DamonHD Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 (edited) My view is that any works to improve home energy efficiency etc (ie reduce climate harm) should be accepted by default, unless dangerous, illegal* or obviously antisocial. A chocolate-box townscape that has melted because of heat waves is no use to anyone. I've responded to government consultations to that effect. And the argument actually helped with conservation officers in the past. *This may included listed/conservation status. Edited July 8 by DamonHD 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteamyTea Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 1 hour ago, DamonHD said: This may included listed/conservation status. Maybe any changes to these sort of building just need to be easily reversible i.e. put in newer double glass for windows, but keep the frames the same, allow more efficient heating systems, but make sure it is removable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamonHD Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 Indeed: the conservation officer conversation around solar PV many years ago for a farm with listed buildings was about making sure that anything we did to the historic buildings should be reversible. In the end the conservation officer found a magnificent work-around that kept everything away from the historic curtilage, but still within the farm curtilage for the feed-in tariff! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garrymartin Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 1 hour ago, ProDave said: Scrap the stupid CIL system. That has to be a major deterrent to builders and of course pushes up house prices as it effectively makes building land more expensive. And don't get me started on Affordable Housing contributions. My LPA want £12,797 from me in Affordable Housing contributions despite the fact I'm proposing a *single* self-build development! They are using the vague wording of the NPPF and the PPG because they are a 'Designated Rural Area' to set a requirement that should be a *threshold* of "5 units or less" to actually set the requirement effectively at "1 or more" as 1 is *less* than 5! Now there should be an evidence base and local justifications to support any lower threshold but there are none and even the financial viability report does not mention self-build, only "developer profit margins" concerning viability, and there are no developer profit margins in self-build! I tried to challenge it through my appeal but the Inspector declined to comment due to it not being necessary until the Technical Details Consent stage, so I've gone full FOI request on the LPA today! 😉 https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/evidence_base_and_local_circumst?nocache=incoming-2696710#outgoing-1686147 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToughButterCup Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jul/08/labour-15m-homes-new-towns?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twice round the block Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 The last time we built that many homes in the country was in the late 70's it was promptly followed by a recession in the housing market 2 years later. I can see this property spirt heading in the same direction unless labour are going to do a compulsory purchase from the developer's when it all falls out of bed. We've got site's in the Shires that are mothballed because the lack of buyers. Estate agents are knocking 20k off the price of other properties on their books just to try and shift them. So the outlook doesn't look that Good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe90 Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 1 hour ago, twice round the block said: So the outlook doesn't look that Good. Well, I disagree. Houses in my opinion are overpriced but people are scared of losing value. I think the biggest problem is younger people cannot afford to get on the housing ladder, if house prices fall to a more sustainable level it will be fairer. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Ambrose Posted July 9 Author Share Posted July 9 >>> Affordable Housing contributions Jeez, didn't know that was a thing. Given that that and CIL are yet another tax on building (and thus a discouragement) and not consistent between LPA's - they should both be canned. >>> I think the biggest problem is younger people cannot afford to get on the housing ladder, if house prices fall to a more sustainable level it will be fairer. Yeah agree, let them fall by 50% or more to the old 3x salary level. Houses should be for living in (duh) not surrogate pension pots. Also, the current state of affairs means they represent a net transfer of wealth from young people to old. That's not fair, is it? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveasteading Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 3 hours ago, twice round the block said: mothballed because the lack of buyers. Because of the price? Developers know what they are doing. In this case presumably they would need to discount but are choosing not to. If prices stop rising as supply increases, then they will adjust their offers on the land to suit. Big landowners generally don't need to sell and may hold tight. Then comes the government dilemma of subsidy ( to people who don't need it) or compulsory purchase. Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe90 Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 Interesting article on “grey belt” (makes sense IMO) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p2gj55vgxo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pocster Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 2 hours ago, joe90 said: think the biggest problem is younger people cannot afford to get on the housing ladder, if house prices fall to a more sustainable level it will be fairer. I agree but in the last recession where the first time buyer thinks they’ll get a bargain …. Mortgage lenders start pulling deals , requirements for lending tighten I.e higher rate or deposit required . First sign of any downturn is when the lenders shit the bed . As they tighten their policy they look to lend less hence making it more difficult for ftb . