bye bye, Nimrud, bye bye

[Anastasius]

But when you see modern speculative housing being built today it's not any better than 18th or 19th century stuff. Thrown up in a couple of days using pre-fabricated wooden panels lined with plastic, & with exterior cladding. No storage space, tiny rooms, no air circulation (the sash window is the best means of ventilating a house) and no play space inside or out.

I'm sorry but that shows just plain ignorance of modern building practices and materials. I do agree about lack of storage space and tiny rooms.

[Anastasius]

Never give up, FF! The answer is nothing; best way to do it, I'd say.

You are correct. An acquaintance of mine is an architect and the last two houses he designed (which look no different from any others) are so well -insulated that his heating bill for the year is around £100. If the winter is particularly bad. Heat recovery/ventilation systems are part of the mix. As is triple glazing and double-external doors.

This whole business of 'affordable housing for local families' compared to 'normal' houses is an absolute nonsense. All houses have to be made to the same standards and so the only area where they can make any cost-saving is either to make them even smaller or to fit very cheap fixtures and fittings and the savings are not that great.

[Dave2002]

Affordable doesn't actually mean what it sounds like in "council speak". Probably means housing association rental accommodation or some form of shared lending applies to the properties.

[ahinton]

Affordable doesn't actually mean what it sounds like in "council speak". Probably means housing association rental accomodation or some form of shared lending applies to the properties.

No, it doesn't; quite a few developers of new housing estates are ordered to include a certain proportion of "affordable housing", even though it will be purchased by its occupants; the trouble is that, if it's in an expensive and/or up and coming area, market forces work their own magic to ensure that, by the time the finished buildings come up for sale, they're no longer "affordable" to most people, so it's just a hand-waving exercise, really.

[P. G. Tipps]

No, it doesn't; quite a few developers of new housing etates are ordered to include a certain proportion of "affordable housing", even though it will be purchased by its occupants; the trouble is that, if it's in an expensive and/or up and coming area, market forces work their own magic to ensure that, by the time the finished buildings come up for sale, they're no longer "affordable" to most people, so it's just a hand-waving exercise, really.

That's being over-cynical, imv. House prices can go down as well as up and 'affordable homes' are no different. There are relatively 'affordable homes' around but, as others have pointed out, the rooms can be cramped and tiny ... in other words, you get what you pay for, and builders will charge according to the overall demand. That's what businesses generally do.

The only realistic way of producing genuinely 'affordable homes' for the less well-off is, as Dave says, via council-subsidised rented accommodation or, better still, shared purchase through a housing association with the option, if possible, of eventual 100% ownership.

[teamsaint]

That's being over-cynical, imv. House prices can go down as well as up and 'affordable homes' are no different. There are relatively 'affordable homes' around but, as others have pointed out, the rooms can be cramped and tiny ... in other words, you get what you pay for, and builders will charge according to the overall demand. That's what businesses generally do.

The only realistic way of producing genuinely 'affordable homes' for the less well-off is, as Dave says, via council-subsidised rented accommodation or, better still, shared purchase through a housing association with the option, if possible, of eventual 100% ownership.

Well in fact one of the biggest drivers of high house prices is the cost of building land, and the government could deal with that very easily, via planning laws or tax.

[jean]

As Natalie forgot to say when asked.

[Old Grumpy]

The only realistic way of producing genuinely 'affordable homes' for the less well-off is, as Dave says, via council-subsidised rented accommodation or, better still, shared purchase through a housing association with the option, if possible, of eventual 100% ownership.

Did you write Dave's manifesto?

[MrGongGong]

Did you write Dave's manifesto?

The last three things give it away (maybe he IS the Scottish Conservative?)

eventual 100% ownership

Once we get away from the idea that this is always the desirable outcome for everyone then we might start to address the problem.

A friend of mine who used to live in Indonesia told me that it used to be the case that it was illegal to own property in Bali without residence.

There is a huge shortage of housing.
In parts of the UK there is loads of it that is used as capital rather than being somewhere to live.
If those who can afford to have multiple houses which they don't live in were taxed enough it would go some way to solving the problem.
If they don't like it (like with all the nonsense about "Non Doms"..... always makes me think of dodgy sex practices ) they can go and live somewhere else.

[ahinton]

That's being over-cynical, imv. House prices can go down as well as up and 'affordable homes' are no different.

It's hardly "cynical" to point out that, when the prices of homes rise, they become less affordable other than to those whose incomes increasee in line with them.

There are relatively 'affordable homes' around but, as others have pointed out, the rooms can be cramped and tiny ... in other words, you get what you pay for, and builders will charge according to the overall demand. That's what businesses generally do.

