Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
observer

Legal question?

Recommended Posts

The problem we have is, a shortage of housing generally - and with less supply and a higher demand, prices will increase.  Whilst I understand the Gov's idea behind the "bedroom tax" (IE. to get folk into appropriate space for their requirements); it's avoiding this central reality - that there is simply not enough housing, and in paricular "social" housing. Which suggests that, ALL empty properties need to be brought into use and new one's built; initially for one or two person families, thus releasing larger properties for larger families.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real problem is lack of planning permission which puts up the price of the land available for building on which, in turn, puts up the price of the houses once built. Release more land for building, relax the planning permissions and let the builders get on with it. Market forces will take over. Homeowners will not like it because property values will fall but eventually the logjam will clear and everything will even out. Of course this will never happen because it treads on too many toes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asp I don't get all this about lack of planning permission being a problem or even land availability as wherever you look around here new houses are being built almost everyhwere with more to come.  I'd love to know just how many new homes have been build in Warrington over the past 5-10 years as it must be a huge amount.

 

So anyway what other land is there left to be released here if developers are already building on every square inch of available land that they can get (a lot of which used to be industial and/or sites used by business who provided jobs to people too )?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that its all amatter of planning permission. This is why farmland is so much cheaper than building land. Therefore if a builder manages to get planning permission for a tranche of land it may well be in his interest to hold onto that land (bought at farmland price) until such time as the house price has risen to an acceptable level to make a killing. Supply and demand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A friend of mine used to be the financial director for the now bust David Maclean Homes.... they used to own quite a lot of farmland in the hopes that they would get planning permission eventually .... his job was to write the cheques!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LAs are supposed to identify & maintain adequate land supply in their Local Plan, I don't doubt that this is the case.  Unfortunately, with the majority of folk unable to get a mortgage, demand is now for rented accomodation, which drives up rents in the private sector and increases the amount of HB of those entitled to it. That's why, forcing social housing tenents into downsizing to the private sector will actually cost the taxpayer more in HB. The requirement is for a massive social house building programme, to replace those sold off under Thatcher and Bliar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Builders would rather build more expensive homes as the make more money on them, they should be building more social housing, but their is little profit in it for them, hence most new developments tend to be 3 and 4 bedroom houses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Builders would rather build more expensive homes as the make more money on them, they should be building more social housing, but their is little profit in it for them, hence most new developments tend to be 3 and 4 bedroom houses

 

market forces dictate that is what they will build..... councils should be building social housing as that is what they do.... they have no interest in profit but you cannot expect any private company not to make the best profitable use of its talents, assetts and money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But social housing, in the form of Council housing, was wiped out under Bliar & Brown. It's this bottom end provision that needs to be catered for, build "Council Houses", reduces overall demand, which has a knock on effect all the way up the food chain.  With a large enough portfolio, social landlords can operate internal transfer systems (like GGs choose a home) to limit under/over occupancy, thus no need for a draconian bedroom tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From what I saw on the news yesterday they are all empty and borded up, one didn't even have a roof and looked like it might have caught fire at some time. 

 

The people who buy them for £1 have to do them up (a builder said it would cost about £25k to renovate one) and they have to get a mortgage to fund the renovation (I think) and live in them themselves for 5 years.

 

.......something like that anyway

After buying and renovating they need to be prepared to live in drug/gangster country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oooh is that what the areas are like where these houses are :shock:  

 

Yes...... they are in Liverpool....nuff said!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i Thought Maggie stopped Councils building social housing Asp?

Why are you asking me Lt Kije? I haven't mentioned social housing. :?:???:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i Thought Maggie stopped Councils building social housing Asp?

 

Blimey... talk about a one trick pony..... WTF has Maggie got to do with anything??? She has been out of power for over 20 years.... nothing to stop those working class heroes "The Labour Party" changing that policy.....

 

If all the things that Maggie did are so bad Kije..... why has no one ever sought to change them in subsequent years and especially through three terms of a Labour Government????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tory government stopped coucils using the money they got from the sale of coucil houses to build new social housing.

 

Builders will always try to maximise their profits, building social housing does not do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And all the way through 13 years in power, Labour did nothing to reverse that policy - they even continued to further deplete council housing stock and allow council and social tenants (their own voters, coincidentally) to get given huge windfalls through cut priced Right to Buy.

 

Of course builders will always try and maximise their profits, they are businesses with wage bills to meet, loans to repay, and shareholders to answer to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maggie introduced "right to buy", Bliar and Brown continued with it, and worse, forced Councils to basically off load their stock to "social landlords";  without any investment to replace the 20% or so lost to right to buy.  What is required is a massive social house building programme to reduce demand and thus prices generally. Given current demographics, single & two person accomodation needs to be the priority, and the quickest way to supply such homes is through high rise,  with community care provision for the elderly, renovation of empty properties etc; which should release larger properties for families - all of which will provide employment and regenerate the economy. IF we could do it in 1946, after the Luftwaffe demolished our slums, then we could do it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point being inky, we need social housing which is not being built, and we now have a bedroom tax to compound the problem, with people stuck in houses that are to big and being taxed on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps if we ceased being net contributers to the EU, we could spend the £billions on our own infrastructure renewal, rather than on southern and eastern Europe?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point being inky, we need social housing which is not being built, and we now have a bedroom tax to compound the problem, with people stuck in houses that are to big and being taxed on them.

 

No-one is being taxed on a home which is too big for them. The term "bedroom tax" is yet another left wing lie.

 

All that is happening is that the amount of Housing Benefit people in social and council houses get will in future be based upon their actual housing needs. So if they are a couple whose kids have left home then they will no longer get housing benefit at a level which would continue to pay for a 3 or 4 bedroom house. They will have the choice of making up the difference themselves, or moving to somewhere of a more appropriate size to their needs.

 

If they move out, then a family who still have kids at home will finally be able to get a house which is a suitable size for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No the Bedroom tax exists inky, and people can't move as their is no where appropriate to move, the PM has admitted as much. Wake up. Take a look at the real world for a change..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...