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe90 Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 1 hour ago, Pocster said: but in the last recession Who says house prices coming down will lead to a recession?, yes it might but not necessarily. Recession is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP. Building more houses = more mortgages for the banks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pocster Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 1 minute ago, joe90 said: Who says house prices coming down will lead to a recession?, yes it might but not necessarily. Recession is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP. Building more houses = more mortgages for the banks. No I mean in the recession house prices dropped not that they caused it . Lenders lend when it suits them and risk is low . They do plenty of tricks to entice or decline depending on their appetite 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteamyTea Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 5 minutes ago, joe90 said: Building more houses = more mortgages for the banks. Not necessarily. New builds may be cash (or mostly cash) buyers. From the banking perspective, it has been a long time since the banks lend at a rate a little higher than they borrow money at. The business plans are very different from the 1920s. These 'modern' practices caused the global financial crisis in 2008. Much if that was nothing to do with lending to people that could not pay, or overpricing assets, it was more to do with cash flowing around the globe (M, for money supply, numbers in the UK). If the flow of cash dries up, banking has to stop. It is like having a reservoir that is full of water, but a blocked pipe, you can't use what is there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe90 Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 15 minutes ago, SteamyTea said: New builds may be cash (or mostly cash) buyers. Any evidence on what percentage of houses are bought for cash? I would suggest that if that was the case people were moving up, so the house they sold, maybe to a first time buyer would need a mortgage 🤷♂️ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteamyTea Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 47 minutes ago, joe90 said: Any evidence on what percentage of houses are bought for cash ONS has lots of data. About 36% are owned without a mortgage, 28% with mortgage, 19% privately rented (which may have loans attached) and 17% social housing. In numbers, that is 8.8m, 6.8m, 4.8m and 4.2m. I think we forget, as a forum, just how privileged we are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Ambrose Posted July 9 Author Share Posted July 9 >>> Any evidence on what percentage of houses are bought for cash? I saw that recently, BBC I think ~30% from memory. Yeah, see here: https://www.google.com/search?q=what+percentage+of+houses+are+bought+for+cash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe90 Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 41 minutes ago, SteamyTea said: think we forget, as a forum, just how privileged we are. Oh I am under no illusion how lucky I am, I told my kids the other day they are having a harder time than i did at their age. 16 minutes ago, Alan Ambrose said: ~30% from memory So 70% with mortgages, still a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Ambrose Posted July 9 Author Share Posted July 9 >>> We've got site's in the Shires that are mothballed because the lack of buyers. I think that's easy - for the big developers, the LPA's just need a condition which reads not 'start within 3 years' but 'finish within 3 years or cash penalty for every plot that's not completed'. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garrymartin Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 2 hours ago, joe90 said: Any evidence on what percentage of houses are bought for cash? I would suggest that if that was the case people were moving up, so the house they sold, maybe to a first time buyer would need a mortgage 🤷♂️ As of 2023, approximately 8.4% of new homes in the UK are bought with cash. https://eyeonhousing.org/2024/01/all-cash-share-of-new-home-sales-remains-elevated-in-2023/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe90 Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 2 minutes ago, garrymartin said: As of 2023, approximately 8.4% of new homes in the UK are bought with cash. That’s more what I would have guessed (not 30% as stated elsewhere on the tinternet!!!). Anyway, more houses built = more mortgages, more council tax, more builders in employment, more money movement etc etc so what’s not to like 🤷♂️ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteamyTea Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 10 minutes ago, joe90 said: so what’s not to like Public and private sector inefficiencies and mismanagement. Take an imaginary scenario. Central Government tells Local Government they must produce a plan that reaches the set targets. That plan may not take into account the practicalities of actually building the houses i.e. are they in the right place, at the right price, for the right people etc. We are still a hierarchy society, i.e. some people are taught to start at the base and work up, others can join halfway up and move on, others start at the top. The higher up the social ladder you are, the less people their are like you i.e. the demographics diminish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToughButterCup Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 (edited) How about a tweak to the Start Within 3 Years rule? How about Finish Within 3 Years or face a fine? Oops, except for self builders 😡 Edited July 10 by ToughButterCup 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Jones Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 On 09/07/2024 at 06:49, ToughButterCup said: https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jul/08/labour-15m-homes-new-towns?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other more socialist fantasy. There isn't the materials available in short a short time span, think what the prices would do if suddenly the entire output of insulation, brick, timber etc was ordered to build these millions of homes. Let alone finding qualified trades, building control etc etc As always with labour 6th form politics nonsense dreamed up by deadheads who have never had a real job. Will crash the whole lot as they always do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pocster Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 15 minutes ago, Dave Jones said: more socialist fantasy. There isn't the materials available in short a short time span, think what the prices would do if suddenly the entire output of insulation, brick, timber etc was ordered to build these millions of homes. Let alone finding qualified trades, building control etc etc As always with labour 6th form politics nonsense dreamed up by deadheads who have never had a real job. Will crash the whole lot as they always do. This ! Labour shortages, material shortages . Which in turn would increase build costs . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now