts on nonsensical Right-to-Buy. Having already worked incredibly hard in a career, only to have know-it-alls constantly tell you that you haven't done enough. You know what? All these things are worth complaining about and absolutely will continue to. You complain hard enough and things will change. It's only a matter of time.

/rant

Only one problem with this though, with houses, there will always be someone who will buy that two bed house at £500k, even if you wont.
 
Only one problem with this though, with houses, there will always be someone who will buy that two bed house at £500k, even if you wont.
Only because it's a fixed market in favour of landlords and investors. If the only people allowed to buy houses were locals who worked in the area and had every intention of living there, this mythical 'market rate' would drop dramatically, I'm sure. There's plenty of salary-to-house-price ratio numbers that would support that.
 
We've got a point. I could spit all sorts of links out proving there is a massive housing issue, our parents had it easier, we'll never be as rich as them etc. until the cows come home.

Why are you not going to be as rich as your parents? Kind of defeatist.

Parent's had it easier? I recon you probably tested them on occasion :P

Surprised this thread is stil going... It does seem to go back and forth between 'there is a housing problem, people can't afford houses!!!' to, 'people are buying houses too quickly! New builds are barely on the market!!' :confused:
 
To be perfectly honest, you need to drop the 'sense of entitlement' argument. That may be true for some people (council tenants for example..) but using that as a catch-all argument is wrong and quite patronising. It's starting to wind me up.

but you actually put forward a situation where you were frustrated because of some sense of entitlement - paying below market rates in West London then having to move to a completely different part of London when the landlord put the rent up by 500 a month
 
Personally I think that the fixation for owning one house is crazy and we shouldn't push for it. House ownership binds people to location very strongly and prevents them from moving to more suitable housing when their situations change. Maybe you get unemployed: It is more difficult to downsize if you own your house. Maybe you find a job on the other side of the country -> again more hassle if you own your house.

People fixate on it because it's the smart thing to do....

I've just gone from renting a 2 bed house at £950/ month to buying a 2 bed aprtment that is 30% bigger and very high spec. My mortgage is £930/month. I was £22,800 out of pocket for living in my rented house for 2 years. How would I afford to pay this £11,400/ year in rent if I am a retired OAP??

Rental market serves a purpose but it's not the optimal thing to do if you have a choice in the matter. If you can afford to buy but you decide to rent, 9 times out of 10 you would be an idiot.

Moving house is hassle whether you rent or own. The first place I rented I got kicked out of prematurely at the 6 month break clause because they wanted to sell. Then had to desperately search for somewhere and settle for whatever I could in the notice period I had been given. In doing this process I had to pay letting agents fee's for doing practically nothing, cough up a huge deposit and months rent up front whilst waiting for my previous deposit to be given back. Also have to sign off that I don't smoke, don't own any pets, won't make any modifications to the property etc etc. Had to let the stupid letting agency invade my privacy and come round to inspect the property every 12 weeks.....lovely.

Renting is terrible and I'm glad to see the back of it.....I'll pay off my own mortgage now not someone elses, do what I want to the property and live how I want to live in it.
 
If the only people allowed to buy houses were locals who worked in the area and had every intention of living there, this mythical 'market rate' would drop dramatically, I'm sure.

So people who work in London can only live in London? You think that would decrease house prices?

Only places house prices might drop are small towns / villages where there is no work except for a few shops on the high street...

Where would retired people be allowed to live? They don't work!
 
Personally I don't quite understand the concept of nimbyism regarding development. It seems to apply almost universally (not quite, but almost) that the more densely packed an area is, the more valuation housing has. But maybe people are just in general against change, regardless of what it brings.

Perhaps the people who bought those isolated/small village houses did so because they wanted to live in the middle of nowhere/a small village, rather than a bustling suburban community?

If the only people allowed to buy houses were locals who worked in the area and had every intention of living there

What happens when you lose your job and you can't find another one locally, does your house get re-possessed?
 
Back
Top Bottom