Of course it is, but that's not the point; "affordable housing" is at best a misnomer and can indeed be little else. "Affordable" to whom and when? What might seem affordable to a couple whose combined annual salaries / net profits are, say, £60K when they purchase their home could easily become unaffordable if either of them lose their jobs and can't find replacement work or their businesses go under or both, just as it could to people who buy their homes when base rate is 0.5% (as it has now been for nearly five years) only to find tht it rises to, say, 3.5%. And all of that is in addition to the factor - which has also to be taken into account - that homes built to be sold at limited amounts as "affordable housing" will end up with higher price tags whenever market forces beyond the control of governments and developers alike push house prices upwards while that housing is being built and then put on the market

The only realistic way of producing genuinely 'affordable homes' for the less well-off is, as Dave says, via council-subsidised rented accommodation or, better still, shared purchase through a housing association with the option, if possible, of eventual 100% ownership.

But local authorities and housing associations can find themselves as much at the mercy of market forces as those wishing to buy their homes or who have already done so; the more that house prices rise, the less housing those organisations will be able to afford to purchase. People can become bankrupt; housing associations and local authorities can likewise fall on hard times and, whilst the former exist solely to address housing needs, the latter exist to address that and all manner of other needs as well.

Land prices are also a substantial factor in all of this; in almost every area of UK where there is housing, the land on which it stands respresents a vastly greater proportion of its total price than is the case, say, in most parts of France - and there'd be no point in governments trying to overcome this problem by introducing much higher development taxes, because all that this would do is reduce the profits of developers to the point of discouraging them from developing in UK at a time when there is such desperate need for more housing, so no government is likely to shoot itself in the foot by trying that one.

[jean]

We are at the mercy of the developers, unfortunately. When they say a site is 'unviable', all they mean is that they can't make as much profit out of developing it as they think they should.

Even the government recognises this, as there are moves to allow councils to build houses again and borrow money to do it with.

[Richard Barrett]

There is a huge shortage of housing.
In parts of the UK there is loads of it that is used as capital rather than being somewhere to live.

This is it in a nutshell.

How anyone thinks that shifting yet more rented accommodation into ownership is going to solve these problems is beyond me. Cameron et al certainly don't think that, because as far as they're concerned these are not problems.

[ahinton]

There is a huge shortage of housing.
In parts of the UK there is loads of it that is used as capital rather than being somewhere to live.

True as that is, it's down to the attitudes of those who own it (whether or not they live in it) rather than to the housing itself or even laws that govern it. If people intend to use housing as capital, there's nothing that anyone can do to stop them. It's bad, as you rightly imply, but no housing policy can or will influence some people's attitudes towards housing.

If those who can afford to have multiple houses which they don't live in were taxed enough it would go some way to solving the problem.

But would it really? - and how much would be "enough"? Some people how have several houses live in one and let the rest; others don't and that is indeed a problem as it reduces available housing stock for people who need somewhere to live. Trying to tax second and subseqeuent "homes" is, however, a minefield, the most common escape route from which is to ensure that homes are not all in the same person's name - they're put in different company names and, although there's already higher SDLT on that kind of thing, most people think it's worth paying the tax because they (or rather their companies) can still make more doing it this way than the higher taxes that they have to pay in order to do it - I've even heard one such say that she treats such additional taxes as an investment from which she can make a profit.

If they don't like it (like with all the nonsense about "Non Doms"..... always makes me think of dodgy sex practices ) they can go and live somewhere else.

I just don't get this "non-dom" thing. For one thing, these days one can get a lot from a country without actually living in it and, of course, those who clamour for abolition of "non-dom" status do so only because they don't like the fact of people living in this country and not paying their fair share of UK taxes - a perfectly understandable attitude - so the "non-doms" will simply maintain their assets and interests in UK and live outside it so that they can escape most UK taxes simply by no longer being liable for them. In any case, anyone with homes in at least two countries that they actually live in for up to almost half a year can choose, within certain limitations, in which country they pay tax; indeed, they have to do that by law.

[ahinton]

This is it in a nutshell.

How anyone thinks that shifting yet more rented accommodation into ownership is going to solve these problems is beyond me.

That's because it's not going to solve them.

Cameron et al certainly don't think that, because as far as they're concerned these are not problems.

Quite; well, they're not problems for Dave and his chums, are they?

I see no greater problem in principle with people owning their homes than I do with others renting theirs but, as you say, neither is going to address the shortage of housing issues which can only be solved by ensuring that there's more housing available, which means not only more homebuilding but also more renovations where that's possible.

[french frank]

You are correct. An acquaintance of mine is an architect and the last two houses he designed (which look no different from any others) are so well -insulated that his heating bill for the year is around £100. If the winter is particularly bad. Heat recovery/ventilation systems are part of the mix. As is triple glazing and double-external doors.

There has to be a certain amount of capital outlay. I don't want to walk around the house in T-shirt and shorts all the year round with the house at a pleasant 70º.

When it's cold, I heat one room and stay there (and my bills are very low), wearing lots of layers of clothes. I'll leave it to others to install the heat recovery ventilation systems and triple glazing and raise the value of their investment.